POLICE DEFENDANTS ESCAPE CORRUPTION CONVICTIONS

Jury in Long-Running Oakland Prosecution Acquits 3 Ex-Officers on 8
Charges, Deadlocks on 27 Others

In a police corruption scandal that sparked outrage and sent shudders
throughout Oakland, jurors Tuesday acquitted three former officers of
eight crimes and deadlocked on most of the 35 charges that accused the
three of terrorizing neighborhoods and making false arrests during the
summer of 2000.

Tuesday's outcome ended 56 days of deliberation in Alameda County's
longest criminal trial that began one year ago after a rookie cop
exposed an alleged seedy underworld in which officers, known as the
Riders, lived by their own rules.

Superior Court Judge Leo Dorado declared a mistrial on the other
counts after the jurors told him that after exhaustive debate they
could not reach unanimous verdicts on the remaining 27 charges.

As a clerk read the verdicts, the former officers - Clarence
"Chuck" Mabanag, 38, Jude Siapno, 35, and Matthew Hornung, 31 -
showed no reaction. Mabanag's attorney, however, seemed overcome as he
briefly covered his face with his hands.

The three officers were charged with a combined 26 counts of criminal
activity - 35 individual charges - involving falsifying police
reports, fabricating evidence, conspiracy, obstruction of justice,
kidnapping, and assault and battery during an alleged three-week crime
spree in late June and early July 2000.

Jurors found the officers not guilty of conspiracy to falsely arrest;
kidnapping and assault involving Siapno; and three charges of
presenting false claims for payment on Mabanag, who recently became a
father.

The three were fired and are appealing their terminations. A fourth
officer charged in the case, alleged ringleader Frank Vazquez, fled
soon after the case surfaced and is believed to be in Mexico.

In the past two weeks, Dorado twice ordered jurors to continue
deliberations after they had told him they were deadlocked.

Tuesday, they seemed visibly relieved as the judge thanked them and
finally released them from duty. One female juror became teary-eyed.
One spectator was taken away in handcuffs after he loudly derided the
jury's findings.

"We all looked at the evidence very carefully," said the jury
foreman, who declined to give his name. "The standards were not
met," for any guilty verdicts, he said.

As he quickly walked to the Lake Merritt BART station with other
jurors, escorted by deputies, the foreman pointed to insurmountable
conflict among the jurors stemming from what he said were personal
biases. "Unfortunately, some people were biased against the police,"
he said.

District Attorney Tom Orloff said he has not yet decided whether to
retry the case, and would like to talk with the jurors and analyze the
evidence to determine how to proceed.

"The last chapter in this case has not been written yet," Orloff
said. "The jury decision - I'm disappointed in it, somewhat
frustrated by it, but I accept it."

Asked whether the make-up of the jury may have played a role in the
outcome, Orloff said the defense has a responsibility to find jurors
who empathize with their clients.

Defense attorneys, however, felt that, if anything, many of the jurors
were skeptical of police.

Meanwhile, federal prosecutors remain interested in the case.

"We intend to analyze the evidence, consult with the district
attorney and the civil rights division of the Justice Department and
make a determination about whether there is sufficient evidence to
bring a federal civil rights prosecution," said Kevin V. Ryan, the
U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California.

Orloff also applauded the prosecutor's chief witness, Keith Batt, the
rookie cop who blew the whistle on the officers. "I think that young
man put himself out to right a wrong," Orloff said. David Hollister,
the former deputy district attorney who tried the case, said he still
believes the defendants were guilty.

"I've never been part of a case that I believed more in," said
Hollister, who now works for the Plumas County District Attorney's
Office.

Defense attorneys were pleased, but surprised by the outcome.

"Some of these jurors understood the reality of the violence in
Oakland and the reality of what an Oakland police officer does and
they frankly thought the officers had to use very aggressive means to
deal with a very bad problem," said Michael Rains, Mabanag's attorney.

He said several of the jurors did not believe Batt's testimony. Rains
added that one juror even told him he was already inclined to acquit
the officers before the defense even presented its case. On the advice
of their attorneys, the defendants did not comment.

"This has been the worst criminal investigation I've ever seen,"
Rains said. "This was abominable. Because of city politics, they
focused on these guys like four rotten apples."

Meanwhile, community groups denounced the verdict.

"It's very unfortunate that these jurors could not look at the facts
before them, but rather were swayed by the defense's emotional
arguments that these actions were justified by the supposed end,"
said Jackie Thomason of People United for a Better Oakland.

One East Oakland resident was disappointed with the verdict.

"They send a bad message that if you wear the badge, you can get away
with some things," said Carrie McGathon, a registered nurse and an
East Oakland resident for the past 40 years.

Police Chief Richard Word said in a statement that he stood by his
decision to terminate the officers and the city's decision to settle a
civil lawsuit stemming from the case.

The case spawned dozens of lawsuits and forced Orloff to dismiss
nearly 100 cases that involved the officers. In February, Oakland paid
$10.9 million to settle a lawsuit representing 119 plaintiffs in its
largest payout ever. The settlement also called for police reforms
monitored by an independent party to include more supervision, an
expanded internal affairs unit to improve public access, and a
database that tracks potential patterns of abuse among officers.

John Burris, a civil rights attorney who represented the plaintiffs,
was not surprised by the outcome.

"All I can say is that some of the misconduct was truly outrageous,"
and for the jury to have deadlocked on giving a verdict indicates that
they may have been pro-police, Burris said.

Attorneys are to return to court Oct. 15 for the setting of a
possible new trial date.