Rejection of Rampart Cases Reveals a Bias
- Share via
I was very excited to read that L.A. County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley’s office is examining the efficacy of using jailhouse snitch testimony when prosecuting criminal cases (“82 Rampart Cases Rejected for Lack of Evidence, Other Problems,” Nov. 26). That a convicted felon with everything to gain is “essentially useless as a witness” seems to be new information to the D.A.’s office, which in the past has prosecuted thousands of people on just such testimony. Can we count on this as a new policy for all people in our justice system, or is this just a special perk for the LAPD? Also, the statute of limitations on police misconduct cases referred to in the article, but not defined, is one year, a travesty given the severity of many allegations against the LAPD. If Chief William Bratton really wants to change the community’s perception of the police department, he will start by holding it accountable to the same laws the rest of us live by.
Cayce Callaway
Los Angeles
*
Los Angeles seems to have a knack for repeating itself -- riots followed by “official reports.” To date, the 1965 McCone Commission, the 1991 Christopher Commission and the Rampart investigation reports all supposedly addressed the issue at hand: police misconduct. But the issue remains, and now we have a city under siege. But the district attorney says 82 Rampart-related cases will not be prosecuted. There is a lesson here. “Selective justice, selective peace.”
Victoria B. Pipkin
Inglewood
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
