A Los Angeles Superior Court judge Friday rejected the district attorney’s request to prosecute a police officer a third time for killing an unarmed tow truck driver as he drove away from a Southwest Los Angeles gas station.
In a lengthy ruling, Judge Charles E. Horan dismissed all charges against Los Angeles Police Officer Douglas J. Iversen, whose two previous trials for the 1992 shooting death of John L. Daniels ended with deadlocked juries.
“Society has no interest in pursuing a case over and over again when legitimate doubts exist as to a defendant’s guilt,” wrote the judge, who presided over both mistrials.
After the ruling, Iversen, 45, a 15-year LAPD officer, breathed a sigh of relief.
“I get to spend time with my daughter and not worry about telling her I’m going off to prison for 15 years,” he said.
The decision sparked criticism from African American leaders, who argued that victims of police abuse may need additional options to pursue their grievances. The case was filled with racial overtones because it involved a white officer and a black victim and occurred two months after the 1992 riots.
Daniels’ widow sued the city and agreed to a $1.2-million out-of-court settlement before Iversen was tried on charges that included second-degree murder.
In the wake of Friday’s decision, “we need to take a new look at the concept of a civilian (police) review board,” said Joe Hicks, executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles. “A case like this clearly calls for something that goes beyond the Police Commission or the courts.”
*
The July 1, 1992, shooting rekindled longstanding complaints in the black community about police brutality.
Iversen stopped Daniels, 36, at a gas station at Florence Avenue and Crenshaw Boulevard–less than two miles from a flash point of the riots.
When Daniels refused to allow the officer to check his license and tried to drive off, the officer shot and killed him. The defense contended that Iversen had been trying to keep Daniels from running over bystanders. But prosecutors argued that the pedestrians were never in danger of being hit.
In the first trial, which concluded in early October, a racially diverse jury deadlocked 9 to 3 in favor of convicting Iversen of involuntary manslaughter.
In the second trial, the judge declared another mistrial last month after another jury deadlocked 8 to 4 in favor of acquittal on the stronger charge of voluntary manslaughter. Prosecutors complained that their chances of a conviction in the second trial were hampered by Horan’s refusal to let them present evidence that he permitted in the first trial.
Deputy Dist. Atty. Katherine Mader said the second jury was “not given a complete picture of Douglas Iversen, the crime or the law as it applies to these shootings.”
Mader said that in the second trial Horan limited the introduction of evidence that raised questions about Iversen’s truthfulness and his actions.
During the first trial, one witness reported that soon after the incident, Iversen’s partner, Patrick Bradshaw, turned to him and asked: “What did you do that for?”
In the second trial, Iversen’s defense was more successful in arguing against the introduction of that evidence. Horan refused to allow the jury to hear the partner’s reaction. Mader said she was also unable to inform jurors in the second trial about a 22-year-old felony conviction against Iversen for receiving stolen property in another state. Iversen’s attorney said the conviction was expunged, but Iversen failed to disclose it on his LAPD application as required.
Mader said the defense gained an advantage when Horan allowed it to hammer away at Daniels’ long criminal record.
“In a shooting case where victims have a negative background,” Mader said, “it’s critical for the jurors to understand something of the background and character of the officer who does the shooting. It’s only after they have a complete picture of the officer’s character that they can weigh that against the victim’s character.
Horan dismissed that argument.
“Twenty-four jurors were chosen from all over the place,” he said Friday. “Good juries were picked. Representative juries. And I’m not (inclined) to simply discount the results of those various votes.”
*
Iversen did not testify in either trial. The officer, who is on unpaid leave, said he plans to apply for reinstatement. He still faces departmental disciplinary charges that could result in his termination for the shooting, which was ruled to be out of policy.
In making his ruling, Horan said everyone has suffered from the case. Iversen has lost his home, job and marriage.
“The incident was a tragedy for all involved,” the judge said.
Iversen’s attorney, John Barnett, said the prosecution’s insistence on retrying Iversen “will have a chilling effect on the officers. This type of prosecution puts the lives of citizens and the officers themselves in jeopardy.”
Daniels’ widow, Michelle, said Iversen should have been tried again because “he executed my husband for no reason. If that guy wasn’t at the gas station, my husband would be alive today.”
Michael Washington, a 41-year-old pharmacist who witnessed the shooting, said he was sickened by the mistrials and Horan’s decision Friday.
“I was there with my kids. My 6-year-old saw it. He said, ‘Dad, that policeman shot that man for nothing,’ ” said Washington, who testified in both trials. “Now what am I going to tell him?”