Federal Grand Jury Probing Rampart Case

A federal grand jury has begun hearing testimony about a 1996 police shooting of an unarmed gang member who was paralyzed and wrongly sent to prison by a pair of corrupt Rampart Division officers, according to attorneys and law enforcement sources familiar with the case.

At least two LAPD officers have testified before the grand jury in recent weeks about their knowledge of the shooting of Javier Francisco Ovando by disgraced former officers Rafael Perez and Nino Durden.

The U.S. attorney’s office has had a team of prosecutors and FBI agents investigating allegations of abuse and civil rights violations by the LAPD for 18 months. The secret grand jury proceedings, which could result in indictments, come as investigations by the LAPD and district attorney’s office wind down.

The two officers who testified before the grand jury panel are Mario Rios and Michael Montoya, according to their attorneys. The attorneys declined further comment to The Times, but have told LAPD officials that their clients have been assured they are not considered targets of the federal criminal investigation.

Both officers were working with Perez and Durden on the night of the Oct. 12, 1996, shooting but were not present when the incident occurred, according to police documents. Rios and Montoya have denied any wrongdoing in connection with the incident. The officers, however, face disciplinary hearings for allegedly falsifying information about their roles in the shooting.

Precisely which officer or officers federal authorities are scrutinizing is not publicly known. Federal law enforcement sources, however, have said that Perez is one potential target of the investigation.

Perez and Durden have admitted shooting Ovando, planting a gun on him and then falsely testifying that he attacked them. Perez implicated himself and Durden in the shooting as part of a plea deal with local prosecutors. To shave time off his sentence for stealing cocaine from LAPD evidence facilities, he provided information about alleged corruption within the Rampart Division.

Although the district attorney’s office offered Perez immunity for certain crimes in which he implicated himself, that protection may not prevent federal prosecutors from charging him, legal experts said. Perez was released from state prison last month after serving less than three years behind bars.

Durden pleaded guilty earlier this year to several crimes stemming from the shooting and other incidents and is expected to serve about eight years in prison.

After the shooting, Ovando was falsely convicted of assaulting Perez and Durden and sentenced to 23 years in prison. He was released from custody in September 1999--three years into his sentence--as a result of Perez’s admission that the shooting was unjustified.

Although Perez, Durden and Ovando have told different stories about the shooting that night, they all agree that Ovando was unarmed when he was shot in an abandoned apartment and subsequently framed.

The two former officers disagree on some of the key details, according to law enforcement documents. For example, Perez has said Durden planted the gun on Ovando, but Durden said it was Perez.

According to Perez, neither Montoya nor Rios was aware that a gun had been planted on the victim. However, he told investigators that the officers, plus their sergeant, Edward Ortiz, lied about an element of the case to make it appear more tactically sound to their supervisors.

Although police reports state that Montoya and Rios were waiting in a chase car to follow up on observations made by Perez and Durden, the officers were in fact nowhere near the location, according to Perez.

Though a seemingly minor point, the fact that Perez and Durden were conducting the operation without any backup could have resulted in heightened scrutiny of the shooting.

Rios and Montoya, according to their attorneys, maintain that the initial police reports are correct. Ortiz could not be reached for comment.

Perez’s attorney, Winston Kevin McKesson, declined to comment on the grand jury investigation and how it may relate to his client.

“We gave our word that we would not discuss any conversations that we may or may not be having with the federal government on any issues involving any potential federal prosecution,” McKesson said.