Kidnapping Case Jury Won’t Be Told of Officer’s Firing

A judge has ruled that jurors in the trial of four men accused of kidnapping a 3-year-old San Marino boy will not hear testimony that a police officer who says he took a vital confession in the case was subsequently fired for lying on his time card.

The ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lance Ito is a major victory for prosecutors, who had feared that a battle over the disputed firing of San Marino Police Officer John Crook would threaten not only the case against Paul Thim, who allegedly confessed, but also the cases against the other defendants.

“This ensures [that there will] be no distractions or mini-trial to mask the real task at hand: a kidnapping trial,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Marian M. J. Thompson, who along with defense attorneys began jury selection in the case Monday at the downtown Los Angeles courthouse.

Thim, 17; Kei Chang, 31; Johnny Lung Ly, 24; and Sokkha Khy, 20, have pleaded not guilty to seven felony counts, including kidnapping for ransom, which carries a possible life sentence. Thim is being tried as an adult. The four are accused of abducting the son of a wealthy San Marino couple March 20, 2000, and demanding a $1.5-million ransom. The FBI rescued the boy, who was unharmed, after two weeks.

Thompson had requested that testimony on Crook’s firing be excluded, arguing that it did not relate to his duties as an officer.

Ito, by agreeing with Thompson, avoided testimony similar to that in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, in which the defense suggested that then-Det. Mark Fuhrman was a liar whose testimony could not be trusted.

Thim, upon his arrest, allegedly confided to Crook that he snatched 3-year-old Ernest Chan from his home. Crook was dismissed by his police chief Sept. 25, 2000, after allegations that he falsified a time card by 30 minutes.

Terrence Bennett, Thim’s attorney, said his client never confessed and he wanted jurors to know that Crook was fired for lying. “I just wanted to show Crook is willing to falsify information,” Bennett said.

Thompson, however, said that if that testimony had been allowed, she would have had to show that the officer’s firing was retaliation for activities of the San Marino Police Officers Assn. in an ugly contract dispute with City Hall. She said the civil suit filed by Crook against the department is the more appropriate arena for such an argument. Crook said he told the truth about the confession and the time card.