The Mercury News Weekend

East Bay police sex scandal charges dropped

Defense attorney: ‘Why would you file these cases with no evidence?’

- By David DeBolt and Angela Ruggiero Staff writers Contact David DeBolt at 510-208- 6453 and Angela Ruggiero at 510-293-2469.

OAKLAND » A lameda County prosecutor­s’ highprofil­e cases against officers charged in a sex scandal involving a teenager continued to unravel this week, as charges were dropped against two officers facing the most serious allegation­s.

A defense attorney for one of the two men alleged to have had sex with the girl while she was underage claimed victory as it became more likely no officers would face jail time. Of the six officers initially charged, three had charges dropped (including two this week) and two others took plea deals.

Not one has spent a day in jail. The government’s case filed last year is down to one criminal defendant, Oakland Officer Terryl Smith, who faces five misdemeano­r counts.

“Something’s wrong in Alameda County,” attorney Michael Cardoza said. “Why would you file these cases with no evidence?”

The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office on Thursday dropped charges against Cardoza’s client, Oakland Officer Giovanni LoVerde, who was facing a charge of felony oral copulation with a minor.

The dismissal came a day after Judge Jon Rolefson tossed out a case against Contra Costa Sheriff’s Deputy Ricardo Perez, who faced charges similar to ones filed against LoVerde.

Last month, the judge, citing insufficie­nt evidence, also dismissed charges against former Oakland Officer Brian Bunton, who was accused of conspiracy to obstruct justice and misdemeano­r engaging in prostituti­on.

District attorney spokeswoma­n Teresa Drenick said prosecutor­s did not agree with Rolefson’s ruling in the Perez case.

“There exists a conflict in the law interpreti­ng the criminal statutes that govern the crimes charged, and we have determined that we will seek an appellate remedy,” Drenick said.

The DA’s Office dropped charges against LoVerde after consulting with the teenage victim, the spokeswoma­n said. “We are always mindful of how difficult it has been for the victim in these matters to testify in open court about her exploitati­on.”

Perez and LoVerde faced themost serious charges in connection with the scandal

Robert Weisberg, a professor at Stanford Law School and a criminal justice expert, said that sometimes in high-profile cases turned “scandals,” there’s a reasonable expectatio­n that the prosecutio­n will succeed, and it feels pressure to file charges. Although the case may pass the threshold for probable cause for arrest, or even a preliminar­y hearing, there’s more time for a defense to frame an argument that there’s insufficie­nt evidence.

“When the cases go to court before the trial, sometimes the defense has new informatio­n that underscore­s weaknesses in the prosecutio­n’s case,” he said.

Cardoza said his client’s life and credibilit­y will always be one Google search away from being ruined.

“How do we undo that? The stink of a felony prosecutio­n on their character? People will remember that — people won’t be remember that the case was dismissed,” Cardoza said.

Cardoza also said the city of Oakland should be “chastised” for “giving away” nearly $1 million in a claim settlement with the woman formerly referred to as Celeste Guap.

“The city got scammed,” Cardoza said.

The woman and her attorney, John Burris, have also sued the city of Richmond. Burris did not return a call for comment Thursday.

The scandal exploded in May 2016, when the woman’s allegation­s that she had sex withmore than two dozen officers, some while she was underage, became public. The daughter of an Oakland police dispatcher, she said she had sex with officers who worked in Richmond, Oakland, Livermore, Contra Costa County and Alameda County.

The revelation­s resulted in discipline for numerous officers, including terminatio­ns of Richmond officers. Oakland, which was at the center of the scandal, underwent a major shakeup: police Chief Sean Whent resigned during the fallout, and multiple police commanders have been criticized for the botched handling of the victim during police interviews and the internal affairs investigat­ion that followed.

The allegation­s first surfaced in September 2015 after Oakland police Officer Brendan O’Brien committed suicide and left a note implicatin­g fellow officers.

It quickly spread to other department­s, and last year District Attorney Nancy O’Malley charged five officers and a retired sergeant.

In February, Livermore police Officer Daniel Black pleaded no contest to one misdemeano­r count of engaging in lewd conduct, and three other charges were dismissed by the DA’s Office as part of a plea deal. The allegation­s cost Black his law enforcemen­t job, but he avoided jail time.

LeRoy Johnson, an Oakland police sergeant who retired in December 2015, was sentenced in February to three years misdemeano­r court probation, also part of a plea deal.

Oakland Officer Smith, who faces five misdemeano­r counts for running the woman’s name in a confidenti­al law enforcemen­t database, is due back in court Feb. 1.

Long- retired Oakland police Capt. Al Perrodin, who admitted to paying for sex with the teenager during an encounter at a Richmond motel, was the only person charged by the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office. As part of a plea deal, the 81-year- old was sentenced to two years probation and five days court supervisio­n instead of five days in jail.

Cardoza is also the attorney representi­ng Ryan Walterhous­e, a former Oakland police officer charged with two felony counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice for allegedly tipping off a prostitute to an undercover FBI sting operation on Internatio­nal Boulevard on Oct. 13-14, 2016. He also faces amisdemean­or count of engaging in an act of prostituti­on.

Walterhous­e’s case is not related to the others; the alleged warnings to the 21-year- old prostitute came while his fellow officers were appearing in court for their improper involvemen­t with Guap.

In June, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Thomas Rogers dismissed Walterhous­e’s case after prosecutor­s refused to disclose the name of a confidenti­al informant. The district attorney refiled the case, which is now in the midst of a preliminar­y hearing. Alameda County Judge Kevin Murphy is expected to decide next week if there’s enough evidence to hold Walterhous­e to answer on all charges.

 ??  ?? LoVerde
LoVerde
 ??  ?? Perez
Perez

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States