Jury Boosts LAPD Reform

Many victims of the Los Angeles Police Department corruption scandal will never be nominated for citizen of the year. Some--allegedly framed, beaten, shot and then charged and convicted--had criminal records and were gang members or illegal immigrants. So questions about how juries would see cases against the police have lingered even as the city and federal governments moved forward on a plan to bring real reform to the LAPD.

Would a scandal that began with revelations from Rafael Perez, an ex-cop convicted of cocaine theft, result in the successful prosecution of other tainted officers? Would jurors--who like most of us are prone to trust the average police officer over those he or she has arrested--be able to make a fair judgment in a case against LAPD officers?

The answer to those questions, we know today, is yes. And what can rightly be viewed as a somber day for the LAPD can also be seen as a vindication and a victory for the criminal justice system.

Suspended Los Angeles Police Sgts. Brian Liddy and Edward Ortiz and Officer Michael Buchanan were all found guilty Wednesday of conspiracy to obstruct justice and of perjury. A fourth suspended LAPD officer, Paul Harper, was found not guilty of the two charges against him.

The convictions stemmed from a 1996 police raid in which two suspects, Raul Munoz and Cesar Natividad, were arrested. Wednesday’s convictions are likely to be appealed, but it can be said with some satisfaction that the diverse jury, made up of five Latinos, two Filipinas, two whites and three African Americans, seven of them women and five of them men, did its job well.

The prosecution team, including Deputy Dist. Atty. Anne Ingalls, hammered home the right points. Ingalls said she too wanted to “get” gang members, even naming several who figured in the trial. “But let’s get them fair and square.”

The convictions buttress the City Council and Mayor Richard Riordan’s recent agreement to a federal consent decree in which the LAPD’s reform efforts will be monitored by an outside observer.

The next big step, choosing a monitor acceptable to Los Angeles and to the federal government, can now proceed with a stronger sense of purpose. Today, a city can believe in the concept of justice for all.