Lawyer Calls Officers in Corruption Case ‘Heroes’

Pressing his palms against his forehead and raising his voice, defense attorney Barry Levin, a former LAPD officer, was the very picture of indignation Tuesday as he told jurors the Rampart police corruption case “stinks” and always has.

“This case is an embarrassment, an affront to all officers who wear the badge,” Levin told jurors who will decide the first criminal trial to arise from the scandal unleashed by rogue cop Rafael Perez.

As the lead attorney for the four accused police officers, Levin called the defendants heroes--over the objections of a prosecutor who, he said, is safe in her home because of the work of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Alluding to the unusual nature of the trial, in which prosecutors relied on the testimony of gang members to try to convict anti-gang officers, Levin said that his role of defending one of the officers made him feel as if he were in “Alice in Wonderland.”

“I’ve been listening to these prosecutors trying to convince you that bad guys are good guys and good guys are bad guys,” he said. “That those who are evil are trustworthy, while those who dedicate their lives to protect and serve are not to be believed.”

Summing up the corruption case against his client, Sgt. Edward Ortiz, and three other Los Angeles police officers, Levin thundered about the prosecution: “They didn’t prove anything. This case stinks. This case stunk when they brought it, and it stinks now. This case is garbage.”

Ortiz, 44, and Sgt. Brian Liddy, 39, and Officers Paul Harper, 33, and Michael Buchanan, 30, are accused of conspiring to pervert or obstruct justice. Prosecutors allege that the defendants framed people for crimes they did not commit by fabricating events, planting evidence and lying on police reports and in court.

Before Levin spoke, Deputy Dist. Atty. Laura Laesecke finished a three-hour closing argument, during which she presented the opposite perspective to the seven women and five men on the jury. She contended that the prosecution had presented convincing evidence against the officers during the three-week trial in Los Angeles Superior Court.

“Obviously no one wants to think of police officers as dishonest,” Laesecke said. “But the evidence in this case is overwhelming.”

The case could go to the jury late today.

Laesecke accused the defense of trying to dehumanize gang members who testified for the prosecution. “We may not like gang members,” she said, “but no one deserves to be framed.”

She told jurors during her closing argument that dishonest cops are to be feared even more than gang members.

Two incidents are at the heart of the prosecution’s case: one in a parking lot where gang members were gathering when police drove up and allegedly framed one of them by planting a gun on him, the other in an alley where police drove up and allegedly framed two gang members on allegations of running into officers with a pickup truck.

In both instances, prosecutors initially convicted the gang members of crimes, but now--relying on the accounts of the gang members themselves, ex-officer Perez and other evidence--are arguing that the gang members were framed.

Neither Perez nor two of the three gang members prosecutors say were framed testified at the trial, however.

Perez started the scandal by telling authorities that anti-gang officers in Rampart often framed gang members. He made the statements at a time when he was in search of a reduced sentence after he was caught stealing cocaine from an evidence locker.

He was expected to be the prosecutors’ star witness. But he was not called to testify after he indicated that he would invoke his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination if asked about a former girlfriend’s allegations that he had committed murder.

Levin made much of Perez’s absence: “There’s not one word at this trial about Perez being a corrupt police officer,” he said.

Levin practically spat out the monikers of some of the gangsters who figured in the case: Wicked, Rascal, Diablo, Termite, Stymie, Speedy, Shady. Then he pointed to the defense table: “The joke is, these guys are in here on trial, charged with serious crimes, and the gangbanging is going on right how outside this courthouse.”

As he argued, Levin’s outrage seemed to grow. He cited two key events in the case--the April 26, 1996 arrest of gang member Allan Lobos and the July 19, 1996 arrest of Raul Munoz and Cesar Natividad--people whom prosecutors allege the defendants framed.

“These horrible cops broke up their little parties,” Levin said, sarcastically referring to the gang sweeps. “They broke up a little party of punk gangbangers who were planning murder.”

Levin attempted to deconstruct testimony of some of the gang witnesses, including Munoz, the driver of the pickup truck that allegedly hit two of the officers on trial.

After highlighting inconsistencies in Munoz’s account, which the defense lawyer characterized as “perjury,” and suggesting that Munoz has a reason to lie because he has filed a lawsuit over his allegedly false arrest, Levin asked jurors:

“Would you trust him to go out with your daughter? Would you leave him alone in your home? Would you buy a car from him? Why would you buy his garbage here?”

Levin was followed to the lectern set up in front of the jury box in the courtroom of Judge Jacqueline A. Connor by co-counsel Paul DePasquale, who represents Liddy.

DePasquale had barely started when it was time to recess for the evening, but he pursued similar themes, accusing the prosecutors of trying to get jurors to behave like a “lynch mob.” He is scheduled to conclude today, to be followed by attorneys for Harper and Buchanan. Then prosecutors will get the last word, and jury deliberations will begin.