Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Alternate view of Oakland Police Dept. "Riders" prosecutions by DA Tom Orloff
An explanation, with legal citations, for the inherent conflict of interest Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff has in prosecuting the Oakland "Riders" renegade cops
Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff has been soundly criticized for losing the first "Riders" trial, and now has decided to retry the three accused officers, on those charges for which the jury was hung in the first trial.
Various community groups, particularly churchs with primarily African American congregations, have pressured Orloff for the retrial, but have not questioned his ability to be objective, or any potential conflicts of interest Orloff has in prosecuting the case.
Rather than looking to Orloff to do it over again, the critics would be better off asking him to recuse himself, and hand the case over to the Attorney General, or Federal prosecutors. Here's why:
The City of Oakland has already paid 117 litigants, who claimed abuses by the OPD, a $10.5M settlement. Of those 117, many had already been successfully prosecuted by Orloff's office, but have had their convictions reveresed. The settlement appears to be a payoff to prevent the circumstances of their cases from being brought to light.
The actions of Mr. Orloff, and his subordinates, should be investigated by some outside party. How did the DA's office wrongfully prosecute over 100 people? Did the attorneys in the office always believe the Riders phony testimony, or did they suspect it was perjured, but pretend to believe it because it was just easier?
An outside investigation is necessary to determine what went wrong, and what internal controls have been put in place, if any, to ensure bad cops will not automtically be "believed" in the future.
As for Orloff prosecuting the "Riders" he has chosen to only prosecute crimes which allegedly took place while his ex-rookie cop, star witness, rode with them for less than two weeks.
The City of Oakland felt the 117 claims of OTHER wrongdoing by the OPD was worth $10.5M, but Orloff is not even looking at those claims, because his own office might be found very badly deficient, or even criminal, if all the facts came to light in those cases.
It's time for another prosecutor to take a complete look into why the other cases were prosecuted at all, and Orloff to recuse himself from this case.
Various community groups, particularly churchs with primarily African American congregations, have pressured Orloff for the retrial, but have not questioned his ability to be objective, or any potential conflicts of interest Orloff has in prosecuting the case.
Rather than looking to Orloff to do it over again, the critics would be better off asking him to recuse himself, and hand the case over to the Attorney General, or Federal prosecutors. Here's why:
The City of Oakland has already paid 117 litigants, who claimed abuses by the OPD, a $10.5M settlement. Of those 117, many had already been successfully prosecuted by Orloff's office, but have had their convictions reveresed. The settlement appears to be a payoff to prevent the circumstances of their cases from being brought to light.
The actions of Mr. Orloff, and his subordinates, should be investigated by some outside party. How did the DA's office wrongfully prosecute over 100 people? Did the attorneys in the office always believe the Riders phony testimony, or did they suspect it was perjured, but pretend to believe it because it was just easier?
An outside investigation is necessary to determine what went wrong, and what internal controls have been put in place, if any, to ensure bad cops will not automtically be "believed" in the future.
As for Orloff prosecuting the "Riders" he has chosen to only prosecute crimes which allegedly took place while his ex-rookie cop, star witness, rode with them for less than two weeks.
The City of Oakland felt the 117 claims of OTHER wrongdoing by the OPD was worth $10.5M, but Orloff is not even looking at those claims, because his own office might be found very badly deficient, or even criminal, if all the facts came to light in those cases.
It's time for another prosecutor to take a complete look into why the other cases were prosecuted at all, and Orloff to recuse himself from this case.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
My article from three years back suggested the California Attorney General should look at the Riders case.
Since then, another case came up which did not in any way reflect badly on Orloff, in my opinion, but did possibly reflect badly on his agency, as it was run long before he took over.
That was the Fred Freeman case, where a convicted murderer appealed his death sentence on the grounds Jews were kept off his jury, because the prosecutor believed they were less likely to give a death sentence.
What made that case special was the fact that the prosecutor, an Alameda County colleage of Tom Orloff's, who had locked horns iwht Orloff in the past, had admitted his own past misconduct. He said he kept jews off the jury with preemptory challenges, but the judge assigned to hear the matter claimed not to believe him, even though one of the witnesses in the case was yet another Alameda County prosecutor, who testified he had heard the guy recommend, quite publicly, keeping jews off death penalty juries.
In other words, another instance where the systen was not called to account. You can use search engines on "John Quatman" and "Orloff" to find the case
Many Attorney General's will not investigate abuses by DAs or police, becuase they want the endorsements of those folks in their next election campaign, but Bill Lockyer has special reason to let TOm Orloff slide.
Bill Lockyer was an old timer from Alameda County, State Senator from Hayward, on the judiciary committee, whose daughter Lias was hired by Orloff as a DDA right out of law school.
More recently, Lockyer's young wife, Nadia Lockyer, has been hired by Orloff, as Executive Director of the Family Justice Center in Oakland
There is no reason to think either of them is not qualfied for the position, but were they the best candidates for the job? No way of knowing. In the case of Nadia Lockyer, she's a Social Activist/ Politician/ Laywer, but the original job description wanted a social worker MSW type.
Anyway, I stand by the previous post about Orloff having an inherent conflict of interest in wanting to handle the prosecution in such a way as to minimize his own agencies fault in finding so many innocent people guilty, and I stand by the claim that he proved this conflict by greatly limiting the charges.
This should have been taken over by a prosecutor's office with nothing to hide, but Bill Lockyer would not do that to his kid's benefactor.
Since then, another case came up which did not in any way reflect badly on Orloff, in my opinion, but did possibly reflect badly on his agency, as it was run long before he took over.
That was the Fred Freeman case, where a convicted murderer appealed his death sentence on the grounds Jews were kept off his jury, because the prosecutor believed they were less likely to give a death sentence.
What made that case special was the fact that the prosecutor, an Alameda County colleage of Tom Orloff's, who had locked horns iwht Orloff in the past, had admitted his own past misconduct. He said he kept jews off the jury with preemptory challenges, but the judge assigned to hear the matter claimed not to believe him, even though one of the witnesses in the case was yet another Alameda County prosecutor, who testified he had heard the guy recommend, quite publicly, keeping jews off death penalty juries.
In other words, another instance where the systen was not called to account. You can use search engines on "John Quatman" and "Orloff" to find the case
Many Attorney General's will not investigate abuses by DAs or police, becuase they want the endorsements of those folks in their next election campaign, but Bill Lockyer has special reason to let TOm Orloff slide.
Bill Lockyer was an old timer from Alameda County, State Senator from Hayward, on the judiciary committee, whose daughter Lias was hired by Orloff as a DDA right out of law school.
More recently, Lockyer's young wife, Nadia Lockyer, has been hired by Orloff, as Executive Director of the Family Justice Center in Oakland
There is no reason to think either of them is not qualfied for the position, but were they the best candidates for the job? No way of knowing. In the case of Nadia Lockyer, she's a Social Activist/ Politician/ Laywer, but the original job description wanted a social worker MSW type.
Anyway, I stand by the previous post about Orloff having an inherent conflict of interest in wanting to handle the prosecution in such a way as to minimize his own agencies fault in finding so many innocent people guilty, and I stand by the claim that he proved this conflict by greatly limiting the charges.
This should have been taken over by a prosecutor's office with nothing to hide, but Bill Lockyer would not do that to his kid's benefactor.
For more information:
http://www.alamedacountyda.com/Nepotism.html
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$200.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network