Challenges to Rampart Verdict Still Unresolved

Three LAPD officers convicted of framing gang members seem to be losing ground in their bid for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct.

An alternate juror, Paola Rojas, testified Tuesday that she could not recall the foreman’s saying that the officers were guilty on the first day of trial and she said that if she had heard the comment she would have reported it to the judge.

But the officers are gaining on another front: their effort to win a new trial based on a misleading police report.

Defense attorneys say five jurors have signed affidavits confirming that they could not agree on whether the officers were struck by gang members in the alley, as the officers claimed.

Instead, the jurors say they convicted Sgts. Edward Ortiz, 44, and Brian Liddy, 39, and Officer Michael Buchanan, 30, on Nov. 15 after agreeing that the three had not suffered great bodily injury.

Problem is, the officers never claimed they had suffered great bodily injury. A computer-generated police report, relied on during deliberations, incorrectly stated that they had.

A sixth juror, Albert Mesa, called the judge and gave a similar account of the deliberations.

Superior Court Judge Jacqueline A. Connor said Tuesday that her conversation with Mesa had not allayed her concerns about the verdict.

“So, we still have a problem,” Connor said.

A hearing is scheduled Dec. 15. The judge has not yet ruled on either issue.

The officers were convicted as part of an ongoing investigation into police corruption in the Los Angeles Police Department’s Rampart Division.

Prosecutors claim the officers fabricated the story that gang members hit them with a pickup truck during a 1996 gang sweep.

Tuesday’s hearing was set so the judge could hear from Rojas, one of three jurors who ate lunch together on the first day of trial.

Another alternate, Wendy Christiansen, has testified that during that lunch jury foreman Victor Flores said he believed the officers were guilty. He had not yet heard any testimony.

Flores has testified that he doesn’t remember making the comment. Until this week, Rojas’ version of the lunch conversation was unknown to the court because she was out of the country.

But in an affidavit filed Monday and then in person on Tuesday she said she doesn’t recall hearing the comment. She also testified that if she had heard it she would have told Connor.

Despite Rojas’ and Flores’ testimony, defense attorney Harland Braun said he still believes the officers have a shot at getting a mistrial based on misconduct.

He said Christiansen, who came forward on her own, had no reason to lie. Rojas and Flores, meanwhile, could have been less than forthcoming so they wouldn’t look bad, Braun said.

“You don’t decide a case based on the amount of witnesses,” Braun said, adding that it will be the judge’s responsibility to decide who is more credible.

The computer error surfaced during the investigation into alleged juror misconduct.

After the officers claimed they were struck by the gang members in the alley, they filled out a police report. A computer-generated version of the report incorrectly abridged the law that the officers claim was violated.

The report said the officers were victims of assault with a deadly weapon with great bodily harm. The report should have said they were victims of assault with a deadly weapon with a force likely to produce great bodily harm.

When jurors couldn’t come to an agreement on whether the accident happened, the defense claims, they settled on agreeing that the officers lied about the severity of their injuries and were therefore guilty of framing gang members.