Hearing Set on Defendant Access to Data About Officers

Saying that some criminal defendants in Los Angeles County are being deprived of their constitutional rights, a judge Friday vowed to “fix” the system that is supposed to give defendants access to information on the credibility of their police officer accusers.

In a decision that could have a profound effect on the criminal justice system in the county and beyond, Judge Larry P. Fidler said he would hold an evidentiary hearing later this month to determine how to ensure that defendants, in fact, receive information to which they are legally entitled.

Defense attorneys have argued for years that prosecutors and police fail either to discover or to disclose information that may challenge an officer’s credibility before jurors or a judge. The Times published a story Friday detailing cases in which such information was not turned over to defense lawyers. The unfolding Rampart corruption scandal has also exposed numerous breakdowns in the system.

“This hearing is to fix problems that everybody knows exist,” Fidler said. “It’s going to get fixed; it’s that simple.”

There are two ways in which defendants should learn about credibility issues involving an officer who is a witness in a case. The first is a so-called Brady disclosure, in which prosecutors should inform defense lawyers of anything that might tend to help their client’s case, including doubts about the credibility of an investigating officer. Fulfilling the “Brady obligation” is solely the responsibility of the prosecutor, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

California defense lawyers can also seek information about officer witnesses by filing what is known as a Pitchess motion. In such a motion, the lawyer offers a theory of the type of officer misconduct suspected in the case and asks to see any similar allegations lodged against the officer in the past.

The success of such a motion depends on the police department locating any relevant complaints--and turning them over to the court--and the judge deciding that the defense is entitled to see them.

For defendants, legal procedures such as Brady and Pitchess can mean the difference between conviction and acquittal. Defense attorneys say that obtaining information about the credibility of police is vital, because jurors will almost always accept the word of a police officer over that of the accused. Obtaining this information can help level the playing field, they say.

Fidler said from the bench that he has had recent conversations with Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti, Public Defender Michael Judge and other top officials in the criminal justice system about the issue.

“Every one of them admits there is a Pitchess-Brady problem in this county that needs to be addressed,” Fidler said.

Nonetheless, lawyers from the city attorney’s and district attorney’s offices argued against Fidler holding hearings on the issue, saying that he had no jurisdiction to do so.

At one point, Deputy City Atty. Deborah Sanchez shook her head in apparent disagreement as the judge talked about the problems he sees with the system.

“If you want to shake your head, good luck,” an obviously perturbed Fidler told Sanchez. “If you think Pitchess works, good luck. . . . It’s going to get fixed. It’s that simple.”

Fidler rejected the prosecutors’ arguments about jurisdiction, inviting them to walk two blocks to the Court of Appeal and challenge his ruling if they wished.

“The law is on my side,” he said.

Gigi Gordon, a criminal defense lawyer who was appointed by the Superior Court to protect the rights of potential victims of the corruption scandal, said she could not understand why the city attorney and district attorney would resist fixing a problem that they concede exists.

“It’s appalling, shocking and disgraceful,” she said.

Gordon praised Fidler for trying to address long-standing failures in the disclosure system.

“It’s very clear the criminal justice system is in chaos,” she added. “It should be the hope of everyone that out of the Rampart scandal will rise a new and better criminal justice system, and that, I think, is Judge Fidler’s intent.”

Public Defender Judge said he was “encouraged with the direction” in which Fidler is headed.

“Finally, there’s a recognition by a judge that there have been serious gaps in the information that has been supplied to defendants and their lawyers,” he said. “It’s an intolerable situation.”

Judge, however, said he believes that the criminal justice system’s handling of the disclosure issue is so flawed that only legislative remedies will adequately fix it.

The case before Fidler on Friday began as a petition to overturn the conviction of Felipe Ordonez, who was allegedly framed by officers from LAPD’s Rampart Division. The judge granted that petition.

Prosecutors argued that in doing so he rendered moot the defense’s request for information about investigative materials regarding allegedly corrupt Rampart officers in connection with the case.

But Fidler agreed to hear a discovery motion and request for sanctions against the district attorney as a separate matter. The judge ordered that 11 similar cases be joined to the Ordonez case as they pertain to Brady issues and potential sanctions.

“No case cries out more for relief than what is going on here,” the judge said.