Jury Instructions For Mayor Villaraigosa Re LAPD And May Day

By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles, MooreIsBetter.com

One of the things those of us who actually passed the bar exam have learned is that jurors should not discuss the facts of a case until they have heard all the evidence. The standard admonition judges read at the outset of a trial contains the following passages:

"Do not allow anything that happens outside this courtroom to affect your decision. During the trial do not talk about this case or the people involved in it with anyone . . . . You must not even talk about the case with the other jurors until after I tell you that it is time for you to decide the case."

"It is important that you keep an open mind throughout this trial. Evidence can only be presented a piece at a time. Do not form or express an opinion about this case while the trial is going on. You must not decide on a verdict until after you have heard all the evidence and have discussed it thoroughly with your fellow jurors in your deliberations."

The purpose of these instructions is to make sure fact-finders keep an open mind, and hear all the evidence before deciding who, if anyone, was at fault.

Public figures should, in my opinion, follow essentially the same procedure. It was not helpful for Mayor Villaraigosa and Chief Bratton to, in essence, convict LAPD officers in advance for alleged "misconduct" during the May Day protests.

I don't know if police engaged in misconduct or not. I have not reviewed all the videotape, nor have I interviewed the witnesses or reviewed their background (e.g., criminal records, political agendas, etc.). Some officers may have engaged in misconduct. However, even a cursory review of the video suggest some serious questions concerning people who claimed the police "attacked" them:

1. How can the reporters claim there was no warning or announcement, when the videos show that the mass of the crowd was moving away from the police, while the reporters were not? Most people in the crowd seemed to get the message that the line of police advancing their way wanted them to move. Why didn't the "victims" catch on, too?

2. When a police officer tells you to "MOVE!," what part of that is unclear? What in the world would make you think that's an invitation for a discussion or debate?

3. As for the video of the cameraman who appears to be knocked over, watch that video carefully one or two times. Does it look like the police officer pushed him hard enough to fall over, or does it look more like: i) the officer touches the cameraman; ii) the cameraman pauses for an instant, as if thinking; and iii) the cameraman then leans and rolls onto the ground?

4. How can we reasonably expect the police to get a fair hearing when the Mayor and Chief have publicly declared the police were at fault, and demoted the police in charge that day?

Villaraigosa of all people should understand the importance of keeping an open mind. After all, he himself, I believe, was once on trial for assault, and 11 of the 12 jurors, as I recall, voted to convict. Would he have appreciated the City's Mayor announcing before the trial that he was guilty?

Furthermore, the City Ethics Commission now has charges pending against Villaraigosa for 31 violations of the City's Ethics laws in connection with his 2003 campaign for City Council. Could he get a fair hearing if, say, the Governor and Attorney General publicly declared in advance that he's guilty?

As I say, I myself don't have enough information right now to whether anyone engaged in misconduct -- other than people who attacked the police. I do know, however, that public officials should avoid prejudicing the rights of police officers by announcing their guilt before they've even had an opportunity to present their case.

I suspect, moreover, that if the police had not cleared the square, and if the attack on them had escalated to include fires and looting, the press, Mayor and Chief would probably be blaming the officers for that, too.