Free Crime Beat by Michael Connelly Page B

knew of the SIS while they were members of the commission. Former Chief Tom Reddin, who held the top job from 1967 to 1969, said in brief testimony that he had known of the unit’s existence but had never investigated its activities.
    Roger Murdock, who served as interim chief for six months in 1969, said he thought the SIS unit was formed to investigate the assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.
    Yagman did not ask Sen. Ed Davis (R-Santa Clarita), who was police chief from 1969 to 1978, about the SIS. Instead, he asked how Davis viewed the role of the Police Commission during his time as chief.
    “I might have been wrong but I always thought they were my bosses,” Davis said. “They were tough bosses. . . . I danced to their tune. I wanted to keep my job for a while.”
    NOTE: FBI Agent Richard Boeh refused to testify about his investigation of the SIS and was held in contempt of court. The agent immediately appealed and the contempt order was reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The trial then resumed after a month’s delay without his testimony.
CHRISTOPHER REPORT: IT CUTS BOTH WAYS
Courts: The findings of the city-commissioned panel could work against L.A. when jurors rule in police brutality suits.
    February 4, 1992
    As Mayor Tom Bradley sat in the witness chair, a thin smile played on his face. He was facing an uneasy situation that he and the city may have to get used to.
    Bradley was testifying in federal court last month as a defendant in a civil rights trial. And he was repeatedly saying, yes, he fully agreed with the conclusions of the Christopher Commission, the independent, blue-ribbon panel that last year investigated the Los Angeles Police Department and found problems with management, excessive force and racism.
    “You have no reservations about your agreement with those conclusions?” the plaintiffs’ attorney, Stephen Yagman, asked.
    “No,” Bradley told the 10 jurors.
    Bradley was testifying in a civil rights case in which police officers are accused of killing three robbery suspects without provocation. Police managers and Bradley are also accused in the suit of tolerating excessive force and many of the departmental problems cited by the commission.
    In effect, the mayor was being cut with his own sword; after all, he was a main force behind creation of the commission. Now, the commission’s findings could prove pivotal when jurors decide if the officers acted improperly and their supervisors—right up to Bradley and Chief Daryl F. Gates—are responsible.
    While the trial is the first in which the report has been brought up by plaintiffs against police and city officials, it most likely will not be the last.
    Yagman, a civil rights attorney who specializes in police-related lawsuits, said he has clients with five more cases set for trial this year. He plans in each case to introduce the commission report as evidence of a police department that he says is out of control. Other civil rights attorneys said last week that they plan to do the same.
    “It is paradoxical and sweet,” Yagman said of having such a key document essentially prepared for him by the city that his clients are suing. “The effect of having this report is like putting whipped cream on a malt.”
    Meantime, Deputy City Atty. Don Vincent, in charge of defending the city against police-related lawsuits, said his staff is developing strategies to deal with the report when it comes up in trials. He conceded that his task may only be beginning.
    “It is a valuable tool for all civil rights attorneys,” Vincent said. “I am sure we will be facing this for several years to come.”
    Though the report has been discussed at length in front of the jury in the trial, Vincent hopes to block inclusion of the 228-page volume as evidence in the case. Though pointing out that the report makes many favorable conclusions about the police department, Vincent said its damaging claims are largely hearsay and opinion—not