Split Police, Split Jury - and the Police State Marches On

by Junya
April 20 2005

The trial of Asian-American Palo Alto police officers Michael Kan and Craig Lee, charged with felony assault and misdemeanor battery for beating and pepper-spraying 60-year-old African-American Albert Hopkins on July 13, 2003, ended this week with the judge declaring a mistrial. The jury was deadlocked in a split, with the majority voting to convict.

Eight jurors voted guilty, as they were convinced the police had no legal basis for detaining Mr. Hopkins and demanding his identification, while four jurors voted innocent, insisting that the officers’ safety was threatened. Two of the eight jurors reported that the four voting innocent were the four Asian-American jurors. But even those two were split, with one claiming the vote of the four was driven by race, while the other dismissed that claim.

So the defense attorneys, the police union and the police chief have achieved a partial victory in their attempt to steer jurors away from the obvious with a whirlwind of lies, innuendo and irrelevant trivialities. Nevertheless, Palo Alto public officials have been served notice.

By a 2-1 margin, the jury ruled as illegal the actions that Police Chief Lynne Johnson claimed resulted from her policy. Chief Johnson and the rogues she defends are not above the law.

This is a case that has significance beyond Palo Alto or Santa Clara County. LAPD beating Rodney King and Inglewood police beating Donovan Jackson received national attention because they were caught on video. Videos of white cops brutalizing Blacks are becoming so common that they will soon need their own cable channel.

But the beating of Albert Hopkins was not on video – and therefore has received much less attention. Ironically, this is precisely what makes the case significant. The story broke, not from the media playing a video, but because some members of the police department shattered the so-called “code of silence” by blowing the whistle on their own.

The police union and police chief rushed to stand united in defending PAPD’s image, with the department rebutting the criminal investigation with its own version of the beating in an internal investigation. Chief Lynne Johnson assigned Lt. Dennis Burns and Sgt. Lacy Burt the job of showing that the beating violated no policy or rules.

The tandem investigations not only wasted tax dollars, but resulted in Johnson defending the arrested police – and attacking their supervisors, the District Attorney’s office, the courts and public opinion. In September 2004, when the judge at the preliminary hearing sent the case to trial, Johnson asserted: “I am extremely disappointed ... All the information I have leads me to believe they should not have been held to answer.” But four months later Johnson implicitly admitted she blew it, promising that in the future she’ll rely on outside investigators to conduct a criminal probe and wait until the allegations are resolved before launching an internal investigation.

Defense attorneys desperately looked to Burns to lend credibility to their contention that Kan and Lee had sufficient reason to approach, detain and arrest Mr. Hopkins for sitting in a parked car. Kan and Lee would not take the stand themselves, thus failing the challenge that police routinely issue us on the street: “If you have nothing to hide, then you won’t mind answering a few questions.”

But Burns’ lack of expertise, stony demeanor and terse, cryptic responses made his testimony far from compelling. His inconsistent testimony didn’t help. Soon Burns was grimacing, squinting, rolling his tongue in his mouth, with his head defiantly cocked to one side. If Burns, as an investigator, saw someone responding to questioning the way he himself was now responding, he’d undoubtedly suspect that person was guilty of criminal activity.

But the jurors heard Burns’ questionable version of events challenged when PAPD Sgt. Cornelius Maloney, the main whistle-blower, returned to the stand. He was cool and collected in steadfastly maintaining that Kan and Lee did not have reasonable suspicion to detain Albert Hopkins and therefore used force illegally.

He rejected the defense claim that a person who fails to produce identification, after admitting having it, is guilty of obstructing an officer. But the defense did slightly break his composure with one question: “Do you think Sgt. Burt is a liar?” His reply brought the courtroom to full attention: “No comment. Do I have to answer that?” Maloney asked the judge. Maloney explained that he hadn’t read their original documents, then answered: “I have some concerns about things I’ve heard.” His testimony left little doubt that here was a person with integrity in a profession that sorely lacks it.

The final testimony heard by the jurors was that of Joe Callanan, expert for the prosecution on police use of force tactics. Callanan was a member of several professional committees responsible for setting statewide use of force standards.

Although the majority of his work is for attorneys representing police, there were two significant exceptions. He testified for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office during grand jury proceedings against the LAPD in the Rodney King beating case and helped to get those police indicted. He also testified against Inglewood police in the Donovan Jackson case.

Callanan revealed the standards expected of police when dealing with difficult people: “Better to talk for 15 minutes than to fight for five.” He scoffed at the claim that it’s suspicious to sit in a parked car at 10:30 p.m. after businesses close: “The Constitution – the rules of engagement – are open 24 hours a day; they don’t close down at 10:30 p.m.”

Burns testified that PAPD policy comes from Chief Johnson. Johnson has given notice to the public: it is PAPD policy to deny the basic human right of freedom from torture and arbitrary arrest and detention. It is accepted in our system of law that the planners of crime ("masterminds") or leaders of criminal elements are equally responsible as those actually committing the criminal act. That's why Charles Manson has been in prison over 35 years for murders he was not even present at. So isn't it time for Kan and Lee's Chief to be charged as ringleader and mastermind of the criminal clique of bandits robbing our right to live free from violent government persecution?

Email Junya at junya@headcity.com.
Read “Not Above the Law” at http://www.headcity.com/AmericanDream/index.php?topic=busted.