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

Description:

The KTLA newsfilm collection at the UCLA Film & Television Archive consists of cut and unedited stories, outtakes and fill footage, originally shot on 16mm reversal film stock with magnetic soundtrack. Some footage, particularly material not used for broadcast, may be without sound.

Title: “LAPD officers indicted in federal civil rights violations case.” Date: March 29, 1971.

Summary: Several officers with the Los Angeles Police Department were indicted on federal charges of civil rights violations stemming from two separate incidents. In one incident, police conducted a raid during which officers shot and killed two civilians. In the other incident, a police informant alerted officers about plans for a burglary. The officers allowed the burglary to proceed until the goods were delivered so that the recipient could be charged with receiving stolen property. In this clip, after appearing in Federal Court, City Attorney Roger Arnbergh, attorney for the officers involved in the shooting incident, talks to reporters and answers questions. Arnbergh explains that the police defendants have announced their counsel and have been assigned to appear in a court later that afternoon. Arnbergh also states that he’s already lodged a motion with the court to recommend the dismissal of the indictments.

© The Regents of the University of California

Complete Record: The KTLA newsfilm collection at the UCLA Film & Television Archive consists of cut and unedited stories, outtakes and fill footage, originally shot on 16mm reversal film stock with magnetic soundtrack. Some footage, particularly material not used for broadcast, may be without sound. Title: “LAPD officers indicted in federal civil rights violations case.” Date: March 29, 1971. Summary: Several officers with the Los Angeles Police Department were indicted on federal charges of civil rights violations stemming from two separate incidents. In one incident, police conducted a raid during which officers shot and killed two civilians. In the other incident, a police informant alerted officers about plans for a burglary. The officers allowed the burglary to proceed until the goods were delivered so that the recipient could be charged with receiving stolen property. In this clip, after appearing in Federal Court, City Attorney Roger Arnbergh, attorney for the officers involved in the shooting incident, talks to reporters and answers questions. Arnbergh explains that the police defendants have announced their counsel and have been assigned to appear in a court later that afternoon. Arnbergh also states that he’s already lodged a motion with the court to recommend the dismissal of the indictments. © The Regents of the University of California

Transcription

[Music] Mr. Arnberg, can you tell us what happened in there this morning? >> Well, all that was done there was the defendants announced who with their council were and was assigned to a court for a plea this afternoon. >> Is that uh the usual procedure in federal court? >> Customary procedure. Yes sir. >> Will bail then be set at that time? >> I assume that there will no bail be required. It would be un very uh unnecessary in this case. >> Uh Mr. Arbor, you usually handle civil cases. Do you have any apprehension being this being a criminal case? >> Well, of course, our philosophy of trying cases is to see that the court gets the truth and if the court has a full truth in this case, we have no problem. The combination of uh defendants you're defending is rather complicated because of city council action. Where does it stand now? What's the prospect of you defending all of these defendants? >> Well, I wouldn't be able to advance guess what the council is going to do, but at the present time we represent Marshall Gaines in the one case and on the other case we represent Fedrezi and Sepa in all counts. It's too late now. [Music] [Music] Well, the matter just been assigned to a judge for further proceedings. >> Uhhuh. >> And that'll take place 2:00 this afternoon. >> Any other nothing of consequence happened today. >> Can you tell us what it was again, please? >> Well, this is a new system here and not even a plea is taken. rather the defendant has explained his rights and then the case is assigned out to a judge and his this particular case was assigned to Judge Ferguson and we are to report there at 2:00 this afternoon to read just that simple very inconsequential >> thank you [Music] He's the guy we want. >> A civil suit was filed in federal court last week. Will you be representing this man these men in connection with that? >> Our office will. Yes, sir. >> What sort of pre-trial motions do you plan? >> Well, of course, we uh have already lodged with the court motions which we plan to make uh for a dismissal of the indictments among other motions. any what will you detail those other motions? >> Well, one of the other motions is if the dismissal is not granted then we would want to uh get a copy of the proceedings before the grand jury and uh also we would want to separate the cases uh so that in the one indictment we would not be confronted with evidence as to two different complete and isolated transactions. What might your position be on a gag order restraining public comment? >> Well, our office has never made any uh comments with respect to a case which would prejudice either the rights of the defendant or the or the government, the prosecution in this case. And consequently, I do not believe that a gag order is so-called would be uh would in any way affect us unless it were overly broad. >> Does the assignment of the cases to different judges pose any special problem, Mr. Arnberg? >> Uh it may be some complication. And it would appear that uh that was something we'll have to be discussed. >> Roger. Uh the ACLU said they are going to ask that Mayor Yordy and Chief Davis not make remarks about the case and you had a conference with uh the people up there. Well, we just uh discussed it with them and I merely asked if their motion to uh uh restrain comment on the case would apply to them as well as to us. >> Well, do you think that a gag order is necessary on this case? I do not think that a gag order is necessary, but I this is entirely up to the court. >> If everybody's through, Roger, could you maybe go down a list of the people involved in this thing? There were I don't know on the one case involved with Marshall Frank Gaines, an Edgar Brown, and an Angelo Dorenzo. Who is Dorenzo? Informant. >> He is an informant on the burglary socalled. [Music] Hey, out of town.


1 user has this film:
UCLA Film & Television Archive


No related films.