officers - The Black Vault

State and local prosecutors also face pressures and incentives
that cnn make it difficult to conduct a proper trial. And,
most important, federal prosecution ot' criminal civil-rights
violations helps ensure that everyone receives the equal
prmection of the law the Constitution guarantees-especially
when that protection i~ denied by
law-enforcement officers, who act as
agents of the stute.
T ~e
Department of Justice hac:l
begun its own independent investigation
of the Rodney King beuting
immediately after it occurred. The
Fedc:rol Bureau of Investigation. the
depunment's investigative arm. had
bt!tm galhering evidence; prosecutors
in the Criminal Section of the Civil
Rights Division had been reviewing
and evaluating that evidence. Had the
smte not prosecuted, federal action
was inevitable.
Title 18 of the United States Code,
Section 242. mnkes it u crime for tmy
person who acts as an agent of th~ state.
intentionally to deprive nn Inhabitant of
the United States of a right secured by
the Constitution or any other federal
statutory law. This law was enacted in
1866 to t:nforce the 14th Amendment.
Its purpose was to safeguard from
abuses of state nuthority individual
rights. including freedom from tl.!TCSt
und detention by unconstitutional
method5. prohibitions against extorted
cont'essiorl$. Md the right to a fair trial. Since state authorities
hll.d widely abused these individual protections, the statute was
nece~sary at the rime. his just ns necessary today.
Federnl authorities use Section 242 to prosecute law-en•
forc:ement officers who use excessive force during an arrest.
Under this section. in any given year. police officers are convicted
of everything from gliltuitously striking to intentionally
nnd wrongfully killing a susp~t.
In the case of the I.APD officers. federal prosecutors prop·
~rly remained on the sidelines .until .. the.jury. irt Simi Valley
handed down its verdict. The Depa.ttment of Justice seeks to
preserve limited prosecutorial resources and defen; to the prin·
ciplcs of f=d~raiism whenever states decide to prosecute. Any
time an officer is convicted and receives a sentence commensu·
rote with the crime. no federal prosecution will follow. Thus
the Criminal Secdol'l can direct its own resources ar tho~
crimes which might othc:rwise go 1.1npunisht:d.
AlJGU$TtSePTEM9ER te92
y, local criminal-justice authorities would pros·
all crimt~s ut the !irate level, including those committed
local police. Yet such prosecutions are often politically
for local prosecutors, who are. after all, e!ecttd offi.
The public perceives the police us the "thin blue line"
that protects law-abiding citizens from
vicious criminals. Any time police oftlcers
are prosecuted. critics accuse the
prosecutors of coddling criminals ..
Addlrionally. by the very na1ure of
lheir work, local prosecutors must de·
pend on IUld work closely with the
police. It is hardly surprising that local
officials might wish to find any excuse
to avoid prosecuting police·brutulity
cases. If the Department of Justice always
prosecuted first. regardless of
any state prosecution. it would provide:!
an easy ex.cuse for locaJ authorities to
do nothing about police brutality.
When loc~l. authorities try but fail
to adl!lquately prosecute and
punish law-enforcement officers for
"Ct~m-t:'tan.ts violations. the Depunment
of Justice must then decide whether to
pursue a federal case. The depanment
hns established guidelines that govern
when a federal prosecution may follow
a state trial. Before federal prosecutors
may seek an indictment. the •
case mu!it satisfy two conditionli;
Funher prosecution must satisfy an
unvindicated federal interelit~ und the
prosecution must be likely to succeed.
The outcome of tbi!l local trial may determine if there is
unvindicated federal interest. For example, a local jury
vote to acquit on state chllrges dl.'spite overwhelming
ldence that federal law was violated. The L.APD ncquittail'i
sarisfy this condition.
After an acquittal in state court. federal pro!!ecutOI"li mulit
determine how likely they nte to succeed in a second
lf the state prosecutors proceeded in good fahh before
unbia:>ed, trial coun that admitt~d the approprhHe .evi··
an acquinal may indicate that the jury honestly har·
reasonable doubt. In such instances. it's hard to ser:
difference it mnkes whether the case wa.~ tried in
I or state court. The guidelines sensibly prohibit a
t's try it and see'' approach.
Often. however. peculiarities in a state trial may lend to an
a¢q,uit1:at: subsequcmt federal prosecution would likely result in
l'eit$0n39
JUL 20 '82 18:16
PAGE.008
-~-" -·'