Parking-Ticket Justice Served
The US takes great pride in a process that places two aggressive individuals in an oral contest. Each side makes claims, while trying to undermine the claims of the opponent. Then, spectators watching this contest vote to determine the winner. At the very end, an outcome is announced that usually has little or no relationship to the will of the spectators. In US politics, this process is called a "fair election". In US law, it is called a "fair trial".
Today we were shown what "fair trial" means when police are on trial for torture: brutally beating a 59-year-old man to obtain information from him (a driver's license).
In April 2005, the trial of Asian-American Palo Alto police thugs (as the prosecutor called them) Michael Kan and Craig Lee, charged with felony assault and misdemeanor battery for the July 2003 beating and pepper-spraying of African-American Albert Hopkins, ended with jurors split: eight voting for conviction, and four for acquittal. Today the thugs were allowed to plead no contest to disturbing the peace by unlawful fighting - an infraction. While the original felony charges carried a jail term of up to three years and would have banned them from police duty in California, maximum punishment for the infraction is not more than 90 days in jail, or a fine of not more than $400, or both. But they didn't even get that - they were allowed to walk free with no jail time and a $250 fine - free to return to police duty and continue beatings as usual.
According to the Chronicle, the Santa Clara County prosecutor Peter Waite claimed that this sent a strong message that police misconduct would not be tolerated. "I think that justice was served," Waite boasted.
One wonders if the eight jurors that voted to convict would agree. After they were held, virtually unpaid, for weeks and forced to sit through arguments that were often arcane, tedious, and mind-numbing - and then asked to analyze what they heard - they now must accept an outcome that rejects their will, and enforces the will of the dissenting minority. One wonders if the police that were willing to break with the tradition of silently protecting brutal police, and risked being ostracized by their department, in order to uphold the Constitutional and human right to freedom from unlawful seizure, would agree that justice was served. One wonders if county taxpayers would agree that justice was served by a very long and expensive mock trial, to convict police of the equivalent of a parking ticket. One need not wonder if Albert Hopkins would agree.
The DA defended the plea by pointing to the two successive hung juries in the Oakland Police "Riders" case. There are some obvious problems with this defense:
- It explains why the prosecution wanted a deal rather than retrial. It does not explain why the deal is in total opposition to the will of the jurors that were in the majority, by a 2-to-1 margin.
- In both the Oakland case and Palo Alto case, police were on trial for brutality. The similarity ends there.
In the Oakland case, jurors had to judge multiple incidents of brutality against persons who were often accused of crimes or had criminal records that the police attorneys could use to discredit them. The police on trial were veterans whose brutality was revealed by one rookie. That helped the defense argue that the rookie was really just a washout fabricating a story to cover his failure.
In the Palo Alto case, jurors judged a single incident of brutality against a person not accused of any crime, with no criminal record to be heard in the case. The police on trial were rookies whose crime was revealed by 4 veterans, each with over 15 years on the force. The police attorneys struggled in vain to defend a case that was essentially a no-brainer against their clients. - The DA is setting an absurd policy, that has no logical basis: an unrelated trial in another county ended in two mistrials, therefore no police brutality case in this county will be tried more than once. How does this serve justice?
Meanwhile, the attorneys for the thugs found no need for any pretense of "justice": they were too busy gleefully rubbing the public's face in the farce. According to a Mercury News report, they correctly called the infraction "somewhat less serious than a carpool violation".
Others were less amused.
Attorney Joe Hopkins (Albert's brother) pointedly observed, "They might as well give them a vacation to Hawaii".
The Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA), a San Jose-based group advocating for justice and for changes in police practices, responded immediately with a press release. CJA member, Richard Konda stated, "The decision by the District Attorney to settle the case for an infraction is an outrage. The message of this decision is that there are two types of justice, one for the police and one for the everyday person. If Kan and Lee had not been police officers, surely the District Attorney would have retried the case and would not have plea-bargained the felony charges down to an infraction. Equal justice was not present in the courtroom today".
According to the press release, CJA plans to hold public officials accountable for their actions: "CJA intends to send a letter of protest to the District Attorney and to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors regarding this travesty of justice".
Whether it's called a "fair trial" or a "fair election", it is clear that the process fails to serve the true needs of the public. It does, however, serve the needs of the elite by distracting people in fruitless exercises, in the hope that the public will never awaken to the reality that true power lies with us - not the elite.
> Police thugs" (my emphasis) or did he/she just call them
> thugs, and it was the author of the article who told us
> these were Asian-Amereicans?
Sorry - that's my error. I should have put quotes around "thugs". The prosecutor only said thugs. I added the ethnic info.
> Probably 8 out 10 times if they were European-American,
> the cops ethnicity would not be mentioned at all. You
> just don't see or hear the wrods "European-American
> police officer" a lot. Is it because european-americasns
> are supposed to be the only real americans, while asian
> americans are just not really americans therefore they
> deserve an adjectival description.
I agree completely with your observation. In fact, if you look at the other stories I've posted on this case, you'll find I do describe other police as "European-American" - precisely to avoid the inference you pose.
To be honest, it felt odd writing "European-American" because I'm not used to seeing it. But ethnicity was a major theme of this trial, so no honest report of it could not mention it. And using simple colors, such as "white" and "black", is not rich enough to capture the diversity of human ethnicity.
Thanks for pointing out the error.
had not used all of his alloted time for closing so he finished his closing after
Craig Brown and Harry Stern finished. Peter Waite then responded to Brown and Stern saying he was sorry Brown and Stern were right Kan and Lee are
not thugs, they are worse, they are cop thugs.
In my opinion the DAs in the DAs office are thugs. The DA is supposed to represent the people. It is very clear what people the DA really represents - the paid thugs, paid assassins, paid bullys.
True, But Hornung looks pretty "pink" - does that count?
Just remembered that the cases have one other very significant common factor: the police in both cases were represented by the same law firms.
Oakland -
Clarence "Chuck" Mabanag: attorney Mike Rains, of Rains, Lucia & Wilkinson
Jude Siapno: attorney Bill Rapoport
Matthew Hornung: attorney Ed Fishman
Francisco "Frank" Vazquez (fled to avoid prosecution): attorney Craig Brown
Palo Alto -
Craig Lee: attorney Craig Brown
Michael Kan: attorney Harold Stern, of Rains, Lucia & Wilkinson
So the Santa Clara County DA is essentially telling the public that the police union's attorneys RULE - resistance is futile.
> In this case the 415 was not charged as a misdemeanor but, rather, as you
> pointed out in your piece, as an infraction. As such, it must be read in
> conjunction with penal code section 19.6 (defining certain infractions and
> related sentencing provisions etc.), where it indicates that a 415 charged as
> an infraction is not punishable with any jail time. Thus, your reference to a > maximum of 90 days in jail for the plea in this case, to a 415, as an
> infraction, is inaccurate.
>
> In addition, if you read Penal Code & 19.8 in relevant part it states: "Except
> where a lesser maximum fine is expressly provided for a violation of any of
> those sections, any violation which is an infraction is punishable by a fine
> not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250) (emphasis added). So, in
> fact, given the plea bargain, the judge did sentence these two thugs to the
> maximum allowed under the applicable provisions, a $250.00 fine.
Sorry for the error.
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.