KTLA News: "LAPD officers acquitted in federal civil rights violations case" (1971)

We had several volumes with the preliminary examination. We had several volumes with the 1538 hearing. In all of those volumes, in reading every bit of that material, we can find absolutely no reason for our men to have been indicted in the first place. So when that's what Chief Davis was talking about and the city attorney uh Mr. George Franel, who defended these officers, read every word of every volume, and he found nothing that would constitute reason for these men to be indicted. Of course, on cross-examination, I asked Mrs. Van Shaw if she believed or contended that her civil rights had ever been violated. The answer to that question would have been no, but we were preluded from going into it. We felt very strongly, Mr. Arinberg, myself, Mr. Daly, that this judgment of a quiddle would have been granted. >> But you don't think there was a case to begin with? >> No, I do not. And as the judge said at the end, uh, quote, it's a waste of the taxpayers's money, unquote. would you give us uh what happened uh this morning? >> Well, this morning the prosecution rested on its case alleging violations of civil rights by the two Los Angeles police officers and Mr. Denzo. We made a motion for a judgment of a quiddle on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to show a federal crime had been in fact committed and to link up the two Los Angeles police officers. The most that was introduced in evidence against our clients was the fact that a using it in the broad sense a burglary had in fact been committed. We knew of it. We did nothing but we did not direct it. We did not control it and we did not supervise or aid it or embed in its commission. We did nothing but just watch and let it continue on from the point where the goods were stolen until finally the goods ended up in the what we believe to have been the receiver of stolen property after which there were many arrests made on that and other grounds and the silverware were eventually returned to Mrs. Van Shaw. >> Oh yeah. Who told me that? >> I still will. >> Oh no. Are you ready? >> Why not? >> Gentlemen, I don't have a prepared statement for you today. Uh, all I can say is the spokesman for the department is that the department is delighted with the directed verdict of Judge Carr. Uh, I only wish that Chief Davis were here to talk to you. He's attending a meeting, as you know, in Washington DC. We have been trying to get in touch with him, but as yet we have not talked to him, so he does not know the news. But I think that the remarks which have been reported to me and that I'm sure all of you are aware of by Judge Carr following the directed verdict uh were pretty much in line with what Chief Davis had been telling the news media all along. And so, while we're delighted about the verdict, we're not at all surprised because we had conducted a rather thorough investigation of our own and were quite well aware of the facts and we were certainly not uh at all taken by surprise with what happened in court. Well, if you have any questions, I'll be glad to try and answer them. >> Chief, I noticed in the news report that Angelo Venzo, police informant who, according to the indictment, had committed the burglary, was also acquitted. What's the police department's position on Mr. Denzo? >> Well, this is uh not a police department case. We didn't present the case to the federal court. So, uh it's it's not in other words, it's not our burglary case. And whatever the federal courts decided about Mr. Denzo is up to them. >> Didn't you say you had made your own investigation, however? >> Yes, we had made our investigation as to the involvement of our officers. Yes. >> But what's your position on the burglary that there was no burglary at all? No, I think it's quite clear that uh there was a burglary. I think that's quite clear and that uh there is a crime report on that burglary. Certainly at the moment or at the time that this uh investigation was going on by the US attorney, we did not interfere with their investigation by conducting an investigation of our own on their burglary or at least on the case that they were checking the burglary on. Uh it is a a matter of a crime report now and the department will look at it in terms of like they would any other burglary at this point. >> How common is it for the police that it will affect that case at all and I think that case will stand on its own uh we have also conducted an investigation in that case but since that is still to go to court I I'm just not able to comment on that case but I don't think today's action will have any bearing on the outcome of that case. [Music] three volumes of material connected with cases that went before the court case in the US uh court. That is