Chill Wind Over Witnesses is a good editorial in the Los Angeles Times on the inappropriate treatment of Mitchell Crooks, the tourist-videographer of the teen beaten by the LA Cops last week.

Quote: " From the way Steve Cooley's G-men treated him, you might think that Mitchell Crooks was a drug kingpin or Mafia don rather than an unemployed party disc jockey with some lapses in his past. The district attorney's decision last week to deploy a squad of agents--which cuffed him with TV news cameras rolling and carted him away on years-old warrants--looks too much like intimidation of future witnesses in police brutality cases."

Talk about a story with legs. The L.A. police beating of teen Donovan Jackson and the arrest of videotaper Mitchell Crooks is it this week.

Saturday, as the mayor of Inglewood pleaded for calm, Congresswoman Maxine Waters took to the streets and television cameras in LA to raise money for Crooks' legal defense in Placer, California, the town he was flown to after his arrest, grand jury appearance, alleged roughing up by investigators for the D.A.'s office, L.A. jailing and extradition. What a week he had!

Waters is making sure Crooks gets his due as a hero. Her comments, as reported in the LA Times:

"We will go to Placer .... We will stand with him. We will help to pay his lawyers. We will support his bail. We will do whatever is necessary to say to citizens, when you come forward, when you are willing to stand up, when you see abuse by the police department or anybody else, we are gonna honor you."

"We don't care what he's been accused of ....Those are minor offenses, we have learned, and we are going to help him out."

The community is already planning a celebration for Crooks when he gets out of jail. According to Ms. Waters,

"We are going to ask the mayor to block off a whole block. And we are going to invite the entire community. We are going to have the biggest welcome party you have ever seen."

We are glad that Crooks will not be forgotten by the Inglewood community. But what we really want to see is the mayor come through on his call for the installation of videocameras in patrol cars.

Videotaping is clearly the most recommended remedy to police misconduct.

Videotaping leads to real improvements in police interrogation practices that protect the rights of suspects. Officers now know that everything they do in the interrogation room could be viewed one day in a courtroom.

Videotaping interrogations and arrests is good for the police too. It protects them against baseless claims of coercing a confession or violating a suspect's constitutional rights. Frivolous claims by suspects will diminish once they know that judges and jurors can see the interview and decide for themselves whether detectives intimidated the suspect.

Police and prosecutors have little to fear from a requirement to videotape all interrogations and traffic stops. It's a win-win situation. Videotaping can protect the innocent, help convict the guilty and uphold the public's faith in our criminal justice system.

This morning's LA Times reports that Donovan Jackson, the teen in the beating video, was hit twice by Officer Jeremy Morse's partner before he was even arrested.

Dozens of protesters in gathered in LA yesterday to demand Officer Morse be criminally charged for his misconduct. ``No justice, no peace, no racist police,'' the protesters chanted.

Jackson's attorney denies the version of the incident police put in their report. He claims that all four Inglewood officers "took turns" beating Jackson before the tape rolled.

In another twist to the case, as the cops were driving away from CNN with newly arrested Mitchell Crooks (the bystander/videotaper) in the car, Crooks was heard screaming, "Help, Me, Help Me."

Crooks was taken to the grand jury and then supposed to go to jail for his outstanding warrants. They had to take a detour to the jail. To the hospital. Seems there was a new altercation at or after Crook's grand jury appearance.

Crooks was taken to the jail ward at the LA County -USC hospital for "a sprained shoulder, a cut finger, numbness in his hands and bruises." Crooks' lawyer says Crooks believes the DA's investigators beat him up in retaliation for making the tape.

So what started this entire incident? According to the same LA Times article,

"The encounter occurred last Saturday evening when Jackson and his father, Coby Chavis, were at an Inglewood gas station and two sheriff's deputies stopped to investigate Chavis' expired vehicle registration tags. Jackson was leaving the station's market, holding a bag of potato chips, when he saw the deputies talking to his father.

Jackson tried to get into his father's car, ignoring deputies' commands to wait while they questioned Chavis, according to the officers and deputies."

All this over a teen eating a bag of potato chips who doesn't want to sit in a cop car cause he hasn't done anything wrong.

How often does this happen? Where can you learn more about police brutality, with a state-by-state reference guide. Check out CopCrimes which says its database is "the largest online resource for collecting information on law enforcement corruption and dishonorable deeds."

In keeping with the LA cops' usual sense of contrition, John Barnett of Orange, CA, the lawyer for officer Jeremy Morse who was shown beating a teen on video, said today Morse's actions were justified. The lawyer actually said that Morse was "restrained" in his use of force.

He didn't volunteer that Morse has been accused of misconduct in at least six other incidents.

Worse than that, or maybe just about equal, the cops then arrested Mitchell Crooks, the cameraman/tourist who filmed the video--on minor charges.

Seems the police and prosecutors were anxious to get their hands on the video (remember it had only been aired on tv) so they had a subpoena issued for Crooks and his video. Crooks was reluctant to go. He was afraid the police would hurt him for filming the video.

Crooks and Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Curt Livesay ended up on the same radio show in the afternoon, the DA in the studio and Crooks calling in by phone--here's part of their exhcange:

"Mitchell, let me assure you that there is a grand jury subpoena for you, and I suggest you honor it," Livesay told Crooks. "You show up at the Criminal Courts Buildingóthat's downtown, 210 W. Temple [Street] and be there promptly ... at the grand jury."

"Yeah, well I hope the city rallies behind me," Crooks replied. "They're coming after me because I shot the video. I fear for my life."

"Mitchell, this is Livesay," the prosecutor shot back. "We want you before the grand jury, not in a cell somewhere. We want you before the grand jury and we want that original tape."

Crooks hung up. Later, he was outside the offices of CNN (good guess this is where the actual video was being kept) when the police swung by to arrest him on outstanding warrants from another county for petty theft and driving under the influence with a hit and run.

In our view, he tried to be a good samaritan and help out a kid being beaten by police by creating a record of what happened and look what hot water he landed in. And you wonder why more people don't intervene to help people in trouble ?

Here's the text of the civil rights lawsuit the teen filed against the cop.

Yesterday a video surfaced of two white Oklahoma City police officers beating a black suspect with batons. From what we saw, the suspect was lying face down on the ground and the cops kept beating him long after he was subdued. The cops are facing disciplinary action. His offense: trying to have sex with a prostitute in a van.

How's this for the department's justification: ``While he was not actively aggressive with the officers he was actively noncomplying.''

Following the Lindh Court's inquiry and request for a report, the Justice Department has opened an investigation into whether possible leaks resulted in Newsweek's publication of several internal emails by Justice Department officials related to the Lindh case. The e-mails were significant because they suggested that Lindh might have a valid argument in his attempt to suppress statements he allegedly made right after his capture.

We think the Van Dam murder trial, coming to an end in San Diego, may have prompted this San Francisco Chronicle article on the increasing number of swingers, clubs, conventions and resorts devoted to them.

Danielle Van Dam was the 7 year old San Diego girl kidnapped from her bedroom and found dead days later. Westerfield, a neighbor with a motor home, was charged and is on trial. If convicted, he could face the death penalty. Court TV has been covering the trial live.

A hot debate topic in the case is whether the defense is engaging in "victim-bashing" in highlighting the parents' swinging lifestyle which included bringing strangers to their home for pot and sex parties. The case is circumstantial in that no one saw Westerfield with the girl that day and nothing links Westerfield to the Van Dam home. Witnesses yesterday testified that the mother was "dirty dancing" with Westerfield at a bar called Dad's the night of the murder, giving him a possible explanation for any hair and fibers that may have been found in his motor home. They transfer easily. Plus the mother denied on the stand that she danced with Westerfield that night. She did admit to all the swinger stuff though.

We believe it would be grossly negligent not to bring up the parents' lifestyle. The fact that they brought strangers into their home to have sex makes it possible that one of them committed the crime. While DNA of Danielle's was found in Westerfield's home, as were pornographic images on his computer, evidence was also brought out that Danielle had been in Westerfield's motor home the week before she disappeared selling girl scout cookies and his son shared his computer and the downloaded images may have been his.

We feel sympathy for the Van Dams, who lost their daughter. But a man is on trial for his life, and the evidence of who was in their home and when is relevant to make that trial fair.

Thirteen New Jersey state troopers who filed racial discrimination claims against the state police, alleging they were harassed, hazed and denied promotion, have agreed to settle their claims for a total of $4 million. The lawyers will get an additional $1 million. The settlement was a decade in the making--the case started in 1993 when a complaint was filed with the EEOC.

New Jersey has plenty more to worry about from two pending class action lawsuits by all minority motorists stopped by state troopers who claim that their civil rights were violated because of racial profiling. Settlements or trials could result in millions more in damages paid out by New Jersey.

The cop has been suspended.

You have to watch this video, it is truly incredible--and will be the subject of many a talk show tonight, beginning with MSNBC's Dan Abrams at 6 pm e.s.t. (Mickey Sherman guest hosting for vacationing Dan who returns Wednesday.)

It is also now the subject of a police probe.

The video is of four to five cops surrounding a teenager on the ground who does not appear to be resisting. One officer picks him up and slams really slams his head into the hood of the car. Another cop punches him in the head. The video was taken by tourists. The cops? From Inglewood, CA. (LA) The reason for the arrest? A routine traffic stop. The driver was found to be driving with a suspended license. The passenger, who allegedly got into it with the cops, was the attacked teen. Immediate sanctions? None, not even suspension or administrative leave.

Let's follow this one.

Closing arguments are today in the Louima re-trial of former NYC cop Charles Schwarz, accused of perjury and conspiracy to violate Abner Louima's civil rights. The main issue: Was he the cop in the bathroom with Justin Volpe when Volpe savagely sodomized Louima. We've been following the case all along, see Justin Volpe's Bad Hair Day and Abner Louima/Charles Schwarz, Round 2.

So has William Glaberson of the New York Times. Check out his article today, Defense Lawyer's Obsession About to Be Tested on Ron Fischetti, the highly esteemed (justly so in our opinion) defense lawyer representing Schwarz. Fischetti is obsessed with the case and with Schwarz' innocence. It's a good read, and it's not a "puff piece."

Fishcetti acknowledges what happens when the lawyer gets too close to the client--as he admittedly has done with Schwarz--in his case, he wakes up at 2 am dictating portions of his closing, can't talk to friends or colleages about anything else, and in essence, lives and breathes the case 24/7. When the second trial ended in a guilty verdict against Schwarz in 2000, Fischetti blamed himself for misreading the jury during the trial.

If only it were Fischetti on trial instead of Schwarz. We'd acquit in a minute. It's just too much to ask us to be symathetic towards his client. Two juries have convicted him, one after hearing his side of the story. Both convictions were overturned on what the public calls "technical grounds" unrelated to factual innocence. It is impossible to get away from the finger pointing, excuses, lies and half-truths told by almost every cop in this case. The most we can say is probably no one will ever know what really went on in that bathroom.

Fischetti has done a great job of portraying Schwarz as the victim in the media. Sorry, but we still think Abner Louima is the victim here. He's suffered through the attack, the humiliating publicity, endless trial preparation first for the criminal cases and then his own civil action against the City and Police (which finally settled) and now this trial. See Jim Dwyer's excellent NYTimes article "No Way Out" describing Louima's life these past five years.

We can't say who is telling the truth about which cop it was who led Louima to the bathroom to be subjected to Volpe's torture or whether that cop physically restrained Louima during Volpe's attack. Or why, if that cop wasn't helping Volpe, he didn't try and stop the attack.

We can say that everyone has a vested interest here. Schwarz so he doesn't go back to jail; Volpe who is hoping for a sentence reduction for testifying for Schwarz if Schwarz is exonerated; Cop #3 (Wiese) who refused to testify at this trial because he's afraid of being charged with perjury whichever way the verdict goes; and Fishcetti, who has gotten so close to his client that if he loses, he'd probably give up his right arm if it would spare his client going back to jail.

Everyone, that is, except Abner Louma. He has no vested interest because for him, the legal ramifications are over. He is simply seeking justice.

The defense began today in the re-trial of ex-NYC cop Charles Schwarz, accused of obstruction of justice and civil rights violations for allegedly lying about being in the bathroom with Justin Volpe, the (also former) cop who admitted torturing Haitian immigrant Abner Louima by shoving a broom handle up his rectum at the station house. For more on the history of the case, see our post from last month.

Schwarz has been claiming it wasn't him, but a third cop (whose conviction was also overturned on appeal) who was in the bathroom with Volpe.

So who does Schwarz call as his first witness? Justin Volpe, who pleaded guilty mid-way through his own trial and got a 30 year sentence. He testified for Schwarz and as expected, said it was not Schwarz but the third cop who was in the bathroom.

Then the fireworks. A four hour cross-examination by the prosecutor, who produces a tape that was secretly recorded in prison last month, of Volpe talking to his father after he had been brought back to NY from Minnesota, where he is serving his sentence, for the trial.

Seems Volpe tells dad on the tape he is testifying for Schwarz in hopes of getting Schwarz's lawyers to help him win a sentence reduction. Volpe says, "If I'm not getting my time cut, I want to go back tonight," and that he had a "surprise" in mind for Mr. Schwarz's defense lawyers, "if they think I'm falling on the sword again for nothing." Tape Excerpts.

This was obviously a big blow for Schwarz's defense, compounded by the news that the third cop won't testify at all and will be invoking his 5th Amendment privilege against incrimination.

Volpe didn't look well, he apparently is having a hard time doing time. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[comments now closed]