Rampart Verdicts Voided

In an unusual move, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Friday threw out the convictions of three Los Angeles police officers accused of framing gang members and granted them new trials.

The convictions were the first obtained by prosecutors in the sweeping yearlong city police corruption scandal.

In tossing them out, the trial judge, Jacqueline Connor, cited insufficient evidence and juror errors.

Sgts. Edward Ortiz and Brian Liddy and Officer Michael Buchanan were found guilty Nov. 15 of conspiring to frame gang members. They were the first officers prosecuted in an ongoing probe into corruption in the LAPD’s Rampart Division.

“We’re all amazed when the system works,” said lawyer Harland Braun, who represents Buchanan. “This was a mistaken verdict and it was a miscarriage of justice. I’m glad it was overturned by Christmas.”

He added that he had not yet read the lengthy decision, which he received word of late Friday night.

“The judge’s ruling was absolutely correct and just,” said Barry Levin, attorney for Ortiz. “Given the emotion and controversy surrounding this case, her decision was courageous.” Attorney Winston Kevin McKesson, who represents ex-cop-turned-informant Rafael Perez, said he was disappointed by the ruling.

“However, it’s really not surprising when you consider that what was at issue in this case went to the very heart of the criminal justice system,” McKesson said. “I think it is very difficult for this judge, who has spent the vast majority of her adult life in that system, to allow a jury decision that questions the system to stand. I think she felt threatened by the jury’s verdict.”

Connor issued the opinion before leaving town for a week’s vacation.

The lengthy decision came after five weeks of filings and hearings in which defense attorneys sought to undo the historic verdict.

The officers were convicted of conspiracy for making up a story that they were hit in 1996 by a truck driven by gang members.

The Rampart scandal has resulted in the suspension of dozens of officers and the overturning of about 100 tainted cases. So far, only five officers, including Liddy, Buchanan and Ortiz, have been charged criminally.

One officer, Paul Harper, was acquitted. A fifth, Nino Durden, is awaiting trial.

Connor’s ruling is expected to make future prosecutions even more difficult.

Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley could not be reached for comment late Friday. But his spokeswoman, Sandi Gibbons, said prosecutors had not yet been formally informed of the judge’s ruling.

“If indeed the news reports are true, we are very, very disappointed,” Gibbons said.

She said prosecutors would need to carefully study Connor’s ruling before deciding whether to refile a case against any or all of the officers.

“This won’t be an immediate decision,” Gibbons said.

Former Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti, who oversaw the prosecution of the officers before being voted out of office last month, said it was “extremely disappointing to hear what she’s done.”

Garcetti said he was “not entirely surprised” by the judge’s ruling, “but I’ll reserve comment beyond that.”

The verdicts quickly came under question by the defense. The first problem involved allegations of juror misconduct. An alternate claimed that on the first day of trial the foreman told her and another alternate that the defendants were guilty.

The foreman and the second alternate have testified that they don’t remember any such comment.

And, the jury convicted the officers after agreeing that the three had not suffered great bodily injury. But the officers never claimed they suffered great bodily injury--a computer-generated police report, relied on during deliberations, incorrectly exaggerated the severity of injuries the officers said they received.

Defense attorneys have affidavits from five jurors attesting that they were confused by the report.

The jurors said they could not agree on whether the officers were struck by gang members in the alley, as the officers claimed.

“The jurors did not simply misunderstand great bodily injury,” Connor wrote in her decision. “In fact, the evidence suggests that they understood . . . however, the definition of great bodily injury and its existence or nonexistence was never part of the dispute in trial. . . . Whether they exaggerated their injuries or lied about the extent of these injuries was never charged in any overt act, any allegation, or any of the counts,” Connor ruled.

The judge was sharply critical of the D.A.’s handling of the case and cited media reports as contributing to an incorrect verdict.

“This court cannot and should not consider the political ramifications of future lawsuits or future prosecutions,” Connor added. “The defense in this case has presented compelling arguments to support their argument that the defendants did not receive a fair trial.”

In her concluding paragraph, the judge said, “While the court cannot and will not presume to guess whether a correction of the errors would result in any different verdict, it most certainly concludes that the verdict in this case cannot stand.”

*

Times staff writers Matt Lait and Scott Glover contributed to this story.