Jury Acquits 3 Ex-Oakland Officers

A jury Thursday acquitted three fired Oakland policemen of several charges but deadlocked on 13 others in a case alleging the officers assaulted and framed suspects and then conspired to hide the evidence.

The trial was the second in an incendiary case that angered Oakland’s poorest black neighborhoods and prompted a series of court-mandated police reforms.

The first jury, impaneled for more than a year, was also unable to reach a verdict in the fall of 2003 on most counts.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner on Thursday continued a gag order on all the attorneys and defendants involved in the case. A seven-woman, five-man jury that included two African Americans reached its verdicts after four months of testimony and six weeks of deliberation.

The three former graveyard-shift officers, known as “the Riders,” had allegedly beaten and falsely arrested victims in the city’s tough northwest corner in the summer of 2000 before being turned in by a rookie cop in training with one of the men.

A hearing is scheduled for June 2 in which prosecutors are expected to announce whether they will pursue a third trial. Dist. Atty. Tom Orloff issued a statement Thursday saying he was bound by the judge’s order not to speak about the case.

Prosecutors changed tactics in the second trial. But despite significantly reducing the scope of charges, seeking a more racially diverse jury and trying the case before a different judge, the results were nearly the same.

Thursday’s jury verdict acquitted Matthew Hornung, 33, of all charges, including one count each of conspiracy and issuing a false police report. The other defendants -- Clarence Mabanag, 39, and Jude Siapno, 36 -- faced lengthy prison sentences had they been convicted on charges that included falsifying arrest reports and beating a handcuffed suspect.

A fourth Rider charged in the case, Frank “Choker” Vazquez, 48, the officers’ alleged ringleader, is believed to have fled the country.

Community reaction to the verdicts was mixed. Some criticized prosecutors, while others pointed to inherent weaknesses in a case that relied on the testimony of convicted felons allegedly preyed upon by the officers.

“What this says is that it’s very difficult to convict police officers, especially when your victims are African Americans, most of whom had criminal records,” said Oakland lawyer John Burris, who successfully represented plaintiffs in a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city in the case.

“The officers were able to indicate that this was more a matter of internal Oakland Police Department problems than their own conduct.”

Malaika Parker, director of Bay Area Police Watch, said she was surprised that the charges of police misconduct even went to trial. “Usually, the community is shut out of the gate, so to get this far is a victory in itself,” she said.

“But that said, to continue deadlocked and not get people a clear decision is almost a slap in the face to this community,” Parker continued. “Generally, you like to see people who break the law held accountable. Especially police officers.”

An activist who represents convicted felons and their families called the mixed verdicts “a very terrible decision.”

“This is unacceptable,” said Linda Evans, director of a group called All of Us or None. “But it’s what many people in Oakland have come to expect from the court system. The message is: Don’t bother trying -- you’re not going to be represented by your government and that the police aren’t protecting you, they’re attacking you. And they’re getting away with it.”

Following a February 2003 settlement in the civil case that awarded 119 plaintiffs $10.9 million, Oakland police were ordered to make several changes and report to a court-appointed monitor. But a status report released this week suggested that there was still much work to do.

The report showed that nearly 800 citizen complaints against the department have not been assigned case numbers or investigated.

Despite such setbacks, Burris said the Riders case has prompted police reform in Oakland.

“Certainly the African American community is very disappointed in these verdicts,” he said. “But this case was also a major source of reform. There may not be police officers going to jail. But the huge victory here is that the Police Department itself is now under review.”