The Leroy Barnes Case, 2009
Leroy Barnes, 38, of Pasadena died after being shot by Pasadena police officers during a traffic stop. Barnes was shot 11 times, including seven times in the back, after police say he pulled a gun on them.
The police union kept the names of the officers involved secret until the LA Times finally
extracted them in court in 2010 -- Charles Reep and Michael Alvarado. One of them has three prior officer-involved shootings. But he was exonerated on those! And no more information for you -- those investigations are privileged.
At the City's request, the Office of Independent Review audited the internal investigation. OIR was an arm of the LA County Sheriff's Department which would later audit the investigation of Kendrec McDade's killing. Unlike the 71 page McDade report, whose release is currently up to the Court of Appeals, the 38 page Barnes report was released in full. As with most audits, its strongest criticisms are in tones of timid reproach. The internal investigation found that the seven bullets fired into Mr. Barnes back as he lay inert and bleeding were reasonable because the police were panicked (how can you be reasonable and panicked at the same time?). OIR wrote:
While we understand the logic behind the Department’s decision regarding the reasonableness of the shooting, other experienced reviewers may not have reached the same conclusion as the Department, and would have expected the officers to hold their fire after they retreated to a position of cover in order to reassess the situation.
The police questioned an eyewitness. OIR noted:
...[T]he interviewer’s refusal to accept the driver’s repeated claims that she did not see a gun in Barnes’ hand, and the interviewing techniques used to eventually extract the admission from her that she did see Barnes with a gun, significantly undermine the evidentiary value of that statement. Moreover, the single-mindedness of the officer-involved shooting investigator in obtaining that admission suggests confusion about the mission of such an investigation...To conduct a witness interview that seems intent on producing a concession that will assist in justifying the officer’s actions could suggest a one-sided rather than a fact neutral orientation.
The unnamed homicide investigator badgered a witness until her statement was valueless. Remember that.
The Wokcano Case, 2012
Also in 2009, there was a serious non-police assault at Wokcano (sushi place). It went to trial in 2012. Defense counsel, Michael Kraut, accused the investigating officers, Kevin Okamoto, Keith Gomez, and William Broghamer, of misconduct.
Progress in the Damas case has been slowed by what Pasadena Superior Court Judge Teri Schwartz said was proof that Okamoto failed to turn over witnesses contact numbers, transcripts and dozens of audio recordings on testimony. Kraut contends much of that material could exonerate Damas.
Okamoto said he opted not to turn over the material because he viewed it as "irrelevant."
(That's Mr. Okamoto.)
Mr. Kraut, a former deputy DA, filed eight administrative complaints against Officers Okamoto, Gomez, and William Broghamer, specifying witnesses, dates and times, and supporting documentation.
The officers stand accused of kidnapping witnesses, making death threats, soliciting bribes, beating a witness in custody and asking a non-sworn member of the Pasadena Police Department to withhold exculpatory evidence.
As a result, the police chief promised a full investigation and Mr. Okamoto "
agreed to go on [paid] administrative leave." I'm not sure for how long, though. Later stories have him reassigned to patrol.
Mr. Okamoto withheld evidence. Mr. Broghamer allegedly threatened a witness. Remember that.
The Jerrell Sanford Case
In February 2013 two men went on trial for the 2010 murder of Shawn Baptiste. The investigating officers were Kevin Okamoto and William Broghamer.
[On February 7] Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Larry Fidler admonished Okamoto and Broghamer for their actions during the course of a...homicide investigation and declared a mistrial in the case against defendants Jerrell Sanford and Michael Grigsby.
....
Fidler said Pasadena police Officer Kevin Okamoto withheld evidence and Detective William Broghamer conducted an "egregious" interview with a witness....
Police officials immediately suspended Okamoto. Broghamer was reassigned to a desk job, officials said.
In the wake of Fidler's ruling, Pasadena police Chief Phillip Sanchez Thursday promised a sweeping internal investigation of the city's homicide bureau....
In his ruling, Fidler said he didn't believe Okamoto's testimony that the officer was unaware of his obligations to turn over exculpatory evidence.
"Does he think I'm a turnip farmer and I fell off my truck on the way to the market," Fidler said.
Fidler also admonished Broghamer for his interrogation of a woman witness in the case. The judge said the techniques used in the interrogation, which included threats to take the woman's daughter from her and charge the woman as an accessory to murder, made any statement she gave "inadmissable" in court.
As usual, the police chief promised a full investigation, and engaged Veritas, a consulting group full of ex-police, to audit the homicide and other divisions. Over a year later, Mr. Sanford and Mr. Grigsby pleaded guilty to reduced charges.
Mr. Okamoto withheld evidence -- and said he didn't know he was supposed to turn it over -- and Mr. Broghamer harassed a witness until her testimony was valueless. Seeing a pattern here?
The James Wilson Case
The Sanford mistrial created quite a stir. It made possible ledes like this:
The lingering question of whether Pasadena police officers routinely break the law in conducting murder investigations played out again Friday during two preliminary hearings in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom.
At the same time as the Sanford case, at least one other defendant made allegations about police misconduct:
In response to [James Wilson] a pro se defendant's request... [Michael] Kraut delivered a recording in which Detective William Broghamer told a known gang member that another man in jail was a child molester and a snitch. The recording was from a case unrelated to the charge brought against Wilson.
"Anyone inside or outside of law enforcement knows there is a 'green light' put on someone suspected of being a child molester or a snitch," Kraut said. "For Broghamer to do this is unconscionable and maybe even illegal.
I can't find any record of Mr. Wilson being convicted. I don't know what happened to him.
The Internal Investigation
Remember the investigation? Not the Jerrell Sanford investigation. This is the investigation of the earlier eight allegations arising out of the Wokcano case. In August 2013 the police chief, Phillip Sanchez, announced that the LA County Sheriff's Department and his own internal team had investigated them all and found all to be unwarranted, except that Mr. Okamoto withheld evidence and made an inappropriate comment. No, you can't see the investigations. They're privileged.
Nothing seemed to happen to Mr. Okamoto until October 2014, when it was reported that he was fighting a two week suspension.
The Rashad McCoy Case, 2014
In June 2014 a young man named Rashad McCoy went on trial for the attempted robbery and murder of another young man, Joseph Jones. I was a juror in a civil case at the same time at the Pasadena courthouse, and the line to get in stretched down the block and around the corner every morning. Mr. McCoy's defense was that the eyewitnesses were mistaken and he was 64 miles away in Palmdale at the time Mr. Jones was shot. The investigating officers were Cuong Pham and William Broghamer. Here's the latter:
There were four eyewitnesses, but it was a dark night and the assailant was wearing a hooded shirt. Two, Mr. Jones's brothers, identified Mr. McCoy as the shooter. The other two did not identify him, and they testified that they felt pressured by Mr. Broghamer to identify Mr. McCoy. Mr. McCoy's girlfriend, who testified that Mr. McCoy was with her in Palmdale the night of the murder, testified that she felt threatened by Mr. Broghamer, who seemed to suggest that she wouldn't get her car back. The defense was allowed to play tapes of Mr. Broghamer's interrogations of other suspects, making comments like "Pin it on anybody" to a colleague, adding "that's how we roll." A threat to a suspect in another case, "I might lie my ass off to fry your ass," didn't go to the jury.
Mr. McCoy had video proof that he was in Palmdale earlier on the night of the murder, and there was evidence of another suspect. The jury acquitted him in less than a day.
Chief Sanchez, as usual, promised to investigate Mr. Broghamer's comments.
The Star-News editorialized:
The cynicism exhibited by Broghamer fits right into a pattern of extra-judicial arrogance exhibited by Pasadena police in recent years that has the community questioning the department’s behavior and its basic values. This news group has detailed a terrifying pattern of police misconduct within the PPD. Is getting the conviction — even if it’s just “anybody” who does the hard time — more important than convicting the right person? That’s the question many in the community are asking.
The Veritas Report
In late March the intrepid Star-News got its hands on the Veritas report (remember the Veritas report, requested after the Sanford mistrial in early 2013)?
Minimally supervised, poorly trained Pasadena Police Department homicide detectives routinely mishandled evidence, including DNA evidence, and employed improper interrogation techniques in several cases over a five-year period, according to an independent audit obtained Friday by this news organization.
Local activists and civil rights attorneys called the nearly 80-page audit report, conducted at the city’s request, “troubling” and “damning.” The audit, which had been withheld for months by city officials, was prompted by the February 2013 dismissal of a 2007 homicide case.
It's redacted though, with all case and individual names blacked out. Privileged, you know. The police chief says they've accepted all its recommendations and everything is fine now. Move along, nothing to see here.
So one detective, Kevin Okamoto, fails to turn over exculpatory evidence in 2012 until he's forced to. Eventually he gets a two week suspension. The following year, he fails to turn over exculpatory evidence and says he doesn't know he has to do so. The judge mocks him and declares a mistrial. How much evidence has he successfully withheld in other cases? Has he put any innocent people in prison?
But nothing happens to him.
Another detective, William Broghamer, bullies and threatens witnesses in 2012, 2013, and 2014 (and what would you bet he was the detective in Mr. Barnes's case in 2009?). As a result, the judge declares a mistrial. A jury apparently concludes he's not to be believed. How many other witnesses has he coerced? Has he put any innocent people in prison?
But nothing happens to him.
Why are these two men still working as Pasadena police officers? Why is their boss, Phillip Sanchez, still the Chief of Police?
Comments are closed on this story.