Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
After 51 days of deliberations, the “Riders” police misconduct jury has reached verdicts on a handful of crimes — including whether one officer is guilty of kidnapping and assault — but remains deadlocked on most of the serious allegations. The jury on Thursday read its votes on the 35 charges in hopes of convincing Alameda Count Superior Court Judge Leopoldo Dorado that it should be allowed to go home. The votes indicated that the jury has reached verdicts on no more than nine of the charges. Despite passionate objections from the defense, Dorado ordered the jury to return Monday. “Continued deliberations may still be fruitful,” the judge told counsel before breaking the news to the jury. “With every balloting there has been a change.” The jurors, obviously dismayed and hanging their heads, appeared to take the news hard. One woman sniffled and wiped her nose while another juror massaged his temples. As the jurors filed out, one stared intently at District Attorney Tom Orloff while walking by. The jury has now spent a full year in the trial of three fired police officers accused of trampling on the law as they patrolled Oakland’s streets. Clarence Mabanag, Jude Siapno and Matthew Hornung are accused of crimes ranging from lying about overtime and falsifying police reports to kidnapping and assault. It is believed to be the longest criminal trial in county history. To make the case for the jury’s dismissal, the foreman read a list of votes on the charges over the span of several days. The jury did not reveal if the verdicts it had reached were convictions or acquittals. Mabanag is charged with 15 crimes, but the jury has reached verdicts only on whether he conspired to make false arrests and on three counts related to false overtime pay. Siapno faces 14 charges, but the jury has reached verdicts on only one of two kidnapping counts, an assault charge and two counts of conspiracy to make a false arrest. Hornung is charged with six crimes, but the jury has reached a verdict only on a charge of conspiring to make a false arrest. On the deadlocked votes, the tallies showed that they ranged from 6-6 to 11-1. The list also showed that the votes have gradually fluctuated, and that the jury once asked for two verdicts back so that it could revisit them. Outside the courtroom, defense attorney William Rapoport refused to draw any conclusions, but said that the deadlocks generally boded well for the officers. But he and other defense lawyers said they are concerned about the impact of further forced deliberations. “We run the risk of losing sight of the truth,” said defense attorney Edward Fishman. “They will render verdicts to go home instead of to find the truth.” “The changes [in the jury's votes] are not dramatic,” Rapoport told Dorado. “There are no sea changes. The bottom line is the majority of them have remained the same.” DA Orloff, who has personally handled the case since prosecutor David Hollister moved to the Plumas County DA’s office, argued that the jury had reached a few verdicts since the last time they claimed to be deadlocked. And a few of the votes show that the jury is close to deciding some other issues, he said. “Given the length of the trial and the complexity, [jury deliberation] has been a relatively short time,” said the DA. At Orloff’s urging, Dorado advised the jury to try new deliberation techniques. He encouraged jurors to try reverse-role-playing — advocating in favor of a position they actually oppose — and having different jurors lead the discussions. “It could be helpful,” Orloff said. Associated Press reports were used in compiling this story.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.