RIDERS

[Riders settlement was wise for Oakland ]

THE MONDAY My Word opinion column, "City attorney mishandled 'Riders'
case," by Clinton Killian contained several errors in both fact and
judgment that require correction.

First, at no time did the city attorney ever refer to "40 criminal
officers" as alleged by the author. This is a complete fabrication.

Second, the City Council was wise to settle the Riders civil lawsuits
and protect Oakland from potential verdicts and expenses in excess of
$100 million. The city paid $2.2 million, with our insurance covering
the additional cost.

Third, two hung juries is not a finding of innocence. The
author-attorney, of all people, should know this. I would remind Tribune
readers that the alleged ringleader, Frank Vasquez, is still a fugitive
from the law.

Fourth, the Riders were fired because they refused to cooperate with the
investigation into the misconduct. The outcome of the criminal trial
does not impact the original decision to terminate their employment.

Finally, the Oakland Police Department faced receivership by the
Department of Justice unless they cleaned up their management practices.
No one "ceded control" to a "committee of one," as the misinformed
author suggests. An independent team of monitors, with the guidance of a
federal judge, are ensuring compliance with the consent decree.

Ultimately, the dedicated men and women of Oakland 's police force will
benefit from the improvements to the department. A simple accounting of
the facts proves that settling the Riders case was a wise choice for
Oakland .

Erica Harrold

***Back to top

[Matt Hornung Job Hunting]

>From: Jim Coleman <mztgringo@yahoo.com>

>To: dmv1999 <Nodui@earthlink.net>, openline@yahoogroups.com

>Subject: Re: [openline] Employment Wanted and Needed

>Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:38:09 -0700 (PDT)

>Maybe Batt needs some "landscaping", then a lobotomy . Good luck in whatever,jim c

***Back to top

>dmv1999 <Nodui@earthlink.net> wrote:

I was wondering if anyone had any contacts for work in the Bay Area? I have been to three interviews in as many weeks. They seem to start out ok until they ask, "What have you been doing for the last five years?" I knew it wouldnt be easy but damn. If anyone can think of anything I and my family would appriciate it. I dont mind doing labor,landscaping, or carpentry. Im not the best but I work hard and learn fast.

> Matt Hornung

> hornung6288@sbcglobal.net

***Back to top

[Riders Case Mishandled]

Article Last Updated: 6/20/2005 07:38 AM   City attorney mishandled 'Riders' case   THE real crime is that the "Riders" case was mishandled by City Attorney John Russo from its inception and now is costing the city of Oakland millions. There are other costs he failed to explain.

  Two juries failed to convict anyone on numerous charges, but the city attorney had no problem rushing to settle the civil claims for $11 million.   The city attorney had a responsibility to investigate fully these claims. Instead, he simply wrote an $11 million check of our tax money, whether directly or through long-term higher insurance premiums, to hide from his duty to protect the public interest. Think about the city services that could provide.  

There are numerous reasons the claimants' credibility was twice severely questioned in trials. Out of 129 claimants, virtually all had previous felony records and only 7 testified at the trials.   Mr. Russo stated the claim was settled because of the "40 criminal officers," but only four were charged and none convicted. And those four were named in less than half the claims. That should have raised a few red flags regarding the claims.  

Now the city faces liability for millions of dollars for the police officers' wrongful termination, back pay and benefits, and attorney fee claims. This could topple another $10 million.   Then in the federal lawsuit, the city attorney voluntarily entered a judgment ceding management of the police department to a federal judge. He is allowing a committee of one to run the police department.

Now, OPD has more officers in internal investigation than investigating murders. San Francisco , with three times the police force, has a third less internal investigation officers. It is costing the city $3 million plus a year, over $10 million and ticking, plus loss of public safety.  

That puts the tab over $30 million hard costs and growing. There is something very wrong with the city attorney's math, political and legal decisions. The city attorney envisioned the L.A. Ramparts or San Francisco Fajitagate scandal, but Oakland 's reality was something much less.  
It was grossly unfair to taint with his reckless comments the over 700 hard-working, dedicated officers who provide public safety to us. If there are problem officers, the city attorney must devise a systematic review process, not cede control to a judge.  

To taint the entire dedicated force because of the alleged acts of a few harms not only the police, but all the citizens of Oakland . It also obscures the fine work that the police department and neighborhood groups have done regarding community policing and relationships.  

This is the second time in very recent memory that the city of Oakland has turned to outsiders to solve our problems. See the Oakland schools. A committee of one is not democratic, and it does not guarantee community input.  

Oakland is losing local control of the important decisions that affect our lives - we should not give away our voice to outsiders. Before we lose more local control, incur more millions of dollars liability, before desperately needed officers are pulled away from community protection, we need better political leadership.  

Mr. Russo, you failed in your duty to the city of Oakland .  

Clinton Killian is an attorney in downtown Oakland and, like John Russo, a candidate for the 16th Assembly district.   http://www.insidebayarea.com/searchresults/ci_2812785

***Back to top

From: "Victor Sandoval" <victorsandoval1@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [openline] Different point of view on Riders
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 19:06:51 -0500

ANSWER: Hello you Cowardless, Chicken Sh_t, SOB. Here is my drivers license and registration and no matter what you issue me a ticket for, I will win in court because you're credibility means nothing in court.

Vic Sandoval

***

I agree with Rudy.  And there is none of us who are "Once OPD - Always OPD" who didn't do something on the street that we never imagined we would do or have to do when we were in the academy.

And the young officers today (they are all young to me. ) are trained
differently and have a different perspective on OPD history and tradition than we did.  Permanent shifts limits their exposure to senior officers or even senior supervisors.  Beat integrity is not part of the plan with so many open beats and such fragmented areas of responsibility.

The three officers were given what has always been an impossible task with limited tools to accomplish it; and in retrospect no backing from the administration.  They were, plain and simple, hung out there to dry - not once but twice.  How many of the recipients of the City of Oakland 's generosity had complained to IA before the publicity engendered by Keith Batt?  I think none of them.  In other words they weren't aggrieved until they thought they might get paid.  Thank John Burris for giving them that hope...

Now, for today's vocabulary lesson: What is a "conundrum"?
Answer: You are one of the many active or retired OPD in the tri-valley
area. You are driving through Pleasanton ; and are stopped by the PPD.  The officer approaches your car and he is Keith Batt.  Conundrum = How do you identify yourself?

***Back to top

Hey Rudy, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.   Perhaps you read it wrong.  Point is whatever they were doing, it clearly caused everyone else and our reputation a lot of grief.  I don't think to say what they were doing was not the best of judgement is being particularly critical, only stating the obvious.  The police in general got a lot of bad press as a result of their actions.    Legal or illegal, they didn't reflect well on us or the Department and that is a fact.   As you know when we use bad judgement, it isn't always illegal, but still wasn't a good choice of action.

What I think was clear as well was that I am with you on disliking 
overzealous criminal prosecution of police officers period and I was in favor or their defense using out funds and assets.   Likewise that I was glad they got the case dismissed.

Finally I made the point that the Administration (Police) should have taken some responsibility here.  As you know, when any of us establishes a  pattern of behavior as a police officer and it might reflect badly on the  Department or worse yet might be illegal, it is the responsibility of his  supervisors to aggressively correct that behavior either by just talking to the  officer, documenting the behavior or discipline.    If any of those things had been done
effectively, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

You are right in one sense, that we weren't there, but I don't see any 
problem with making it clear and reminding people that the actions of any of us (working or retired) reflects on the the rest of us.   Whenever a retired officer or even "used to be office" commits a crime, that label is always put by his/her name in the press.  We aren't perfect, we do dumb stuff, but its important that we remind each other than that although its true we stand together, its also true we tend to go down the drain together as  well.

Don't you kind of wish those guys had thought of that before they did the things they did.  I don't doubt they are great guys and probably were good police officers, but they still reflected badly on you, me, the rest of it, the City and themselves.   We have all made mistakes, but theirs unfortunately was singled out to reflect negatively on all of us.  I'll bet if you asked any one of them, they would not have wanted that either.

Dick Castle
sgt. retired.

***Back to top

From: "Rudy Martin" <rudyp@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: [openline] Different point of view on Riders
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:03:09 -0700

These guys have been judged--they were cleared. They should be left alone not judged by a bunch of old timers. None of us were there and should not be telling these guys how to do the job. We all thought that were the best police officers in the world when we were doing the job. We are not doing the job anymore. Leave it to the ones that are doing the job. There is a fine line between aggressive and overzealous.

I would like to shake the hands of the three officers that had the guts to face the charges and be judged by a jury of their peers. As it was put, just my opinion God Bless the Three Officers(I refuse to call them Riders)

Rudy Martin

***

I'm enjoying the 2,324 words thus far devoted to this topic today....

The battle is being fought in a tiny "village" where racist and politically correct terrorists are fighting cowards with blanks. When will we have our D-Day?

1. Oakland is a community of 400,000 people who overwhelmingly support our cops, their mission and the way they handle it.

2. OPD has thousands of members, including active, separated and retired.

Ronoz

***Back to top

I really enjoyed Gremminger's comments which were presented in a very
thorough and professional manner.  I agree with what he had to say.
For what it's worth, I'd like to add these comments:

1)  Yes, OPD is partially to blame. It should have been handled "in
house".  But OPD also lacks a method to communicate OPD concerns
about the community. Our "community relations" efforts always seem to
start with the premise that WE have all the responsibility for
police/community relations. We NEVER seem to try to educate the
public as to THEIR responsibilities.  For example, visiting
classrooms, school boards, citizen groups and telling citizens how
THEY should act when confronted by an officer. Telling them they MUST
submit to an officer or be subject to possible violence.  Telling
them that those batons are not worn as showpieces; there are
legitimate uses for controlled violence.  Reminding them that if they
run, confront, refuse to comply, or fight, they WILL be restrained,
arrested, and possibly injured.

2)  Yes, we had a good DA's office. But one thing that frustrated
many of us was the fact that 148s and 243s were rarely charged. We
would go to internal affairs and face lawsuits in cases where the
suspect was presumed innocent from the getgo because of a "practical"
attitude of wanting only bulletproof cases (by the DA).

Also, the DA's office was not immune to blatant political moves back
in the old days.  I can remember a case against a group of officers
where even the prosecuting DA told me (privately) the case against
one officer was bogus.

3)  I remember Chief Hart telling us at Advanced Officer's School one
year that he had been spending most of his time testifying in federal
court. "Civil Rights" legislation has made it easy for "victims"
of "brutal" officers to blackmail departments into large settlements
for fear of juries granting even larger settlements.  Officers are
routinely tried several times seemingly in violation of
constitutional rights regarding "double jeopardy". 

The pendulum swung too far to the left beginning in the 1960s. Until
the appeals and Supreme courts reverse some of the bizarre rulings
they made, the deck will be stacked against common sense.  Until
print and TV news organizations purge themselves of left-wing anti-
police attitudes, public opinion will continue to be negative.  Until
we purge politically correct bureaucrats from high offices, DA's
offices and police departments will remain on the defensive.  Until
Congress revamps "civil rights" laws, officers will continue to get
screwed.

All this will not happen by itself. Politics controls most things in
this society. Those who hate politics and want to remain "above the
fray" are kidding themselves. When you vote, don't just think about
pocketbook issues, we need people in power with traditional values
and common sense.

George Mate

***Back to top

Right on the money on each point you (Gremminger) raise. The sad thing is no one in
authority cares, or will make any changes.  OPD should adopt the motto: "Handle your
calls, don't wreck the car, and make relief".

Joe Thomas/6733

***Back to top

I read Gremminger's email on the Riders and I do agree with many of his  thoughts, but would like to look at this a little differently.   As a  preface, I was not the perfect police officer and had a few stunts of my own, so  don't mean to pass judgement here.  On the other hand, my comments hold  true for my own actions as well.

These officers used bad judgement at best.  I'm glad they didn't get 
successfully prosecuted and agree with Everett on that issue.  On the other  hand, each time any of us does things that reflect badly on our fellow officers  (working and retired), we risk being caught in the "public eye" and damaging the  image of all our fellow co-workers.  Yes the environment has us under a  microscope, but we know that and its no surprise.   Pay now for police  officers is deservedly improved over the years, but with it the burden of public  service and public scrutiny.  

While I suppose those guys, I am also not proud of their actions and have  hated to listen to other people as they read the articles about the trial.

I think within the Department, it is most of all important that the peer  pressure from other officers and the training and supervision of the supervisors  of officers should try to prevent this kind of behavior and certainly not give  the impression we find it acceptable.  Where were their supervisors and the administration and what responsibility did they accept for what happened?

On the other hand, I do agree that we need to support our fellow officers  when/if the punishment is an overreaction and a politically motivated attempt to satisfy the thirst of some liberal citizens to discredit the police  publicly.

The biggest losers were you and I.   All the other police  officers in the Country who try to do the job ethically, honestly  and  efficiently.  These guys put themselves in that position and in doing so  cost us all dearly.  I wish them the best, don't mind our assets being used  in their defense, but I don't think we can paint them out to be the biggest  victims in this case.

Like most issues, its complicated.  Hopefully its behind us unless the  final Rider is caught and the DA takes off after him.   Then we will  all have to go through this again.

Just my two cents and the way I see it.

Dick Castle
Sergeant Retired

***Back to top

Wow, I just read, slowly, each of the 1,108 words that Gremmie so thoughtfully shared with us. I have to tell you that it came gratefully immediately after I got another one of "those" private emails that my own posts are too long.

Gremmm obviously felt inclined to put his thoughts into an editorial opinion and in doing so he invites those in the bleacher seats on one side to cheer and those on the other side to bleer (bleat-stutter).

Before anyone is inclined to apologize to Orloff, Burris, Tucker, Brown, the City Attorney or others I would suggest that what posts on Openline stays on Openline.

If I were to offer my own opinion - and I won't because Gremm's should be in the spotlight - I would say only incidentally that I feel the membership, on-duty and on-line, is too inhibited by false and harmful political correctness. The mediocrity, blandness, lack of imagination or creativity, and simple mindedness as an attitude is likely the reason why Brown went outside to give OPD its new Chief. I'll bet Tucker, Brown, Orloff and others are a lot brighter than the PC Monks, and that they appreciatively pay much more attention to those who offer meaningful challenges, criticisms, alternatives, and out-of-the-box thinking. Disagreement and debate are the elixirs, while the fawning and fealty are merely opium for the nodders. Prove me wrong.

Ronoz

***Back to top

Winners - Losers
Riders Case

My own opinions-

Everyone always asks who won? Who lost? The way I see it it was
pretty much a loss all the way.

Here are four officers doing their job in West Oakland . At times a
little aggressive, but locking up bad guys. They weren't robbing the
dope dealers. Maybe a little too much street justice, but then
normally the courts won't do anything to small time dealers. No
excuse but some street justice is warranted at times. To say these
R/O's won their case is not really true. These 4 hard working cops
lost 4 years of their life. Lost their jobs, put up for public
ridicule for four years. No, they might have prevailed in our justice
system, but they should never have been in the system.

Their attorneys won the case. But they were just defending the rights
of the officers who were wrongfully charged. P.O.R.A.C. and L.D.F.
spent over 2 million defending something that should never have
gotten where it did. Their time put in the case and the attitude they
had, standing up for the officers should be commended if not praised.
What did they really win? The freedom for the 4 officers (3) they
were not guilty to begin with. Nothing more that their Sergeant
telling them to tone it down. Splitting up the group if it was really
believed it was out of hand.

Shame on O.P.D. for not handling this in house. I'm not sure how it
got so far as the District Attorney but as stated earlier I think it
could have been handled in house.

District Attorney. Big time LOSERS. What was Tom Orloff thinking?
ELECTION??
He listened to the LOUD MINORITY. Oh my god-racists. I don't think so-
John Burris is a racist but the RIDERS, no they weren't racist. They
were guilty of over aggressive police work. Tom is guilty of
malicious prosecution. To try them once was maybe his duty. But the
second time was completely malicious. The District Attorney Office in
Alameda County was at one time the best in the State.My own opinion
is that it has steadily gone downhill after chastizing Ted Landswick
many years ago. It has not one but two black eyes right now. If the
L.D.F. spent 2 mill. How much did the County spend?  They should
learn from the past successful murder trials. The Alameda County
jurors are intelligent people. If a scum dope dealer gets killed by
another scum dope dealer, the jury has the opportunity toconvict and
get rid of another doper the killer. The bottom line is people are
sick of dopers and criminals running the streets. If the Judicial
system were putting these scum's away for longer sentences. Everyone
but the liberals and dealers would be happy. I always believed the
death penalty for 2nd conviction for dealing would drastically reduce
the crime. Except for the fact that the system worked by aquitting
the officers, it took 4 years. If the system really worked, the
complainants, Burris's clients, would have been sentenced in their
own penalty phase, these scums wouldn't be around to be theD.A.'s
star witnesses.

The District Attorneys star witness. K.BLATT, I won't add the Officer
to his title. I think his P.O.S.T certificate should be revoked. He
has no credibility. He couldn't cut it on the street. I guess he is
in Pleasanton . If past history repeats itself. He will not make it on
the street, has no credibility in the courts, so put him inside where
he will eventually be promoted by the system. Become a liberal civil
rights command officer in Pleasanton . He should not be an officer. He
should not be involved in law enforcement. He wouldn't even make a
good politician. He is a big loser.

The City Attorney. They are notorious for being losers. I can't
remember that office going to a trial defending an officer.
Everything is dealt out. The City of Oakland would be better off
giving blank checks to everyone who complains to the City. Jerry
would be wise to re-vamp, yes fire the entire staff. Start all over
and not settle anything. If they got the reputation for taking
everything to trial, the City would have money, could hire more cops.
Calling the City Attorney Officev Losers is nothing new, that title
goes way back.

The people of Oakland are Losers. They lost 4 officers who were
aggressive and doing their job in West Oakland . The citizens living
in the area were more than likely happy to see the scum who
terrorized their neighborhood being given street justice. They don't
complain due to fear of retaliation of the scum. But they are
grateful for every officer who aggressively cleans up the
neighborhood. I used to get numerous calls from persons who wouldn't
identify themselves but wanted to thank me for the raid in the
neighborhood.
                     
John Burris-He was a loser as a D.A. Saw the racial minority meal
ticket. Jumped into the "POOR DEPRESSED BLACK MAN" and the cities
around the bay area, the golden goose. Burris files suit, the Golden
goose bends over and Burris plucks another golden egg. The scum he
represented saw very little of the money. If they did it was gone in
a couple of week high. If Burris were forced to go to court with his
scum clients, he would be broke today. The cities shit gold for
Burris without any attempt to challenge him. He has a gold mine at
his feet. Shame on the Cities.  We saw what happened when John Burris
represented  Rodney King in the criminal case, yep, the officers were
acquitted. That D.A. didn't try them a second time. Unfortunately the
Fed's bent over and did the Federal cover to appease the vocal
minority. 

The Police Dept. got screwed by the Cities settlement with Judge
Henderson and Burris. Big time loser. Does anyone really think Burris
was interested in changing the Dept. He got his 11 million, oh yeah
he just wanted the system to change. You can bet if the system
changed without the 11 million, he would be singing a different tune.
I feel for the Officers now trying to work under the guidelines set
up by the Federal Judge. Chief Tucker has a tough job trying to have
his officers comply with the guidelines and at the same time reduce
crime.  Yeah, the Dept. was the big loser, but that mainly is the
fault of the City Attorneys decision to settle.
I don't think anyone won, except Burris. He will one day meet his
maker.

My Rant

Everett "Gremmie" Gremminger

***Back to top

It's not very often that Mike Martin has a good idea, so I suspect that his wife helped him with this one.  Count me in for a contribution toward drinks or tickets or whatever it takes to get the persecuted three to  Reno .  I won't, however, be doing any fighting over it.  I think I've  already established that I've registered myself as a Conscientious Objector (I  wonder how many Generation X'ers even know what that means) and thus a  non-combatant.

And as long as I'm talking about Mike Martin behind his back, how come he can't mention my name without using the word OLD in the same sentence?   Maybe I'll discuss it with him in Reno ... peacefully, of course.

Frank Mellott

From: "Michael Martin" <mjmartin@volcano.net> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 17:54:33 -0700   First things first: As one who chipped in a few extra shillings to the OPD940 war-chest, I would not be at all opposed to having that spent in the direction on insuring that Mabanag, Siapno, and Hornung show up in Reno next weekend... I'd bet Oz could sell tickets to the fight to determine who got to buy them the first libation!   As good as it might be, the PORAC LDF doesn't cover everything.   In support of Old Frank Mellott on LDF: For those of you who haven't had the pleasure, let me tell you that those interview rooms on the 2nd floor get pretty lonely. A LDF attorney goes a long way to making it better, even -- especially -- if you are right.   Mike Martin

***Back to top

According to the Civil Rights laws:

"Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class."

Judge Henderson acknowledged that the Oakland Police were a culture, which is to say having membership in a particular group or class.

Yes, it was a profound historical social injustice to have the weight of unjust and unfair prosecution upon many in our society targeted for their membership, casting upon them the denial of work, the maltreatment of some to a degradation of contempt, to be besmirched for the colors they bore, and in effect to be lynched for crimes not committed.  It's no wonder that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was so desperately needed.

ronoz

***

According to the Civil Rights laws:

"Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class."

Judge Henderson acknowledged that the Oakland Police were a culture, which is to say having membership in a particular group or class.

Yes, it was a profound historical social injustice to have the weight of unjust and unfair prosecution upon many in our society targeted for their membership, castring upon them the denial of work, the maltreatment of some to a degradation of contempt, to be besmirched for the colors they bore, and in effect to be lynched for crimes not committed. It's no wonder that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was so desperately needed.

ronoz

***Back to top

From: "John Larsen" <flatfootinvestigations@nctac.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:43:24 -0700

>Now its time for the civil suit in federal court by the officers. What the hell is a few more hundred grand for each one of them to Oakland , the city threw 11 million away to the dirt bags that started this mess. Oh, and back pay and benifits for the past 5 years, opps, few more hundred grand. But all that fresh egg on the face of the Oakland city fathers, priceless.

John Larsen

***

They say each good belly laugh adds one day to your life... thank you Billie for adding so many to mine... ron

***

From: igoldpan@aol.com
Subject: Re: [openline] Riders Fallout
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:08:37 -0400

To make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again, my suggestion would be to increase the number of I.A. investigator's at OPD. With just a few more, maybe I.A. can achieve a one for one parity ratio with patrol........

BillyBurrisAndrews

***Back to top

Frank is so right... It was even bigger than that. Apparently the legal fees PORAC fronted hit 2 milllion... and for what... lots of b*shit. The costs were immeasurable beyond that. What about the 11 million to the lawyers and others who hit the Oakland Lottery? What about the confusion, reorganization, sidetracking, derailment at OPD? What about the tarnish on OPD's badge caused by the venum? This was a debacle...

I know Bob Valladon and company stood shoulder to shoulder and went toe to toe... I congratulated him only yesterday in his office. This entire process went way out of proportion. It was politically correct nuclear fission.

Holding the OPD940 Open Meetings weekly at the OPOA gave me a special respect for the job they're doing and gave opportunity for talking with our three fellows and their attorneys regularly. I shared and felt the anxiety and desperation. It was an entirely different perspective on a personal level than the one that is engaged in the larger context of social issues. Perceived social injustices and political causes are monsters that need sacrificial feedings to grow.

But the time for confrontation is over. There is a better way to win a war.

ronoz

>From: cowchpt8o@aol.com
>Subject: Re: [openline] Riders Fallout
>Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:33:32 EDT

I know everyone is relieved and grateful that justice has finally been served in this case. The three officers hopefully will get their jobs back, although that will in no sense give them the last three or four years of their lives back. One thing to consider, though, if you haven't already, is the role the OPOA and the Legal Defense Fund played in all this. I shudder to think what the legal costs were for the two lengthy trials, but I my uneducated guess is that we're looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of a half million dollars. Can you imagine what would have happened if the officers had been forced to pay that out of their own pockets? They probably would have run out of money early on, with a Public Defender being their only recourse. That undoubtedly means they'd probably be doing light dusting and cleaning for "Bubba" in San Quentin right now, instead of worrying only about reinstatement at OPD. So thanks to the OPOA for never giving up on these guys and for providing them with the resources they needed to prove their innocence. I thankfully never had to use the LDF, but it was one hell of a comfort to know it was there if I needed it.

Frank Mellott

***Back to top

Remaining 'Riders' charges dismissed; officer speaks out


By Ivan Delventhal

CONTRA COSTA TIMES

OAKLAND - After two lengthy trials that produced no convictions and mostly jury deadlock, Alameda County District Attorney Thomas Orloff this morning moved to dismiss criminal charges lodged four and a half years ago against two former Oakland police officers known as the "Riders."

Judge Jeffrey Horner granted Orloff's motion to drop the 13 felony counts during a 10-minute hearing in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland .

"It's kind of every prosecutor's nightmare," Orloff told the judge in describing the case just prior to asking for the dismissal, "because we work so closely with police officers in this community."

The two ex-officers, Jude Siapno, 36, and Clarence "Chuck" Mabanag, 39, had been charged with beating and framing people over a two-week stretch while working the graveyard shift in West Oakland in the summer of 2000. The investigation began after former rookie officer Keith Batt accused his colleagues of criminal wrongdoing.

On May 19, a jury acquitted former officer Matthew Hornung, 33, who stood trial along with the other two, of charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice and making false statement in a police report. In addition, jurors found Mabanag not guilty of one false police report charge but deadlocked on the remaining 13 felony counts filed against Mabanag and Siapno.

The charges on which jurors deadlocked included counts of kidnapping and assault lodged against Siapno, who was accused along with former officer Francisco "Frank" Vazquez of beating a handcuffed man under a freeway overpass in June 2000. Vazquez has been a fugitive since not long after the case broke and a warrant remains out for his arrest.

In the first trial of the three officers, which ended in September 2003, a jury acquitted them on eight counts and deadlocked on 27. That trial lasted a year and was the longest in county history.

Orloff told the judge Thursday that in his 35 years as a prosecutor he had come to develop "tremendous respect" for police - a fact that made the "Riders" case a difficult one.

Still, standing before the judge Thursday, Orloff maintained he believed the officers were guilty of committing crimes while on duty.

He acknowledged in court, though, that as a prosecutor this subjective determination had to be weighed against a more clinical analysis, that of whether he had enough admissible evidence so as to give him a reasonable probability of winning convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

He conceded to the judge that after two trials that ended with no guilty verdicts, a few acquittals, and mostly jury impasse, he no longer believed that the prosecution should continue.

Horner granted Orloff's motion to dismiss, calling the prosecutor's move a "thoughtful, enlightened and wholly appropriate decision." The judge also noted that it had been entirely appropriate for Orloff to charge the former officers and bring them to trial twice.

The judge wished both Siapno and Mabanag good luck; each replied, "Thank you, sir." Hornung, who was cleared in the retrial, was not in court Thursday.

The judge on Thursday also lifted a gag order that had barred prosecutors, defense attorneys and the ex-officers themselves from talking to the press.

William Rapoport, an attorney for Siapno, said the former officers had been put through nearly five years of "hell."

"(The case) came out right, and it came out right only because we had three determined attorneys and we had good clients who were innocent,'' he said.

Ed Fishman, Hornung's lawyer, accused Bat, the prosecution's star witness and now a Pleasanton officer, of lying repeatedly under oath in implicating the ex-officers.

"Keith Batt not only betrayed his field training officer, but he betrayed the badge and he betrayed his uniform and his duty as a police officer," he said.

Mabanag, who was Batt's field training officer, also accused Batt and several other officers who testified against him of committing perjury time and again during both trials.

"They should be investigated and they should get the same treatment I got, let them see it," Mabanag said. "And yet they're still police officers - that's upsetting to me. They're supposed to be honest."

Both Mabanag and Siapno, who made few comments, said they would like to return to jobs in law enforcement.

"I don't regret ever fighting crime, I'd do it tomorrow if the ( Oakland ) chief told me to come back," Mabanag said.

Michael Rains, Mabanag's attorney, said his client and the other two officers had essentially been scapegoated by the very department and city that had enlisted them in an aggressive campaign to achieve dramatic crime reductions in Oakland .

"This guy is a cop's cop," Rains said of his client. "He was out there doing the job in West Oakland that the department wanted him to do.

"When these guys got accused of this wrongdoing, where was (Mayor) Jerry Brown? He was ducking and covering. Where was (ex-Police Chief) Richard Word? He was ducking and covering. And they were serving these guys up as cancers in this organization so unfairly."

Also Thursday, Bob Valladon, president of the Oakland Police Officers Association, blasted City Attorney John Russo for a "ridiculous" $10.5 million settlement Russo helped broker to resolve federal civil rights cases stemming from the "Riders" cases. The negotiated settlement agreement, which is being overseen by a federal judge, requires the police department to undertake numerous reforms.

Russo was not immediately available for comment today.

John Burris, who represented many of the 119 plaintiffs in the civil case, said Orloff's decision to dismiss the charges was appropriate.

"It was the right thing to do in light of the length of the two trials and lack of results," Burris said. "And number two, it's time to move on and continue to focus our attention on the settlement agreement and imposition of its terms."

Defense attorneys said they would soon decide whether they will pursue a job action through the arbitration process to recover back pay and benefits from Oakland for the former officers, who were terminated in late 2000. The Peace Officers Research Association of California picked up the $2 million tab for the defense costs in both trials.

***

Let me pose this question to all on Openline, if you testify in court under oath that you falsified police reports, how is it that you do not get prosecuted and still maintain a position as a police officer in Pleasanton. One would think that your credibility is shot and anyone arrested by this officer has a get out of jail free card. What is concerning to me is that this guy might actually, inadvertently arrest a bad guy in the town I grew up in and blow the case because of his lack of credibility. Every criminal defense attorney should have a copy of the Rider Trial transcripts on hand to impeach this guys testimoney everytime he takes the stand, which will probably be for parking offenses, but regardless. Just a concerned Pleasanton citizen.


Vic (IshouldleavePtown) Sandoval

Why not? Let's show some real affirmative action and get back to work... everyone. Like we used to say... "Show's over... move along now."

***Back to top

From: R Souza <Nodui@earthlink.net>
Subject: [openline] Riders Want their Jobs Back
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:17:01 -0700

UPDATE: 'RIDERS' OFFICERS WANT THEIR JOBS BACK

06/02/05 12:05 PDT

OAKLAND (BCN)

Two former Oakland police officers accused of beating and framing >suspected drug dealers in West Oakland in the summer of 2000 said today they want their jobs back, now that all charges against them have been dismissed.

Shortly after Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner dropped the charges at the request of District Attorney Tom Orloff, Clarence "Chuck'' Mabanag, 39, said he would go back to work in Oakland "if the chief says so.''

Jude Siapno, 36, also said he would like to work as a police officer again.

Speaking in a barely audible voice, Orloff told Horner this morning that he still thinks he has a solid case against the former officers, who were known on the street as "The Riders'' because of their allegedly aggressive tactics, but he doesn't think he would have a good chance of winning convictions at a third trial.

Siapno, Mabanag and a third officer, Matthew Hornung, 33, were prosecuted twice in two lengthy trials. Both cases ended in mistrials, with jurors acquitting them of some charges and deadlocking on others.

Hornung was acquitted of the two remaining counts against him in the second mistrial two weeks ago, so he didn't have to appear in court today. His attorney, Ed Fishman, said today that Hornung also wants his job back.

Mabanag said "it feels great'' to have the charges dismissed but said he is "saddened'' that the case was prosecuted in the first place. He alleged that "they tried to convict us over lies'' by other officers.

A fourth officer, Frank Vasquez, also was charged in the case but reportedly fled the country to avoid prosecution.

Asked if he would prosecute Vasquez if he ever were caught, Orloff told reporters, "That's my current intention.''

Orloff said, "It's very difficult to convict a police officer'' and the Riders case was especially hard because most of the prosecution's witnesses "were not really sympathetic'' because they had criminal records for drug dealing and other offenses and were hanging out in West Oakland in the middle of the night.

Siapno's attorney, William Rapoport, said all three former officers will be seeking full back pay and benefits dating back to December 2000, when they were formally dismissed from the Oakland Police Department.

"There's been a substantial amount of time that these people have been dead poor,'' Rapoport said.

***Back to top

You crack me up..... ron

From: cowchpt8o@aol.com
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 15:18:36 EDT

Now that they've been officially absolved, they should be eligible for reinstatement at OPD. But if not, maybe Pleasanton P.D. has a vacancy or two...

Frank Mellott

***

Let's hope this puts the entire issue to rest and allows only pondering the lessons.

There is such a thing as being overzealous - in police work, in investigating officer complaints, in DA prosecutions, in lawsuits and the settlements thereof, in Judges who want to change police departments, in a few citizens who don't come near representing the 400,000 Oakland residents, and on and on.

It's time to get back to sanity - and do real police work. Everyone should refocus, get back on track, work together, and get on with it.

ronoz

***Back to top

JUDGE DISMISSES CHARGES IN OAKLAND RIDERS CASE

06/02/05 10:20 PDT

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner today dismissed all charges against two Oakland police officers accused of beating and framing suspected drug dealers in West Oakland in the summer of 2000.

At a short hearing, Horner said, "Good luck to you'' to Jude Siapno, 36, and Clarence "Chuck" Mabanag, 39. A third officer, Matthew Hornung, 33, also was charged in the case but he was acquitted of the charges against him two weeks ago, as the second trial of the officers ended. Jurors had deadlocked on the multiple remaining charges against Mabanag and Siapno.

Horner dismissed the charges at the request of Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff, who said he believed he was justified in prosecuting the case two times but thought it was unlikely his office would win convictions in a third trial.

A fourth officer, Frank Vasquez, also was charged in the case but reportedly fled the country to avoid prosecution.

The first trial of the so-called "Riders'' in 2002 and 2003 was one of the longest criminal trials in California history, with jury deliberations alone lasting 56 days. The trial ended on Sept. 30,
2003, with jurors acquitting the former officers of eight charges and deadlocking on the remaining 27 counts.

The second trial began Nov. 1 and testimony took just over four months, which is longer than most trials but was considerably shorter than the eight months of testimony in the officers' first trial.

***Back to top

From: "Ron Oz" <RONOZAWAY@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: [openline] Are we POW's?
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 18:11:12 -0700

There is surely and understandably too much inhibition on the part of many to comment either too gleefully or too sadly at the outcome of the Rider's case. Of one thing we can take solace, there was not even apparently enough of a jury consensus to find wrongdoing in the more liberal civil jury ratio. It seems unlikely that the Feds or the DA would have the stomach or gall to continue this case into the future. This was not for want of trying to hang them with everything conceivable and every talent possible. They took their best shot and missed. The Jury was simply too evenly split and racism is missing.

Mike Martin makes a slight point about the old war stories that we've all told and heard. Of course, when I and those before me came on there was no Miranda and the lines of good and bad were more evenly drawn. But don't think for a minute that racism, brutality, corruption, false evidence or testimony was condoned or ignored on the part of our administration or practiced by our membership. Quite the contrary, while Huey Newton, Eldridge Cleaver, Angela Davis and many others were wallowing in anti-white racism and shooting at us, I never saw a case of overt racism by our cops. And, I should admit that some of my best friends are white.

Yes, bad guys got thumped, white or Black, and by white or Black. What difference did color make? Searches were much more spontaneous and often without permission. Confessions were obtained without attorneys present and using trickery. But those were different times. I was pushed, slapped and kicked in the butt by Oakland cops at different times, as were my friends while I was growing up. I was also beaten with a canoe paddle at Claremont Jr. High. My dignity and self esteem were my problem, not society's. They didn't seem to notice I was white. I wouldn't have complained to Internal Affairs, sought a lawyer to sue the Department, or even told my parents for good and obvious reasons.

But also cops then wrote tickets to make a difference in the accident rate, not as a means of taxation. Cops took my teenage body home drunk after parking my car safely and then chewed out my parents for not watching their brat closely enough. When I was active OPD I also took some drunks home instead of booking them. I let kids off who were just being kids instead of booking them for Burglary or even joy riding auto theft. I helped parents chew out their kids for not doing homework, being up to No Good, or just Duin-Nuttin. Without ever using the N-word I often called a Spade a Spade. As many of my fellows, I judged the situation and especially the attitudes, in deciding how I would handle things. I had high energy, high activity, and never had an Internal Affairs complaint. I handled lots of complaints against my guys by resolving them, not by covering them up.

But the times were different than today, as they were different from the days before. Some of my friends as a kid came to school with welts on their bodies from the whippings they got by their dads. Our teachers let us wild ones have it. Cops were respected as guardians of the public safety and neighborhood peace. Isn't it coincidental that as the respect for cops has been eroded by those targeting the police with continually expanding political correctness and narrowing standards of acceptable conduct, and disintegrating delegation of judgment and discretion for cops to do their job, that our streets and parks have become unsafe for anyone to enjoy.

Let me say something else that hasn't changed. In all the stories by the old timers, tongues loosened and wagged by liquor, I never heard a single mention of planted evidence, false testifying, or singling anyone out because of his color. If that happened in my day we would have had the same trial. Believe it.

To say OPD has a contemptible culture where such practices are commonplace is ludicrous. For the City of Oakland to give up its carrots and run into a rabbit hole is what is disappointing. What sense does it make to change our whole Department by its methods and practices to conform to accusations that two juries taking over three years and a hundred days of deliberations couldn't determine that three out of over 700 even committed? The Oakland Police Department wasn't on trial and it certainly was not convicted. but it was accused and that seems to be good enough for a few in power to place every cop on the Oakland Police Department into disrepute.

No, we should say and demonstrate to everyone that we will CONTINUE to do whatever we can to making our Department better. no the best. Our enforcement practices will change with the times as they always have. But we will never concede what isn't true. that we are racist, crooked, corrupt, brutal, ignorant, or uncaring. Why does it seem like no one is standing up for this?

***Back to top

*************************

>From: "Jerry & Bronla" <waltmanb@c-zone.net>
>Subject: [openline] Riders---re-hire
>Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 16:39:25 -0700 >  

>How long will it be before these officers are rehired? lets see, we got back pay, missed promotional opportunites, a for sure lawsuit etc etc,

>What a crock of shit! I am sorry these guys had to go through this.

>Jerry(Iam glad I am retired) Waltman  

**********************

>From: "Michael Martin" <mjmartin@volcano.net>
>Subject: [openline] RE: Riders..
>Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 16:15:27 -0700 >  

>Yes!!!!! >  

>But to cast a bit of a pall on things, I am afraid that Clay Campbell is on the right track (not an unusual position for him)... It's a "when", not an "if" for the Feds.

And why all the "changes" being mandated when they have yet to show that these guys did anything wrong. I'm sure that I am one of many retired guys who are glad they were Active when they were and are retired now. I've heard stories of many things that were "business as usual" not that many years ago, that wouldn't fly now.... But its just stories, of course no personal knowledge...

>Mike Martin
>Sgt, Ret. (1971-1996)

***Back to top

*****************

UPDATE: LONG 'RIDERS' SAGA NEARS END AFTER ACQUITTALS AND DEADLOCK
05/19/05 1:45 PDT
OAKLAND (BCN)

The nearly five-year-long legal saga of three former Oakland police officers known as the "Riders" neared its end today with a jury acquitting them on three counts and deadlocking on the remaining 13 counts.

The officers are accused of conspiring to beat and frame suspected drug dealers in West Oakland in the summer of 2000.

Former officer Matthew Hornung, 33, is now free following a five-month trial and jury deliberations that spanned six weeks, as jurors acquitted him of the two counts against him: conspiracy and filing a false police report.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner, who presided over the case, exonerated Hornung's bail.

Hornung's wife hugged him and the couple jumped up and down in joy after jurors were dismissed today.

Former officer Clarence "Chuck" Mabanag, 39, was acquitted of one count of filing a false police report.

Mabanag and co-defendant Jude Siapno, 36, still face a total of 13 counts following the mistrial that was declared by Horner today.

They will return to court June 2 to find out whether Alameda County District Tom Orloff will prosecute them a third time.

At the end of the former officers' first trial on Sept. 30, 2003, after 56 days of deliberations, jurors acquitted them of eight counts and deadlocked on the remaining 27 counts. There were a total of 35 counts at that time.

A fourth officer, Frank Vasquez, also was charged in the case but he fled the country to avoid prosecution.

Orloff didn't comment today because Horner has issued a strict gag order preventing the lawyers and defendants in the case from speaking to the news media. Horner even gagged Hornung and his attorney, Ed Fishman, despite the fact that Hornung no longer faces any charges.

The jury foreman told Horner that the panel was deadlocked 6-6 on some counts and 8-4 and 7-5 on other counts.

John Burris, a civil rights attorney who is one of the Oakland Police Department's biggest critics, said he doesn't think it makes sense to prosecute the case a third time because there wasn't a strong majority favoring conviction.

"From the perspective of the African-American community, we may not want to go through this again," Burris said. "We have to move on."

Burris, who won $11 million in damages from the City of Oakland two years ago in a civil case on behalf of 119 plaintiffs who alleged that the Riders officers beat them, said the jury's decision today "is not a victory for the Oakland Police Department."

Burris said "The department lost a great deal in terms of its image" and alleged that "there was a climate of lawlessness by these officers and their supporters."

Burris said he thinks the huge cost of the two lengthy trials was justified because of "the public humiliation" the accused officers had to undergo even though they weren't convicted of anything.

Juror Shequoyah Kirtman, 26, of Oakland , said she voted to convict the officers on some charges but believes "they probably learned their lesson" and could still serve as police officers, even in Oakland .

Kirtman said two or three people on the jury panel "were real strong on their opinions" in favor of acquitting the officers on all counts.

"There were strong opinions up there - it's a headache," Kirtman said.

Asked if there should be a third trial, Kirtman said, "I can't really answer that."

She said, "I can't say they're not guilty of everything."

***Back to top

************************

BREAKING NEWS

A jury in Alameda County California returned a verdict of not guilty on three counts and was hung on the remaining 13 charges against three Oakland Police Department officers, Clarence Mabanag, Jude Siapno and Matt Hornung. The trial began in late September 2004.

It followed on the heels of a previous trial which began in June 2002 and ended in September 2003 with eight not guilty verdicts and hung on the remaining 27 counts.

We believe these are the longest trials involving charges against police officers for work-related events.

Mabanag was represented by Mike Rains of Rains, Lucia & Wilkinson. Siapno was represented by Bill Rapoport. Matt Hornung was represented by Ed Fishman.

The Board of Trustees extends its thanks for the tremendous effort by the panel attorneys and their staffs as well as investigators and expert witnesses. This monumental effort was only possible with the support of the Legal Defense Fund and its 58,000 members. Make no mistake, only Legal Defense Fund members will get the world class defense that all peace officers deserve.

The court issued a gag order against the attorneys speaking about the case. We are trying to get the word out without running afoul of the order. If you would like more information, call Mike Rains at (925) 609-1699, Bill Rapoport at (650) 340-7107 or Ed Fishman at (707) 823-8782.

Candis Bradley
PORAC Legal Defense Fund

***Back to top

******************

From: <flatfootinvestigations@nctac.com>
Subject: Re: [openline] Re: Rider's Trial
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 14:00:45 -0700

I would like to see an audit showing how much the city fathers spent on trial #1, trial #2, the civil payoff (11 million) and the cost of the civil suit when the cops file the law suit against the city for unlawfull termination.

I am sure there are many more costs and I would like to see what they are. How much is the cost to the PD to do all the agreed upon changes within the department due to the agreement made in the civil suit.

I can not express how happy I am that these guys did not get convicted OF ANYTHING!!. This smelled of a railroad from the very beginning and I have said that in the past.

Just my opinion.

John Larsen

***Back to top

*****************************

From: "Ron Oz" <RONOZAWAY@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: [openline] pride and dignity...
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 13:03:05 -0700

Just got off the phone with Matt Hurnug at the OPOA offices. I don't know him at all but I've written lately that he and the other so-called Riders, and most of all OPD, have gotten a bum deal in this merry-go-round called Justice.

Can we get on with business now?

Never once have I said I felt Judge Henderson wasn't doing his job with his own sense of best intentions. I exercised my own rights to express my opinion that anyone attempting to paint OPD with a broad stroke of malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance, especially within the context of the past 50 years, will have to bear criticism in return. I believe that such a notion is wrong, misguided by some and malicious by others.

I for one do not want the OPD members to feel they have a new Chief intent on reorganizing our Department on the premise of such a negative notion. I don't believe either for a moment that Chief Tucker wants the image of a marionette directed by others to be his mandate. We have top men and women in our top-notch Department, and they are caught up in a societal and certain community culture of frustration where scapegoats for social injustices must be hung out to dry. Lynching is wrong no matter the victim.

In my opinion the greatest injustice is the laxity in which truly bad people are coddled and given rights to the streets and the purses of our citizens. The restraints on police today would be unimagined by our Founders. One can only imagine the sad state of our health care if doctors were treated similarly.

It is time to improve our Department, from the ground up as I suggested in many lengthy emails. We have 400,000 citizens who need and deserve the best service we can provide. It is our prerogative to give them our devotion and dedication and only incidentally and coincidentally listen to the advice from outsiders who would tell us how to do our jobs on the basis of painting us as racists.

Every sergeant should know intimately every one of his/her officers. It is management from the sergeant level on up that will make us a successful force (note the operative word). Hopefully it will soon be forgotten about the inconveniences to public safety that such a large allocation of manpower to Internal Affairs, such distractions to service that racial questionnaires create, and such a loss of focus throughout our ranks that has embroiled us.

As any business, ours must stand the test of faith and confidence by our customers, the citizens of Oakland and its visitors. Of course we should have good feedback as to how we're doing. I'm sure that given the nature of our business many feel some of us acted at times too quickly and perhaps even rudely. But our first measure should be one of effectiveness and that's where many would not give us high marks. Our effectiveness is surely hampered by the blurred focus some have so effectively shifted us into, but a good Chief will hold our lens steady to maintain public safety first and to have our people do so with professional maximum effectiveness, courtesy, caution, and yes sometimes abruptness and force. But if we understand the people we serve and respect them, all of them, we will do so with continued pride, dignity and team spirit that separates us from the negative forces all around.

Stand proud, OPD and continue a fine tradition.

Ronoz

***Back to top

****************************

Jury Finds Three Former Oakland Police Officers Not Guilty on Several Counts
Source: kcbs
Publication date: 2005-05-19
(KCBS/AP) - A jury has acquitted three former Oakland police officers -- known as the ``Riders'' -- on three of 16 counts against them and deadlocked on other charges.

KCBS reporter Bob Melrose at the courthouse in Oakland says the officers had been accused of assaulting people, falsifying reports and conspiring to obstruct justice while working the night beat in west Oakland .

Clarence Mabanag was acquitted on one count of making false statements in police reports.

The jury deadlocked on three other false statement counts and a charge of filing a false police report.

Matthew Hornung was acquitted on the only two counts filed against him -- making a false statement in a police report and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

The jury deadlocked on all counts against Jude Siapno.

Most of the deadlocked charges were at a vote of six-to-six, and the jury said they were not moving at all one way or the other.

The investigation into the ``Riders,'' as the officers called themselves, began when a rookie officer quit the force and reported the alleged misconduct.

It is unclear whether the DA will re-file the remaining charges for a third time.

On June 2nd, the DA will let the court know whether he plans to re-try the case.

(Copyright 2005 by KCBS. All Rights Reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)

(updated 12:10pm, gcb)

***Back to top

****************************

From: Clay Campbell <xsgtclay@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [openline] Riders
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:59:32 -0700 (PDT)

I wonder about two things:

1. How long until the "community" demands that the Feds prosecute;

2. How long will it take for the Feds to cave in and do it?

Clay Campbell, 6337 T (Retired)

************************

I met an impressively smart, articulate and handsome young man at OPOA who claimed to be your son. The resemblance was remarkable. ron

From: "Jim Simonson" <jimcarsimo@earthlink.net>
Subject: [openline] Re: Rider's Trial
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 19:39:53 -0000

Three counts - not guilty

The remaining counts - hung

Gag order for two weeks until next court date

Jim Simonson

***Back to top

******************

From: "Oppido, Michael, DA" <michael.oppido@acgov.org>
Subject: [openline] Rider's Trial
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 11:52:14 -0700

My sources say "not guilty on two or three counts, hung on the rest".

No further info at this point.

Michael Oppido 6994 ret

*****************

***Back to top

From: "Ron Oz" <RONOZAWAY@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: [openline] Riders verdict?
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 11:46:37 -0700

Just heard there is a partial verdict in Riders case but they will not divulge until noon. Surely someone close at hand will post results immediately... thanks, ronoz

[Whew, I just read latest Souza's latest post about the so-called Riders and Judge Henderson's comments regarding OPD.  Not to disappoint he who might wish to label me 5150 or those with fingers ready at the general apology key, I just can't sit still and take attacks on the OPD I knew so well without commenting.  Yes, I wrote longer than many of you can survive with your glaucoma, myopia and patience, but it is important... Souza's article follows...   ronoz]

With all due respect to Judge Henderson I would like to offer the following personal opinion:

1. The culture at the Oakland Police Department is not in any way negative or contrary to the best values upon which our nation was founded or the many years it has evolved to this very moment. It is sad that anyone with the robe of credibility should paint with a single broad brush our organizational culture any more than the African-American community or any other legitimate group should be so thus barrel-tainted.
2. It is indeed important to respect all our institutions of Justice, certainly our Department as an arm of the executive Branch, the Legislature that is solely responsible for enacting the laws, and the Judicial Branch that is entitled only to interpret the laws as they were intended and as matched eventually with the meanings of the Constitution as it was written.
3. Would it be fair to paint all Judges, especially in California , to belong to an extreme Liberal culture that despises police, God, and basic American values? Would it be fair to paint them as a culture that trammels on the peaceful citizens in favor of releasing criminals to terrorize them and make our streets as unsafe as Falluja? Would it be fair to paint Judges as a culture that is so self-aggrandized as to think they can run rough-shod and actually tell Legislators what laws they should have written and police how to do their jobs, displacing as irrelevant both all other Branches of Government? Of course not. not any more than to paint the proud, well meaning, greatly dedicated and devoted to duty, trained and educated, sacrificing, and hard working Officers of the Oakland Police Department.
4. A police officer follows the Law and Constitution and can never reach beyond his/her authority. A Police Officer cannot simply decide unilaterally that laws are to be interpreted and commanded as to methodology as he/see happens to wish they were written. Any Police Officer, just as any Judge, who overreaches authority should indeed be isolated, rebuked and if necessary removed from office. California voters have even had to do this. No, the Police respect the Constitution and they must appeal to the Legislature and Executive Branches to do what the Constitution provides is their responsibility when seeking changes. Many Police and Citizens wonder why the Courts, as an apparent culture, don't do so.
5. Our System of Justice expects that a good Police Officer knows when there isn't probable cause. That same system expects that a Court and a Jury know also when there isn't Clear and Convincing Evidence, known as a Reasonable Doubt, in a trial where about 100 days of jury deliberations cannot seem to reach a verdict. Any Oakland cop knows he can't hold someone for 100 days just on the basis of some preconceived notion that his suspect "is dirty."
6. There was a time when Police, Prosecutors, Defenders, Judges, all respected each other and worked together to pave a highway of justice. Now, it seems there are potholes everywhere and the vehicles of justice are giving our citizens a very rough and uncomfortable ride.
7. There are a few hundred Oakland citizens, some not very civil of apparently very questionable motive, reputation, and background, who seem to have become successful in grabbing the reins of jurisprudence to denigrate the entire Oakland Police Department. They have efforted themselves to lower OPD to a status lower than, forgive me, lawyers. Some are saying they are witnessing the paradox that has completely turned our Constitution around to offer peace, domestic tranquility, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the criminal element that has nothing but contempt for police, justice, or We The People.
8. The Oakland Police should have every reason to take comfort that if all 400,000 of Oakland's citizens were to vote their relative confidence in (a) Judges seated in Oakland casting stones at the entire Police Department, (b) those few complaining so vociferously that there is a negative and dangerous Police Culture, and (c) the efforts and motives of the entire Oakland Police Department (its culture).. That there would be a resounding pat on the back for the many years of faithful and excellent service the entire Oakland Police Department has provided its citizens.
9. This is not to say that Oakland Police cannot improve. Any champion team can improve. All OPD should stand proudly, withstand this gauntlet of unfair excoriation and castigation and denigration, and continue to do the best job possible.
10. It is no more fair to point to any particular basketball player, cop or even a Judge. and while regarding them as rogues, either fairly or unfairly, to paint their entire membership as a ".culture" deserving "..contempt." That is certainly not the way in which we can remain proud of ourselves, our institutions, or even our government. It is simply not American.
11. Judge Henderson is of course correct in stating that one or two people cannot change OPD's culture unilaterally (referring to Chief Tucker, any more than a Judge can do so. But in the same breath to say that OPD has had a 50 year history of resistance to change is incredible. OPD has readily adapted to the changes mandated by all three branches of government, and those changes have been many. It has even had to fortify itself and armored its members so as to do their jobs in the most violent and crime ridden environment seen in the past 50 years. Something indeed has not been working in the past 50 years, especially since the courts have usurped the conscience of our Nation's culture and the roles of the other branches of government. No, our OPD has worked hard to offer citizens whatever safety and relief form the escalating hazards to their peace and safety that have climbed out of control over the past 50 years. Perhaps, one might argue, change from the degree of safety our citizens felt 50 years ago under the watchful eye of dedicated Oakland Police Officers might not have been such a good thing.
12. None of this is to say that Judge Henderson does not have the best of motives, we simply don't know but we must presume he means well, or that Oakland Police Officers over that past 50 years have been a demon culture requiring change.

***Back to top

JUDGE PLEASED BY PROGRESS IN 'RIDERS' CASE BUT SAYS MORE WORK REMAINS
05/18/05 3:20 PDT
OAKLAND (BCN)

A federal judge said today that he's "delighted" and "heartened" by the progress the Oakland Police Department has made in complying with the terms of the settlement of the "Riders" police misconduct civil case.

But U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson, who is overseeing the case, which Oakland officials settled in February 2003 by agreeing to pay $11 million in damages to 119 plaintiffs, said "we shouldn't still be here two years after the settlement" and said many terms haven't been complied with yet.

The plaintiffs alleged that they were victims of evidence planting and beatings by four officers known as the "Riders" in the summer of 2000.

Henderson said, "I'm pleased we seem to have turned a corner in this case" and praised new Oakland Police Chief Wayne Tucker, who was appointed by Mayor Jerry Brown on Feb. 1, for his "commitment" in attempting to get the department to comply with the terms of the settlement.

But Henderson said, "One of two person alone can't change the culture at the Oakland Police Department," saying the department has a 50-year-old departure that's resistant to change.

"Chief Tucker's subordinates need to show the same level of commitment in complying with the settlement," Henderson said.

The judge also said he's prepared to hold contempt of court proceedings and impose monetary sanctions if the department doesn't fully comply with the settlement in the near future.

Tucker told Henderson that problem areas identified by an independent monitoring team in a recent report "are not acceptable" and pledged to fix them as soon as possible.

Tucker said the department is "fully committed" to being in substantial compliance with all of the terms of the settlement by the end of the year.

Henderson set a hearing for Aug. 31 for another progress report in the case.

In the meantime, jurors are continuing to deliberate in the re-trial of three of the Riders officers who face criminal charges that they beat and framed suspected drug dealers in West Oakland in the summer of 2000.

A fourth officer is a fugitive.

The three officers are standing trial a second time, as their first trial ended on Sept. 30, 2003, with jurors acquitting them on some charges and deadlocking on other charges.

Jurors in the second trial have been deliberating since April 5.

Jurors sent a note to Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner just before lunch today asking if they can consider evidence from time periods outside the time frame of the alleged conspiracy in the criminal case.

After a lunch break and a power outage that delayed deliberations briefly, Horner responded that jurors can indeed consider evidence from other time periods.

Jurors then resumed their deliberations.

***Back to top

******************

From: "Chris Rye" <ryetops@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [openline] Riders Jury
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 16:12:36 -0700

The jurors in the Riders trial have been given permission to "consider evidence from other time periods".

I hope that means the jury will be able to consider that much of the testimony is coming from a bunch of former and still active drug dealing witnesses.

Hopefully, the jury would then have a reasonable doubt of guilt based on such testimonial evidence.

Chris Rye

***Back to top

[May 10, 2005]

I have absolutely no knowledge of the facts of the so-called Riders case. Yet, something doesn't seem right at all. I thought I understood the meaning of the standard ".beyond a reasonable doubt." Nevertheless I looked it up again because I can't understand how five years of investigations, two trials, 56 days of jury deliberations after the first trial, and now 35 days of jury deliberations since they began last April 5 in this latest trial. That's 91 days!!!

Hello... Doesn't anyone think that this intricately prolonged series of trials and hopelessly confused and hesitating jury is simply self evident of reasonable doubt???? The only way they could possibly come out of this with a conviction would be to confess browbeating whichever of the jurors held out this long with honest reasonable doubt. If any of us were on the stand and asked a question, and stalled to think more than even a minute or so we would be skewered for our doubt. The jury, in the absence of reasonable doubt, should be able to decide guilt without such agonizingly prolonged hesitation.

OJ Simpson had a fair trial, didn't he? The evidence against him included hair, fiber, blood, DNA, glove, shoe, flight, confession (to Rosie Grier), etc.. and yet the Jury found IN LESS THAN FOUR HOURS that there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit him.

Twelve Nurenburg trials were completed in less time than these so-called Riders. The Civil War was fought in the same time period. Where is the perspective? When does a fair trial become unfair?

It is important to mention the derogatory and explicitly incriminating noun "Riders" that damns them in every news account. Not only that, every news account I've read mentions the Riders and the "one that got away by running to Mexico ." Forget the evidence, or insufficiency of it, or the (in)credibility of it, or lack of it, or the corruption of it. maybe hanging the three Riders that didn't get away to Mexico is enough.

-Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

-The standard of proof that must be met to prove a criminal case. If a jury has reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt, they must acquit that person.

-Proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs.

-Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest level of burden of persuasion typically employed in the criminal procedure. This level of burden of proof is typically used in criminal trials, where the jury is required to have no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

-A reasonable doubt exists when a factfinder cannot say with moral certainty that a person is guilty or a particular fact exists. It must be more than an imaginary doubt, and it is often defined judicially as such doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hesitate before acting in a matter of importance.

ronoz

***Back to top

********************************************

[May 10, 2005]

[Does anyone have a copy of this 569 page document?.... ronoz]

PARMA Conference Monday February 7, 2005 Session B-1. 2:00 pm - 3:30 pm Lessons Learned From The Oakland Riders Lawsuit

Mr. Gregory Fox, Bertrand, Fox & Elliot 2749 Hyde Street San Francisco , CA 94109 415 - 353 0999 gfox@bfesf.com

Claudia Leed, Burnham Brown 1901 Harrison Street Oakland, CA 94612 510 - 444 6800 cleed@burnhambrown.com

Greg Fox was the lead trial attorney representing the City of Oakland in this historic police corruption case. Claudia Leed was the Deputy City Attorney for the City of Oakland that coordinated the City's litigation strategy. We will review the key strategies executed to lower the City's liability and exposure to damages, fees and costs. We will also discuss the changes Oakland 's Police Department has implemented. Lessons Learned in the Oakland Riders Civil Litigation.

•  Overview of the Case.

•  Key Strategies to Manage the Case.

•  Controlling Attorneys Fees and Costs Before, During and After Litigation.

•  Handling Pending Discipline Against Defendant Officers.

•  Leveraging Litigation Strategies With The Assistance of the Court.

•  Development and Consensus Building Re: Department Reforms.

•  Dealing With Investigations By The State and Federal Justice Departments.

•  Pursuing Litigation Options Involving the Federal Government and Other Public Entities.

•  Settlement of Monetary Damages Claims.

***Back to top

********************************************

From: "Ron Oz" <RONOZAWAY@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: [openline] Riders...
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 08:24:04 -0700

In a better world, more just, more interested in fair play.... a Judge might at this stage of The Rider Trial stand and be counted more for principle and issue something like the following:

I have called the members of the jury, the defendants, and their counsel to issue the following statement:

I am declaring this a mistrial.

The American Justice System is based first of all on a sense of fair play. The foundation for that stipulates foremost that every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that bar is set high "...beyond a reasonable doubt."

I am compelled to conclude that any reasonable person would be at wits end to feel strongly that two separate trials, spanning in preparation and procedure about five years, and a current jury that has deliberated for a month, is well beyond prima facie the very definition of Reasonable Doubt.

I regret of course the lack of clear conclusion, both for the community which has relied upon us to judge the facts one way or another, and for the defendants who have been publicly quiet but tainted by innuendos.

There is certainly Reasonable Doubt, by any acceptable standard of measure, and thus you are free to go.

[ronoz]

ps... I wrote last a short note about the Riders and I lost it. Does anyone still have a copy in their email they can forward? I'd like to include it in the Rider thread on the OPD940.com website.

***Back to top

********************************************

Judge in police trial answers jury query

- Henry K. Lee
Friday, May 6, 2005

A person compelled to commit a crime isn't necessarily absolved from being an accomplice, a judge said Thursday in response to a question from the jury deliberating the fate of three former Oakland police officers accused of wrongdoing.

Whether someone is an accomplice depends upon jurors' interpretation of the evidence, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner told the panel. The question could refer to testimony by two rookie officers who said the defendants, who are being tried for a second time, pressured them to falsify reports.

Former officers Clarence "Chuck" Mabanag, 39, Jude Siapno, 36, and Matt Hornung, 33, stand accused of beating and framing suspected drug dealers in West Oakland and writing false reports in the summer of 2000. Alleged ringleader Frank Vazquez, 48, is a fugitive.

Jurors have been deliberating for nearly a month, but have twice started anew because Horner has dismissed two jurors.

The first trial ended in September 2003 when a jury acquitted the officers of eight charges and deadlocked on the remaining 27.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
file=/c/a/2005/05/06/BAEBDIGEST5.DTL
-----

***Back to top

***************************************

Article Last Updated: 5/06/2005 03:34 AM
'Riders' jury seeks advice from judge

By Glenn Chapman, STAFF WRITER
Inside Bay Area

OAKLAND -- Notes from the jury in the "Riders" retrial this week hint that the panel wonders how much it should trust former rookie Oakland cops who testified they were ordered to write bogus arrest reports.

Jurors asked Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner whether being compelled to take part in a crime "absolves" a person of being "an aider and abettor." Legal instructions given jurors before they began deliberating April 5 included forbidding them from relyingsolely on the testimony of an accomplice to convict someone.

The questions raise the specter of a juror refusing to convict fired officers Matthew Hornung, 33, Jude Siapno, 36, and Clarence "Chuck" Mabanag, 39, based on the stories of the one-time rookies at the heart of the prosecution's case.

Keith Batt, now a Pleasanton police officer, and Oakland Officer Steve Hewison each testified that they lied in arrest reports in 2000 under orders from Mabanag, a field training officer entrusted to mentor the recent graduates from the Oakland Police Academy.

"I don't think there is any evidence in this case that someone held a gun to Keith Batt's head and told him, 'Falsify this report,'" defense attorney Ed Fishman argued while rival lawyers spent hours
parsing words and the law with Horner to craft answers for the jury.

***Back to top

***
Cop under pressure

Prosecutor Ben Beltramo said Batt was under pressure akin to "a boss telling an employee to commit a crime."

In a reply to jurors Thursday, Horner explained that being compelled to commit a crime didn't absolve someone of being an abettor but that they could consider it while deciding how much weight to give the testimony.

Mabanag, Siapno and Hornung are on trial for charges stemming from accusations they were part of a cadre of rogue cops called the Riders and doctored police reports to justify unfounded arrests of suspected drug dealers and hide brutal methods. Defense lawyers maintain the former officers were devotedly fighting street crime with the sanction of department superiors.

***
Two jurors replaced

Horner has replaced two jurors with alternates during deliberations, prompting the panel to start anew each time. The judge issued a gag order for all involved with the case and has kept most jury notes and discussions about them confidential.

The first Riders trial spanned more than a year. Deliberations lasted 56 days and ended in September 2003 with jurors acquitting the accused men of eight charges and deadlocked on the remaining counts.

***Back to top

*********************************

From: Daveymc29@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 23:56:44 EDT

"A fourth officer, Frank Vasquez, also has been charged in the case but he fled the country to avoid prosecution" We often see this statement mad in conjunction with a comment on the "Riders." And it always comes across as if it is a known and proven fact. Some even say he fled to Mexico . Now isn't it just possible that there is another reason he's not here, being crucified with the rest? Maybe he committed suicide, died, fled and abusive relationship? Maybe he's living in Oakland under an assumed name, having had a sex change and is even now into some legal employment. Can the only reason he's not here be he fled to avoid prosecution? Doesn't that make him guilty before we've even talked to him? Seems a tad on the unfair side to me, yet no one ever seems to question the one making these statements.  

Could it be racism? How many of the "Riders" are lily whites? Hummm...

Later

Dave Mc Arthur

*********************************

Can we take a breath here? How about some perspective? Does it seem to anyone else that this-called Rider Trail has become intense beyond reason? Is it really an effort to carve red meat to throw to the Politically Correct crowd? Is it a mob lynching by prosecutorial vigilantes? I don't know.

37 separate charges? The longest trial in California history? A second trial pursued as if by a pack of foaming Rottweilers going for their hides while lockjaw Pit Bulls clamp on their genitals. 5 Years of insinuations in the public forum where none of the accused can tell their own story, where none can defend themselves. Is this America 's sense of fair play? We've seen cop killers treated better, and even benignly. We've seen child molesters returned to the community, themselves unmolested.

Yes, there are a few bad cops working today. There were more working yesterday. But, does it seem that this is a relentless pursuit to indict these men as icons of all police in general?

It is apparent that a confused and obviously hung jury, hung in the first trial and hung in a month of deliberations in this trial, simply will not satisfy the snarls of political discontent. Where is the benefit of reasonable doubt?

When OJ Simpson was acquitted we bit our lips and went on... There is no parallel here anywhere.

ronoz

***Back to top

***************************************

Ronoz

Coincidentally, I met three of the so-called Riders at OPOA this morning. I know nothing about the case, except that I understand they are in their third week of deliberations.

My first impression, was one of complete empathy. In that feeling I could share the fraught that weighed down these strong guys. Meeting these tall, youthful, young, stout men was as if stepping into an OPD recruiting poster. What have they done? What is reported and attributed so scornfully of these men? I have no idea.

I thought of the ancient Greek Sysiphus, the strong king who offended Zeus and was tormented with a lifetime of rolling a large rock up a steep hill, watching it roll back down to the bottom, and doomed to repeat the process over and over again.

We indeed live in an absurd world where we prosecute symbols for indiscretions we feel offend us. Our own President is prosecuted daily and there are those who would easily punish him without mercy just for doing his job.

Camus wrote his Myth of Sysiphus with the Riders in mind. "The absurd is not in man nor in the world, but in their presence together...it is the only bond uniting them."

He wrote of the absurd mind, absurd work, absurd man, absurd reasoning, absurd world, absurd thought, and we have all felt this to be true in our line of work. We are the keepers.

Every cop, each of us, is prosecuted as racist, sexist, brutal, insensitive, homophobic, and stereotypically barbarous and callous by someone.

As Camus narrated this metaphor of the carnival in which we live he turned it around and gave strength to Sysiphus, and actually gave him victory in the circumstances which befell him.

By the mere use of the label "Riders," which is the most common reference, our guys have been symbolically pasted on the targets of political correctness with as little feeling for them as a black silhouette. It is my inclination that these young men are not on trial, but rather the perception of what they stand for in the absurd minds of their prosecutors is what they seem so desperate to crucify.

If anyone has been keeping a log of trial events from the beginning I would cherish the thought of reading them. Something just doesn't smell right.

ronoz

***Back to top

*************************************

Sam, sadly, you couldn't be more right. After spending 3 days watching this "trial" back in January, I was astonished at the "perceived bias" of the Court.

It was inconceivable to me that any un-biased observer in the court room couldthink that Judge Horner was anything but a "railroad engineer" on a very fastmoving train, as he routinely and persistently denied defense objections, andotherwise appeared very, very bored. "Perhaps" not so, but perception is everything!

It made me sad............not only for the defendants, but for a once fine judicial system we all served.
jchargin
opd '67-97

Sam,

"Just a few thoughts" from you are very insightful. Good to know
someone is paying attention.

Completely biased ,
Tai Peña
(A.k.a. Mrs. Matthew Hornung )

***Back to top

Sam,
Well said, & just wait til the "finger in the chili" case comes up and costs CA taxpayers a million or two.( dont u feel proud when u pay those CA taxes, bet it gives most a warm, fuzzy) jim c

Samuel Maddux <sammaddux@earthlink.net> wrote:

Wow, talk about the look of impropriety. Ex-DA and Superior Court Judge
Horner by his constant actions in this case would make many suspect a
conspiracy between the Judge and the DA'S Office.

I certainly don't have an axe to grind nor do I condone improper and illegal acts by our Police Officers. However, I believe they deserve the same considerations and protections that are afforded the average murderer and drug dealer in Alameda County Courts.

Through the years I have had the highest of respect for the Alameda County DA 's Office and consider most of the Attorney's there to be among the best in the Nation.

This case and the Nazi like actions of Judge Horner, from my perspective, have put the Alameda County Judicial System in line for an outside judicial review.

From the start it has appeared that Judge Horner has handled the Defense with complete bias. Every article I have read makes it appear that he has treated the defense team as criminals.

Now, it appears that he is whittling down the jury to ensure that any juror that supports the defendants is removed post haste.

Not only has the DA's office bowed to pressure from the media and certain outspoken public to recharge this case but they have taken on this case with zealousness never before seen in Alameda County court rooms.

I can only think that if they had channeled this aggressiveness into
numerous other prosecutions Oakland might be a half decent place to live.

One thing is pretty sure by what has transpired thus far is that if the
defendants are convicted there should be numerous reasons to throw out the verdict.........IF it gets proper judicial review.

I for one have lost faith that the California Judicial System is capable of rendering a proper trial.

Just a few thoughts
Sam Maddux

***Back to top

If I were one of the defense attorneys I would view this as good for the   defense . If nothing more, it gives an avenue for appeal.

Joe Thomas/6733

In a message dated 4/22/2005 8:21:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
Nodui@earthlink.net writes:


After a morning of hearings in his chambers with rival attorneys,  the
accused men and two of the 12 jurors, Alameda County Superior Court 
Judge Jeffrey Horner dismissed Richard Callen from the  panel.

Callen , 53, bade farewell to the bailiff and then strode from   the
courtroom with an air of frustration. Indications during jury   selection
and deliberations, which began April 5, were that Callen sided  with
lawyers defending former Oakland police Officers Matthew Hornung , 
Clarence "Chuck" Mabanag and Jude Siapno .

***Back to top

UPDATE: JUDGE IN 'RIDERS' CASE IMPOSES WALL OF SECRECY
>
> 04/21/05 10:15 PDT
>
> OAKLAND (BCN)
>
> The judge in the trial of three former Oakland police officers
accused of criminal wrongdoing took extraordinary measures today to
maintain a wall of secrecy in the closely-watched case.
>
> Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner, who issued a
gag order in the case last June without explaining why, today held
secret hearings in his chambers, ordered a juror who was booted from the case not to talk to reporters and refused to give lawyers in the case transcripts of his secret hearings.
>
> Former officers Clarence "Chuck" Mabanag , 39, Jude Siapno , 36, and
Matt Hornung , 33, who were nicknamed "The Riders" by community members
who objected to their reportedly aggressive tactics, are accused of
beating and framing suspected drug dealers in west Oakland in the summer of 2000.
>
> The former officers are standing trial a second time. Jurors began
> deliberating April 5 and their deliberations have spanned 13 days.
>
> After Horner held hearings in his chambers Wednesday and today with
the attorneys, the defendants and a court reporters present but the
press and public barred, the judge today dismissed a 53-year-old man from the jury panel. Horner didn't disclose his reason for tossing out the man.
>
> The man was the second juror dismissed in the last week, as last
Friday Horner dismissed a 74-year-old woman who said she didn't have the energy to continue deliberating.
>
> In the hallway outside Horner's courtroom, the male juror said
Horner asked him not to talk to reporters even though he's no longer
involved in the case.
>
> "I'm not supposed to say anything," the juror said.
>
> The juror, who appeared to be unhappy about being dismissed, made a
> cryptic reference about having "kept my eyes open" during the trial
and jury deliberations.
>
> After jurors went home at the end of the day today, Horner denied a
> request by Hornung's lawyer, Ed Fishman, to have a transcript of
the last two days of closed hearings in Horner's chambers.
>
> "I've ordered the transcripts of Wednesday and Thursday sealed,"
Horner said.
>
> When Fishman politely asked, "May I inquire about your reasons?"
Horner gruffly said no.
>
> When Horner issued his gag order in the case last June 28, Peter
Scheer , the executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, a San Rafael-based group that tries to protect the public's right to know, said the order "sounds premature and overly broad."
>
> David Greene, executive director and staff counsel of the Oakland-
based First Amendment Project, said Horner may have acted improperly
because he didn't cite any justification for the gag order.
>
> The first "Riders" trial in 2002 and 2003 was one of the longest
> criminal trials in California history, with jury deliberations
alone lasting 56 days.
>
> The trial finally ended on Sept. 30, 2003, with jurors acquitting
the former officers of eight charges and deadlocking on the remaining
27 counts.
>
> In an effort to streamline the second trial, the Alameda County
district attorney's office filed a revised criminal complaint last year with fewer counts, 15.
>
> The alleged offenses are conspiracy to obstruct justice, filing
false police reports, assault and battery, kidnapping and false
imprisonment.
>
> A fourth officer, Frank Vasquez, also has been charged in the case
but he fled the country to avoid prosecution.
>
> The second trial began Nov. 1 and testimony took just over four
months, which is longer than most trials but was considerably shorter than the eight months of testimony in the officers' first trial.
>
> The male juror who was dismissed today was replaced by a female
> alternate. There are now seven women and five men on the panel.
>
> There are still three alternates left in the case.
>
> Jurors will resume their deliberations on Monday.

***Back to top

Second Juror Dismissed During Riders Trial Deliberations in East Bay
Source: kcbs
Publication date: 2005-04-21


(KCBS) - The judge in the 'Riders' trial in Alameda County has dismissed a second juror.

The court did not release the reasons why the 53 year old man was
dismissed, but each juror was questioned secretly before the decision
was made.

On Friday, a 74 year old woman was dismissed from the jury, after she
said she did not have the energy to continue deliberating.

Jurors have been in deliberations since April 5th.

Three former Oakland police officers are accused of beating and framing
suspected drug dealers in West Oakland in the summer of 2000. This is
the second trial in the case. The first ended in a mistrial.

***Back to top

OAKLAND - A juror switch on the eighth full day of deliberations in the "Riders" retrial means the panel must start again in deciding whether three fired Oakland cops framed and abused suspected drug dealers in West Oakland in 2000.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner excused a 74-year-old woman Friday after she told him she didn't have the energy to continue deliberating the fates of Matthew Hornung , Jude Siapno and Clarence "Chuck" Mabanag .

The woman had expressed reluctance to be on the jury during selection and spent much of the trial staring toward the floor or the wood grain of the witness box.

The juror was replaced with a younger woman who was among the alternates who listened to evidence presented at trial since opening remarks in November.

Jury deliberations began at approximately 2:20 p.m. April 5. The first of what became a stream of notes to the judge came from the jury room within minutes.

The contents of most of the notes have been kept confidential, with Horner meeting repeatedly in his chambers with defense lawyers and prosecutors Terry Wiley and   Ben Beltramo .

Earlier this week, Horner summoned jurors to his courtroom and told them their duty was to reach fair verdicts in the case. Horner went on to suggest jurors try letting different people lead debates or dabble with arguing an opposing point of view to improve the chances of coming to agreements.

There are a total of 15 criminal charges at issue in the case against Siapno , 36, Mabanag , 39, and Hornung , 33. Jurors must unanimously agree on any verdict. Intractable deadlocks would force Horner to declare mistrials on those charges.

***Back to top

Back to Sidetopics