Plaintiff Pickett re-takes stand to refute allegations into his own conduct in Richmond police case
on March 30, 2012
Three days after a colleague testifying in the suit against Richmond Police Chief Chris Magnus accused plaintiff Lt. Shawn Pickett of trying to intimidate him with name-calling and threats, Pickett re-took the stand, this time in his own defense. His testimony flatly rejected that of Captain Mark Gagan, who on Monday testified that an irate Pickett confronted him several times in 2006-7 in attempts to bully Gagan into distancing himself from the chief of police.
If was just the latest twist in the racial discrimination lawsuit against Magnus, former Deputy Chief Lori Ritter and the city of Richmond. Pickett and six other high-ranking African American officers filed the suit in 2007, accusing Magnus and Ritter of humiliating them with racial digs and conspiring to block them from further promotion.
Gagan’s two-day testimony, which ended Monday, featured some of the most startling accusations of the trial to come from the defense’s side. Among other testimony, Gagan said Pickett called him a “little snitch bitch” and a “kiss ass,” and warned him to “watch his back.”
The incendiary testimony prompted plaintiffs’ attorney Stephen Jaffe to bring Pickett back to the stand. Pickett testified early in the trial, which began in early January. The sharp clash between Gagan and Pickett has dominated the final week of testimony.
“Captain Gagan testified that you called him — excuse me, jury — a ‘snitch bitch’ on or about December 12, 2006,” Jaffe asked his client in court Thursday. “Did that happen?”
“No,” Pickett said.
“Did you ever call Captain Gagan a ‘kiss ass?’” Jaffe asked.
“No,” Pickett said.
Jaffe also sought to cast a new light on Gagan’s testimony about a tense exchange between Gagan and Pickett just a stone’s throw from a homicide victim’s body in January 2007, three months before Pickett and his co-plaintiffs filed their suit.
Gagan testified that Pickett, incensed over a Los Angeles Times article in which Gagan was quoted, threatened litigation and berated Gagan in the street over what Pickett viewed as a slight to the work of his detectives. Pickett, head of investigations at the time, believed his detectives were due credit for crime reduction, rather than Magnus’ leadership.
Pickett said he did talk with Gagan near the homicide scene in the 2100 block of Roosevelt Ave., and that he was angry about Gagan’s quotes in the newspaper. “I told him that he needed to tell the truth because he would end up in deposition and he would get his pants pulled down, meaning that he would get embarrassed,” Pickett said.
Jaffe also sought to refute Gagan’s testimony about a conversation with Pickett days after the plaintiffs’ December 2006 press conference announcing they had filed formal complaints of racial discrimination.
Gagan testified earlier in the week that Pickett boasted to him that the press conference was like hitting the chief with a “sledgehammer,” and suggested to him that co-plaintiffs Lt. Johan Simon and Arnold Threets were the rightful chief and deputy chief, respectively, and that the other plaintiffs were all poised to move up in rank.
Jaffe chipped away at the likelihood that Pickett would share an alleged strategy with a fellow officer he distrusted.
“What was your level of trust of Captain Gagan after December 12th, 2006?” Jaffe asked.
“I didn’t trust him very much,” Pickett said.
Under defense attorney Arthur Hartinger’s cross examination, Pickett said he went online in early January to read the Los Angeles Times article quoting Gagan. Hartinger and Pickett argued for several minutes over a few sentences of the article, before Hartinger directly accused Pickett of waging a public relations campaign against Magnus to bolster the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.
“Lieutenant, isn’t it true that after you filed your charges against the department you have been reviewing everything you can find to make sure that there was nothing complimentary in the media about Chief Magnus?” Hartinger asked.
“No,” Pickett said.
In later questioning, Pickett again delved into his personal rift with Gagan.
“I do not trust Captain Gagan … Our friendship led to a professional relationship. And based on some of the things he told me, I just didn’t trust him any more,” Pickett said.
Closing arguments in the marathon case are scheduled for Tuesday.
|
RichmondConfidential.org maintains a single page that contains our comprehensive coverage of this important trial:
5 Comments
Richmond Confidential welcomes comments from our readers, but we ask users to keep all discussion civil and on-topic. Comments post automatically without review from our staff, but we reserve the right to delete material that is libelous, a personal attack, or spam. We request that commenters consistently use the same login name. Comments from the same user posted under multiple aliases may be deleted. Richmond Confidential assumes no liability for comments posted to the site and no endorsement is implied; commenters are solely responsible for their own content.
Richmond Confidential
Richmond Confidential is an online news service produced by the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism for, and about, the people of Richmond, California. Our goal is to produce professional and engaging journalism that is useful for the citizens of the city.
Please send news tips to richconstaff@gmail.com.
Dear Robert, Thank you for the in depth reporting on the trial. I hope you win an award for your coverage. with thanks, Jeff
Thanks so much, Councilman Ritterman. Along with the staff here at RichmondConfidential.org, I am doing my best to help provide important information to our readers.
Best,
Robert
What do you do once this case is settled. No matter which way the jury goes, these people cannot work with each other again. There’s too much animosity and distrust.
Who, in their right mind, would put the fate of their own life in the hands of someone who has demonstrated the lack of civility and the lack of trust put forth in this trial?
And, as a citizen, why should we trust anyone on the Richmond Police force? Because of the bad blood between so many ranking officers and their associates, why should we believe they are beyond tampering with evidence just to make someone else look bad.
Many of us have spoken about the divide between the ethnicities in parts of our community and amongst some of our elected officials. Now it seems that this divide has permeated the Police Department to the point where we have officers who give the appearance that they are there to protect only members of their own race.
It’s gotten to the point where people are afraid to show that they have an opinion on this case for fear that when they need police assistance all of a sudden no one may be available to come to their aid.
This is a lose/lose situation for the people of Richmond.
And let’s not forget that before this is over, the legal bills alone will to $4 million just for the City’s part.
Don Gosney finally starts to understand that we “cannot trust anyone in the Richmond police force”. Don realizes the cops can tamper with evidence and lie! duh!…A great step away from where Don was only a year ago when he was collaborating with the cops in spreading lies and missrepresentations about our Mayor and councilmember Beckles. Welcome back to reality, Don.
Please don’t attempt to characterize me when you know nothing about me at all.
There’s much more to all of this than just the politics in this reply. Please stay focused on the issue and leave the politics to a different forum.
And please don’t try to take a part of a question and use it in your argument as a declarative statement.
This isn’t about me. It’s about the racial tensions and separativism within the police department.