D.A. HANDS OVER PEREZ TRANSCRIPTS, NAMING 28 OFFICERS

Rampart: Bitter talks lead to disclosure to defense. Four men implicated
in crimes or misconduct remain on duty. Prosecutor's office says more names
will be forthcoming.

After days of contentious negotiations, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty.
Gil Garcetti on Friday gave the public defender and the Indigent
Defense Panel 3,242 pages of transcribed interviews with ex-Officer
Rafael Perez and the names of 28 LAPD officers implicated in crimes or
misconduct connected to the ongoing Rampart corruption scandal, four
of whom remain on active duty.

Some prosecutors, sources said, believe their office has a legal
obligation to disclose to defense attorneys the names of at least 40
current and former officers who are suspected of criminal activity.
Many of the officers whose names were not turned over remain on active
duty, sources said.

Victoria Pipkin, a spokeswoman for the district attorney, said the
office will forward the names of other officers suspected of
wrongdoing as early as next week. "This was just the beginning," she
said.

In a confidential letter to defense attorneys Friday, Garcetti wrote
that the 28 officers "are alleged in the transcripts to have
participated in criminal activity . . . to have committed acts
involving moral turpitude or . . . may have substantial material
evidence favorable to an accused."

The Perez transcripts and other information were provided to defense
attorneys under a confidential protective order that prohibits them,
under threat of contempt, from revealing the contents in any way to
third parties. The alternate public defender refused to agree to those
terms and did not receive the information.

The county public defender and the Indigent Defense Panel, which
consists of private attorneys appointed by the court, represent
individuals too poor to retain their own attorneys. Most of the people
allegedly victimized by Rampart-related police misconduct are in that
category. The alternate public defender is essentially a second,
lower-cost public agency designed to reduce the number of private
criminal defense lawyers appointed to represent poor defendants at
public expense.

Defense Attorneys Had Sought Transcripts

Ever since the LAPD corruption scandal broke in September, defense
attorneys have been clamoring for the transcripts of Perez's hours of
interrogation and the names of officers suspected of wrongdoing so
they could adequately represent their clients. The onetime anti-gang
officer has been cooperating with authorities as part of a plea
bargain to obtain a lesser sentence for stealing cocaine from a police
evidence facility.

Under the landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brady vs.
Maryland, prosecutors must disclose to defense attorneys all
potentially exculpatory information, including information that might
impeach an officer's credibility.

"We felt we should have had this information a long time ago," said
Public Defender Michael P. Judge. "The failure to disclose this
information has significantly impeded our ability to identify the
cases that warrant reopening, as well as to successfully defend
innocent people charged in current cases."

Perez's admissions and allegations of corrupt police behavior already
have led to the dismissal of more than 80 criminal convictions, and
legal experts estimate scores of other cases are likely to be overturned.

Attorneys for the public defender's office said they were eager to
review their newly acquired information. That office defends about
two-thirds of all the felony defendants in Los Angeles County.

Former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law
School, predicted that the disclosure will give the public defender a
chance to determine if there are more innocent victims in prison.

"They were a little tired of taking the D.A.'s word for it. Now they
will have a way to check and do their own investigating," she said.

Public defenders and other defense attorneys were critical of the
district attorney for holding back the names of other LAPD officers
who have been implicated in crimes and misconduct by Perez.

Judge also was critical of the LAPD for keeping officers suspected of
wrongdoing on active duty. "If there is a strong suspicion that they
have been engaged in misconduct, they should be placed on
administrative leave immediately," he said.

Department Policy of 'Proactive Steps'

LAPD Cmdr. David J. Kalish, a departmental spokesman, declined comment
on why the four officers have not been relieved of duty. He said,
however, "It is the department's practice to take proactive steps
whenever an investigation uncovers potential serious criminal conduct."

The four officers who remain on active duty are John Collard, Andrew
Lassak, Howard Ng and Dennis O'Sullivan. Lassak, Ng and O'Sullivan are
assigned to the Rampart Division, where the corruption investigation
is centered.

In addition to the approximately 40 officers suspected of criminality,
Perez has implicated at least 32 LAPD officers as witnesses to crimes
and misconduct that they allegedly failed to report.

Negotiations between defense attorneys and prosecutors for the
information heated up over the past two weeks. Superior Court Judge
Larry P. Fidler presided over the talks.

According to participants in the discussions, Fidler's restrictive
protective order was drafted to alleviate prosecutors' anxieties that
the transcriptions of Perez's interrogation would fall into the hands
of attorneys defending police officers accused of crimes connected to
the Rampart scandal.

"Obviously, the more you know about what he has said about everything,
the easier it is to impeach him," one participant said.

Keeping the transcripts out of the hands of civil lawyers who are
suing the city for alleged acts of police misconduct by Rampart
Division officers was a secondary consideration for prosecutors, said
one participant in the talks.

Stephen Yagman, who is one of the lawyers preparing a class-action
suit on behalf of alleged victims of LAPD misconduct, denounced
Fidler, saying he "has really masterminded a cover-up."

"It's too bad that the public defender went along with something that
is really wrong on its face."

The alternate public defender's office refused to sign the agreement,
saying that it amounted to a "gag order" that violated its clients'
rights.

"This is just not the way it is supposed to work," said Deputy
Alternate Public Defender Gary Wigodsky, who heads the office's
Rampart task force. "We think there are grave problems with it."

The requirements essentially mean lawyers must litigate their cases in
secrecy, Wigodsky said.

"It's a gag order for the defense, whereas the D.A. can discuss the
transcripts with anyone they wanted. . . . We believe we are entitled
to this information even without an order."

Wigodsky said he hopes to reach a compromise agreement with the
district attorney's office.

The 28 officers, including four sergeants, have been implicated in
crimes and misconduct ranging from unjustified shootings to evidence
planting.