LESSONS LEARNED REFORMS ARE PROCEEDING DESPITE FAILURE TO CONVICT EX-POLICE OFFICER.

Byline: EARL O. HUTCHINSON Local View

IN a statement after a jury deadlocked for the second time in the trial of Jeremy Morse, a former Inglewood police officer, his attorney, John Barnett, said that no full jury would ever vote to convict or acquit his client.

He was right.

On Friday, prosecutors told Superior Court Judge William Hollingsworth Jr. that they will not seek a third trial.

The judge agreed with the decision, saying, ``I'm convinced that the chances of reaching a unanimous decision either way is virtually nil.''

So, there won't be another Superior Court trial, and even if there were, the outcome would have been the same.

It's easy to see why. The attorneys who defend cops accused of assault are almost always A-team lawyers. They are highly skilled, and they have had much experience defending police officers against misconduct charges. Morse, who was charged with assaulting a black teen, Donovan Jackson, in Inglewood, got an added plus with Barnett, who, in 1992, helped represent the four officers acquitted of beating black motorist Rodney King.

Barnett quickly stole a page from the defense's playbook in that infamous trial. He sought and received a relatively benign change of trial venue. Then, in Morse's first trial he got only one black juror. In the second trial, there were only two.

In racially charged cases like Morse's, attorneys who defend cops seek to get as many whites on the jury as possible. Though one juror from the second trial publicly insisted that there was no racial divide in the jury room, the presumption is that white jurors are much more likely to be middle-class, conservative and more trusting of the testimony of police and prosecution witnesses than of black witnesses, defendants or even victims.

Prosecutors also have a big task in trying to overcome racial attitudes and perceptions. Studies show that many whites believe that blacks are more likely to engage in criminal conduct than whites. The frequent media portrayal of young blacks as drug-dealing gangsters, the gang and murder violence that continues to rack many black neighborhoods and the glorification of the thug lifestyle by many young blacks reinforce negative racial perceptions. This makes many whites, nonblacks and even many blacks guarded, suspicious and fearful of African-Americans.

And with public respect and reverence for the police at astronomical highs since the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, it's even harder to convince jurors that some police lie, beat, maim and even kill unarmed suspects.

The defense in the Jackson case also presented favorable testimony from a use-of-force expert who claimed that the force used to subdue Jackson - who purportedly resisted arrest - was legal and acceptable. The witness skillfully exploited any blunders the prosecutors made.

And in the first trial, the prosecutors made a big one.

The prosecution's principal use-of-force expert claimed that the force used against Jackson, although excessive, did not meet the standard of a punishable crime. Then, in the second trial, the defense's expert went a step further and insisted that the force used was not only permissible, but required to subdue the allegedly violent Jackson.

That created a big problem for the prosecutors. There are no ironclad standards of what is or isn't an acceptable use of force, or what degree of force is excessive. It often comes down to a judgment call by the officer. This was the wedge that defense attorneys used to create just enough doubt in the minds of some jurors that if Jackson was not the aggressor, then he at least put up enough resistance to justify the use of some force to restrain him.

Then there was the videotape.

The King beating trial taught prosecutors the danger of relying too heavily on a video in a prosecution. But the flawed use of tapes also taught defense attorneys about the importance of discrediting the visual record. They ram home the point that a video gives a distorted and skewed view of an assault; it can also show that a suspect may have resisted arrest or initiated the encounter.

Defense attorneys harped on both points in both of Morse's trials.

These were formidable, even daunting, obstacles for the prosecutors. Nailing cops charged with assault is a rough task for even the most diligent of attorneys.

The painful and lingering memory of the Los Angeles Police Department officers' acquittal in the King beating trial, the deep reluctance of prosecutors to charge police with abuse and jurors' aversion to convicting cops in racially tinged cases sobered many blacks to the fact that the odds were great Morse would beat the rap.

But the dismissal of the case against Morse doesn't signal a return to the bad old days of lawless police officers. Inglewood police and city officials have pledged to implement effective reforms that improve the department's tarnished image and restore the confidence of the public. That, in the end, is far more valuable than convicting one police officer who may or may not have stepped over the line. Neither the Inglewood police nor, indeed, any other police department can afford the scandal and embarrassment of another Jackson beating case.

CAPTION(S):

photo

Photo:

Jeremy Morse smiles a bit after talking to his attorney, John Barnett, after the jury deadlocked in Morse's second assault trial in Los Angeles.

Brad Graverson/Associated Press