CLAIM ALLEGES SLANDER : DETECTIVES SEEKING $10 MILLION EACH.Byline: Jaxon Van Derbeken Daily News Staff Writer Two LAPD 1. LAPD - Link Access Procedure on the D channel. 2. LAPD - Los Angeles Police Department. detectives each are seeking $10 million in a joint claim against the city of Los Angeles
Both investigators, ultimately cleared of serious wrongdoing wrong·do·er n. One who does wrong, especially morally or ethically. wrong  do , contend the chief's conduct at a news conference last year was akin to conviction without a trial. ``Instead of handling what he perceived as a problem through normal police channels, he turned it into a public spectacle in front of the television camera. He tried and convicted them himself,'' said Matthew Biren, the officers' attorney. A Los Angeles Police Department "LAPD" and "L.A.P.D." redirect here. For other uses, see LAPD (disambiguation).  This article or section is written like an . spokesman said it has a policy of not commenting on litigation An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute.When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation. . The city and Williams have 45 days to respond to the joint claim, which if rejected could be followed by a lawsuit. The Police Protective League supports the officers' action. ``These two guys were painted as criminals,'' said Bill Harkness, League president. ``I'd like to have the chief explain his actions and somehow assure us this won't happen again.'' At a Sept. 1, 1995, news conference, Williams referred to Detective Andrew Teague as ``falsifying fal·si·fy v. fal·si·fied, fal·si·fy·ing, fal·si·fies v.tr. 1. To state untruthfully; misrepresent. 2. a. physical evidence'' in a case involving the 1994 murder of Pablo Trujillo. Williams said both Teague and his partner, Charles Markel, were put on paid leave and that after problems with Teague's testimony in Trujillo's case came to light, charges were dropped against two defendants. The issue centered on Teague's creation of a bogus document in a ruse that he intended to use against a witness to persuade him to implicate the suspects. Although the ruse was never used, Teague testified at a preliminary hearing that the document was authentic. Teague claimed that he forgot about the document at the time of his testimony. A police disciplinary panel accepted his explanation and suspended him for a day for failing to prepare to testify. The District Attorney's Office conducted a perjury investigation in the wake of the allegations but did not pursue criminal charges. |
|
||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion