TAKE A GIANT STEP TO RIGHT RAMPART WRONGS

An independent review of every case is the only way to resolve the
scandal involving the Rampart Division.

How many innocent people are imprisoned because of false testimony by
Los Angeles police officers? Officers in the Rampart Division's CRASH
anti-gang unit now are known to have planted evidence and perjured
themselves to gain convictions. Adequate steps must be taken
immediately to identify those individuals who might have been
convicted or persuaded to plead guilty because of police corruption.
Unfortunately, the actions taken so far seem woefully insufficient.
There can be no doubt that the burden is on the County of Los Angeles
and the district attorney's office to ensure that no person remains in
custody because of police wrongdoing. Nothing is more abhorrent in a
society that believes in the rule of law than innocent people being
imprisoned because of police officers lying and planting evidence. It
is horrifying to know that there are people in prison, with every
aspect of their lives in shambles, solely because of lies by police
officers.

The task is to review every case in which police misconduct might have
caused a wrongful conviction or guilty plea. Los Angeles Dist. Atty.
Gil Garcetti has stated that more than 3,000 cases will need to be
reviewed. Garcetti did not indicate what is included in this number,
but it is essential that reviewed cases include both those in which
there was a trial and conviction and those in which there was a guilty
plea. Already, it has been documented that some innocent individuals
pleaded guilty in the face of false accusations and evidence rather
than risk a trial and a much longer sentence.

The review must be conducted in a manner that provides assurance that
every case receives a careful and unbiased analysis. Unfortunately,
having the district attorney conduct the review is not sufficient.
Although Garcetti has been aggressive in dealing with allegations, his
is the office that prosecuted the cases. Above all, the D.A.'s office
exists to put criminals in prison. So there is reason for concern when
it is asked to take steps to release the same individuals. At the very
least, leaving the review to the D.A.'s office cannot provide the
essential appearance of independence.

Nor can defendants do this on their own. Under California law, a
criminal defendant has access to prosecutors' files only by showing
with "concrete information" that there was wrongdoing in the case. In
other words, generally the defendant would need access to the file in
order to generate the information necessary to gain access to the file.

An independent task force needs to be created immediately to ensure
unbiased review of all the possibly tainted cases. It should be
composed of prosecutors, defense lawyers and others with experience in
the criminal justice system. Ideally, a former judge could chair it.
The group, which should be relatively small, would have the important
responsibility of carefully reviewing each case to assess whether it
was tainted by police wrongdoing.

This will be a time-consuming, burdensome and expensive task. There
are more than 800 cases involving just former LAPD Officer Rafael
Perez, who has been convicted of cocaine theft and is assisting
authorities under a grant of immunity. Moreover, each new revelation
expands the scope of needed review. The figure of 3,000 cases provided
by Garcetti could be many times that number.

County supervisors should immediately appropriate funds needed for
this review and, together with the D.A., create the independent task
force. At the same time, it must be recognized that even the most
independent and best-intentioned task force may not catch every
tainted conviction or guilty plea. The prosecutor's office must
cooperate with criminal defense attorneys and criminal defendants in
obtaining access to files so that they have the chance to demonstrate
whether they were wrongfully convicted.

Each of us in Los Angeles must act as if we have a brother or a sister
or a parent or a child sitting in prison as a result of Perez or his
corrupt colleagues planting evidence. If it was our loved one behind
bars, we would demand an independent review. No less should be deemed
acceptable.