Publication Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Worse than Rodney King?
Worse than Rodney King?
(April 13, 2005) Closing statements in police brutality trial debate actions by officers, Hopkins
by Bill D'Agostino
In his closing statement Monday, Deputy District Attorney Peter Waite invoked an infamous name while criticizing the actions of Palo Alto police officers Michael Kan and Craig Lee -- Rodney King.
Waite shocked the courtroom by stating the beating Lee and Kan gave 59-year-old Albert Hopkins in 2003 was in some ways worse than the thrashing King received from a group of Los Angeles police officers gave Rodney King in 1991. Unlike Hopkins, Waite argued, King committed a crime -- drunk driving.
"At least Rodney King deserved some of that beating," Waite said.
After Waite's comparison, Palo Alto police officers sitting in the courtroom's audience gasped in shock and groaned their disapproval.
Among those present were Police Chief Lynne Johnson, who said she wanted to see the closing statements for herself, and former Police Chief Pat Dwyer. Friends and family of the two officers also sat in the audience.
The prosecuting attorney told the jury that Hopkins was merely sitting in his car and eating ice cream on July 13, 2003 when the two "incompetent" officers approached him around 10:30 p.m. When Hopkins refused to hand over his driver's license, they pepper-sprayed him and "beat the snot out of him" with their batons, Waite said.
"It's not yet a police state where you can come up to anyone and demand their ID and beat them up and arrest them," he told the eight-woman, four-man jury.
The two officers are facing misdemeanor battery charges and felony assault charges for their actions against Hopkins. During closing arguments Monday, Kan looked nervous, occasionally fidgeting with a pen, while Lee appeared calm, smiling broadly during breaks.
The two officers' attorneys painted a much different picture than the prosecuting attorney with their closing remarks.
They argued Kan, 27, and Lee, 42, used reasonable, measured force against a belligerent man who was sitting in a high-crime area, scared a woman driving past in a blue Jetta and threatened Lee's safety by violently flinging open his car door.
"When an officer feels her or his safety is threatened, the officer has a right to briefly detain someone," said Harry Stern, who represents Kan.
It was Hopkins who committed a crime, Stern added -- during the lawful detention, he refused to hand over his ID and then fought back when the officers tried to pull him from his Honda.
If Hopkins had listened to the officers' orders to get out of his car and onto the ground, they wouldn't have beaten him, Stern said. "These officers can't be blamed for Mr. Hopkins going ballistic on them."
Hopkins -- who testified earlier in the three-week case that he stood still while the officers beat him with batons -- is a "complete and total liar" who was once convicted of disturbing the peace for hugging and kissing a woman he didn't know, Stern said.
"He was doing something" before the officers arrived, Stern added. "He wasn't just sitting there eating ice cream."
But Waite said that Stern, like the two officers, never explained what Hopkins did that might have been criminal. Although the officers arrested Hopkins for interfering with their investigation, he was never charged with a crime.
A legal detention requires the officers to believe Hopkins might have committed a specific crime, Waite argued. "If you ignore that fact, if you make it a mere technicality, why not shoot Hopkins in the head?"
Hopkins had every right to not give them his identification since the detention was illegal, Waite said.
"He knew the law better than these bozos," said the prosecutor, who later compared Hopkins' actions to Rosa Parks' refusal in 1955 to give up her seat on an Alabama bus to a white passenger. "It's not bad always to be unreasonable."
On the stand, Hopkins accused the Asian-American officers of targeting him because he's black. He was living in his car at the time of the incident.
The officers never testified in the trial, although they read earlier testimony from the preliminary hearing. Experts also testified on both sides about the officers' actions. Other local police officers who had nonviolent interactions with Hopkins also related their stories to the jurors.
Attorney Craig Brown, who represents Lee, said Palo Alto sergeants who responded to the scene that summer night jumped to conclusions, leading to the criminal conviction.
A separate internal affairs review found the officers acted with discretion. Waite said those high-ranking officials were protecting fellow officers, and sending a bad message to the community.
"How dare this homeless person sit under a tree in Palo Alto -- that seems to be the message," Waite said.
Staff Writer Bill D'Agostino can be e-mailed at bdagostino@paweekly.com.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
