REPORT ON THE DEATH OF Margaret Laverne Mitchell · REPORT ON THE DEATH OF Margaret Laverne Mitchell JUSTICE SYSTEM INTEGRITY DIVISION STEVE COOLEY District Attorney August 7, 2001

REPORT ON THE DEATH OF

Margaret Laverne Mitchell

JUSTICE SYSTEM INTEGRITY DIVISION

STEVE COOLEYDistrict Attorney

August 7, 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary ………………………………………………………………….. 1

Factual Analysis ………………………………………………………….. 4

Introduction ………………………………………………………….. 5

Witness Statements ………………………………………………….. 6

Officer Kathy Clark ………………………………………….. 6

James Moody ………………………………………….. 12

Officer Hope Young ………………………………………….. 17

Derrick Keaton ………………………………………….. 21

Pamela Littky ………………………………………….. 26

Gary Miller ………………………………………….. 28

Officer John Goines ………………………………………….. 32

Jon Menick ………………………………………….. 37

Michael Leinert ………………………………………….. 39

Kelly Page ………………………………………….. 42

Barry Henley ………………………………………….. 45

Medical Evidence ………………………………………………….. 48

Larrigan's Background………………………………………………….. 48

Physical Evidence ……….………………………………………….. 49

Mitchell's Criminal history …………………………………………… 50

Legal Analysis …………………………………………………………… 51

1

SUMMARY

The Justice System Integrity Division of the Los Angeles County District Attorney'sOffice has completed its review of the May 21, 1999, fatal shooting of Margaret LaverneMitchell by Los Angeles Police Department Officer Edward Larrigan during a pedestrianencounter near the intersection of La Brea Avenue and Fourth Street in the City of LosAngeles. After a thorough review of this case, it is the determination of this office thatthe available evidence has been compromised and is so conflicting that any criminalprosecution could not withstand potential defense challenges that the shooting was eitheraccidental or in self-defense.

The District Attorney's former Special Investigations Division launched an investigationinto the Mitchell shooting on August 29, 1999, when the Los Angeles Police Department("L.A.P.D.") completed its inquiry into the shooting and presented its findings. TheDistrict Attorney's "Rollout" program was not in effect in 1999, having been eliminatedin September 1995 by the District Attorney in office at that time.

Under the program, which was reinstated seven months after Mitchell was killed, aDeputy District Attorney and a Senior District Attorney Investigator respond to the sceneof officer-involved shootings to conduct a separate investigation of the incident. Theyhave an opportunity to participate in the initial civilian witness interviews immediatelyfollowing a police shooting. This provides a fresh and unhampered assessment of awitness's perceptive abilities and credibility.

There was, however, no such early opportunity to objectively assess the witnesses in theMitchell shooting, which ultimately led to an exhaustive investigation that included theutilization of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury.

As the District Attorney's Office began examining the evidence amassed by L.A.P.D., itbecame clear there were conflicting forces at work that severely hampered this office'sattempts to investigate the Mitchell shooting.

There were 11 key percipient witnesses, including three L.A.P.D. officers, who werecrucial to the case. Nine of those witnesses were interviewed on audiotape by L.A.P.D.investigators. All but one was interviewed on the day of the shooting or shortlythereafter.

Approximately one year later, an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation,("F.B.I.") interviewed six of these witnesses, but, pursuant to F.B.I. policies, did not taperecord their statements. The Mitchell family hired an attorney, Leo Terrell, to pursuecivil litigation against the City of Los Angeles. At least three of the witnesses had theirdepositions taken by this attorney, who claimed to represent four of the 11 percipientwitnesses in the case.1

1 These four witnesses also claimed the attorney for the Mitchell family represented them. According to amemorandum prepared by the District Attorney's Professional Responsibility Unit addressing this situation,

2

In January 2001, nine of the 11 percipient witnesses testified before the Grand Juryduring an investigative hearing initiated by this office. The remaining two witnessesparticipated in voluntary, videotaped interviews by District Attorney personnel severalmonths earlier.

When the witnesses' statements and testimony were analyzed, along with the physical andscientific evidence, a troubling picture emerged. Three witnesses radically changed theirstatements both as to the facts and their attitudes toward L.A.P.D. Statements from sixother witnesses remained consistent, for the most part. The remaining two witnessesrefused to be interviewed by L.A.P.D. or this office, based, in part, on advice of theMitchell family attorney. Their statements could be analyzed only on the basis of theirGrand Jury testimony, which was taken nearly two years after the Mitchell shooting.

Although the witnesses represented by the Mitchell family attorney had no apparentmonetary interest in the outcome of the civil wrongful death lawsuit, the Mitchell familyattorney advised at least one of them against cooperating with police and refused to makeany witnesses available out of his presence for interviews by the District Attorney'sOffice as they attempted to conduct their investigation. These actions prevented early,untainted interviews with at least one witness and destroyed any appearance ofimpartiality.

As a result, there is no clear picture of the Mitchell shooting. Three conflicting factualscenarios were described by the witnesses:

• Larrigan accidentally discharged his service weapon and shot Mitchell when helost his balance and fell, or nearly fell, to the ground.

• Mitchell lunged toward Larrigan from several feet away as if attempting to stabhim with a screwdriver, and was shot when Larrigan responded by firing hisweapon in self-defense.

• Larrigan, for no apparent reason and without provocation, shot Mitchell as shefled from him or when she turned back momentarily to look at him.2

Because of the state of the evidence, it cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt thatLarrigan did not (1) act lawfully in self-defense and in the defense of others, or (2)accidentally discharge his firearm. Accordingly, the conflicting evidence cannot supporta criminal prosecution.

This factual dilemma might have been minimized had the District Attorney's "Rollout"

there is a question of whether this "representation" is illusory since no fees were paid and there is no basisfor the representation of independent percipient witnesses.2 These statements are inconsistent with the medical evidence in the case, which indicates that Mitchell wasfacing Larrigan with the officer slightly to her right when she was shot.

3

program been operating when Mitchell was shot. It also might have been minimized hadnot efforts by law enforcement, including this office, been encumbered and, in somecases, compromised by actions taken in pursuit of the Mitchell family's civil lawsuit. It isregrettable that this office did not have the opportunity to make an unhindered inquiry ofthe witnesses at the earliest possible opportunity.

Not only would a clearer picture of the shooting emerged, but this office would haveresolved the matter much sooner.

4

FACTUAL ANALYSIS

The analysis herein is based on our examination of the following materials: (1) aninvestigative file prepared by L.A.P.D. and submitted to this office, which includes,among other things, L.A.P.D. property reports, L.A.P.D. forensic reports regardingfirearm, fingerprint and blood analyses, an Autopsy Report of Margaret Mitchellprepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Coroner, a diagram of the scene, atotal of 71 photographs including those of the location, the involved officers and thephysical evidence, Mitchell's criminal history and copies of citations issued to Mitchell;(2) transcripts of L.A.P.D. tape-recorded interviews of 20 witnesses which took placebetween May 21, 1999, and June 7, 1999; (3) copies of the audio tapes of L.A.P.D.'sinterview with witness James Moody; (4) L.A.P.D. internal records relating to Larriganentitled Personnel Package, Divisional Package, TEAMS (Training Evaluation andManagement System) Reports, and Personnel Complaint Index; (5) copies of thedeposition transcripts of Officers Kathy Clark and John Goines; (6) a video tape ofexcerpts of Clark's and Goines' depositions; (7) F.B.I. interview reports of witnessesGary Miller, James Moody, Derrick Keaton, Henry Johnson, Nick Vasile, Jay Ganzi,Barry Henley, Shawn Pepper, Officer John Goines, and Officer Renne Hope Young; (8)typed reports of the interviews of Kelly Page and Mark Lawrence by L.A.P.D. Robbery-Homicide detectives on January 4, 20003; and (9) two L.A.P.D. audio tapes of radiocommunications, one of which is numbered 206281.

At the time of this incident, according to the policy of the District Attorney's Office thenin effect, representatives of the District Attorney's Office did not respond to the scene ofthis shooting and were not present during witness interviews conducted by L.A.P.D. TheDistrict Attorney's Office, however, conducted a supplementary investigation whichconsisted of the video-taped interviews of witnesses Gary Miller and Pamela Littky, anda Grand Jury investigative hearing, during which witnesses James Moody, DerrickKeaton, Barry Henley, Kelly Page, Michael Leinert, Jon Menick, and Officers Goines,Young and Clark testified.4

3 Inspector General Jeffrey Eglash of the Los Angeles Police Commission conducted interviews ofwitnesses Pamela Littky, Gary Miller, Hamlet Andreyasyan, Wendi Potter and Officer Hope Young inDecember of 1999. Transcripts of those interviews were provided to Clifford Klein and James Cosper,respectively, the Head Deputy and Assistant Head Deputy at that time of the Special InvestigationsDivision, which has since been supplanted by the Justice System Integrity Division. Because thoseinterviews may have incorporated facts drawn from the statement provided by Officer Larrigan that wasprivileged pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, those transcripts were not provided toDeputy District Attorney Susan Chasworth, the undersigned prosecutor who was assigned the task ofreviewing the facts of this incident.4 This office attempted to conduct voluntary, video-taped interviews of all of these witnesses. Onlywitnesses Littky and Miller agreed to this request. Officer Clark, through her attorney, refused to beinterviewed and the remaining witnesses, also through their attorneys, would only consent to beinterviewed if their attorneys could be present. The attorney for witnesses Moody, Keaton, Leinert andMenick was Leo Terrell. Although this office was willing to provide each attorney with a copy of thevideo-tape of their client's interview, the presence of attorneys, particularly one who had such a stronginterest in finding liability on the part of the involved officers, could interfere with our ability to obtain

5

Introduction

The circumstances leading to the fatal shooting of Margaret Mitchell can be summarizedas follows: On Friday, May 21, 1999, at approximately 4:00 p.m., or shortly thereafter,L.A.P.D. bicycle patrol Officers Edward Larrigan and Kathy Clark attempted to stoppedestrian Mitchell near the intersection of Third Street and La Brea Avenue, in LosAngeles, to conduct an investigation regarding her illegally possessing a shopping cart.Mitchell appeared to be and, in fact, was a homeless woman who spent her time in thatgeneral area. When first observed, Mitchell was pushing a shopping cart eastbound onthe south side of Third Street towards La Brea Avenue. From there, Mitchell turnedsouthbound on the west sidewalk of La Brea Avenue, and continued toward FourthStreet. Larrigan and Clark followed behind her on their bicycles. Some kind of verbalinteraction took place between the officers and Mitchell at that time, and it becameapparent that Mitchell was not willing to voluntarily stop and submit to the officers'commands. The officers also observed a screwdriver in Mitchell's possession, which atsome points was in the shopping cart and at other times was in Mitchell's right hand.

Near the intersection of Fourth Street and La Brea Avenue, Larrigan and Clarkdismounted their bicycles and followed Mitchell on foot. As the three individuals wereproceeding southbound on the west sidewalk of La Brea Avenue, there was some furtherverbal exchange, during which the officers repeated their command that Mitchell stopand Mitchell conveyed her continued unwillingness to stop. During this time, Mitchellwas holding the screwdriver in her right hand toward the officers in a manner that, atleast for certain periods of time, indicated that she was prepared to use it as a weapon,either offensively or defensively. Both Larrigan and Clark had their service weaponsdrawn as they proceeded. All three were in motion most of the time, with Mitchellmoving southbound, and the officers, north of her, also moving southbound. Mitchellmaintained possession of the cart.

On the southwest corner of La Brea Avenue and Fourth Street was a Chrysler/Jeep cardealership with windows facing La Brea Avenue. Also, there was vehicular traffictravelling south and northbound on La Brea Avenue. By this point, several people in thecar dealership, in passing vehicles and on the sidewalk, were aware that an unfriendlypolice encounter was occurring and their attention was drawn to Mitchell and the officers.

These three individuals got to a point just south of the car dealership, approximately 110feet south of Fourth Street, near a newspaper stand. Exactly what happened at this pointis unclear; various witnesses described these crucial moments in different ways. There

unbiased statements. Thus, a Grand Jury investigative hearing was convened, to which these nine non-cooperative witnesses were subpoenaed to testify. During the Grand Jury hearing, witnesses Moody,Keaton, Menick and Leinert confirmed that attorney Terrell was representing them in connection with theMitchell shooting and was doing so free of charge.

8

At this point, the shopping cart was in front of Mitchell, Clark was to Mitchell's left, andLarrigan was to her right. She was approximately eight to ten feet from the officers, bothof whom had their guns drawn. They told her to drop the screwdriver several times andidentified themselves as police officers. Mitchell made eye contact with both Clark andLarrigan. Clark thought Mitchell looked deranged and angry.

Clark feared that Mitchell was going to lunge towards her. With the screwdriver raisedand moving in her hand, Mitchell looked at Clark and then focused on Larrigan. She thenlunged forward toward Larrigan and, from a position in which it was raised above herhead, lowered the screwdriver down in a stabbing motion. Clark, with her peripheralvision, saw Larrigan involved in some movement. She did not know whether hestumbled or fell, but she observed some commotion occurring in that direction. Fearingfor Larrigan's life, Clark thought about discharging her weapon, but she was conscious ofthe rush hour vehicular traffic in her line of sight and behind Mitchell. As she wascontemplating this, she heard Larrigan's gun discharge.

As Mitchell fell to the ground, Clark observed the screwdriver fall out of her hand. Clarkvividly recalled that the screwdriver was longer than most. She estimated the bladeportion to be seven to eight inches long. Larrigan made a request for a supervisor and anambulance. Clark and Larrigan were transported separately to the station.

July 11, 2000, deposition:

During her deposition, Clark was not questioned in great detail by attorney Terrell aboutthe facts of the incident. Terrell, however, did explore the question of whether Larriganpushed the shopping cart back toward Mitchell when the three of them were at the cornerof Fourth Street and La Brea Avenue.7 Clark stated that she did not believe Larrigan everpushed the shopping cart back toward Mitchell, although he stopped it with his foot.Clark also stated that at that time, neither she nor Larrigan removed the screwdriver fromthe cart. She explained that she did not remove the screwdriver because the cart wasapproximately six feet away, putting it out of reach. Clark did say during the depositionthat in her opinion, Larrigan could have done something to take control of the cart at thattime.

Clark also clarified that she, personally, did not notify L.A.P.D. communications of herlocation. Finally, in response to attorney Terrell's question, Clark stated that she did notagree with the Police Commission's findings that the shooting was "out-of-policy",because she believed Larrigan acted to defend his life.

January 31, 2001, Grand Jury testimony:

The following summary does not reiterate any of the previous statements made by Clark,

7 Apparently, Terrell received some information that Mitchell may have pushed the cart toward the officerswhen they were at the intersection of Fourth Street and La Brea Avenue, and Larrigan pushed it backtoward her. The source of this information is unknown.

10

Clark also testified that as they were dismounting their bicycles at the intersection of LaBrea Avenue and Fourth Street, Mitchell pushed the shopping cart toward Larrigan andhe braced it with his foot. Then without using his hands, he pushed it back toward her.Mitchell, however, never relinquished the cart and kept her hands on it as she pushed it.Clark testified that this event wherein Mitchell and Larrigan pushed the cart betweenthem happened very quickly: Mitchell pushed the cart toward Larrigan, Larrigan pushedit back, and the next thing Clark recalled was that Mitchell had the screwdriver in herhand. By the time Clark had gotten completely off her bicycle, Mitchell was holding thescrewdriver.

Clark testified that when they were at the intersection of La Brea Avenue and FourthStreet, Mitchell was "in a corner" and Clark was formulating a plan to use non-lethalmeans to subdue Mitchell. Clark considered employing a bean-bag shotgun or a taser,which would have necessitated getting a back-up unit. Also, it was at that point thatLarrigan indicated he was going to use his O.C. spray. Neither Clark nor Larrigan,however, removed their O.C. spray or requested a bean-bag shotgun or a taser. At thatmoment, Clark heard the honking of a car horn and the citizen, who Clark described as amiddle-aged African-American male, intervened. Clark testified that before this manapproached Mitchell, Clark believed they had Mitchell contained and they had a plan touse non-lethal force. In Clark’s opinion, after the citizen interfered, they lost control ofthe situation. Although he may have been trying to help, the intervention of the citizen,in Clark's mind, had the opposite effect.

Clark said that not only had she asked the intervening citizen to get back, she believedthat she reached out for him, and, she was certain that Larrigan physically pulled himback. Clark testified that it was when Larrigan pulled this person back, that Mitchell tookthe opportunity to run around the corner and head southbound from Fourth Street on thewest sidewalk of La Brea Avenue.

Clark explained that it never occurred to her to attempt to force the screwdriver out ofMitchell's hand. In Clark's opinion, the proximity to Mitchell necessary to accomplishsuccessfully disarming her, would have been an unsafe distance, from which Mitchellcould have easily stabbed them.9

Clark also testified that no one threatened to shoot Mitchell or said, "Stop or I’ll shoot." 9 There is a popular training manual entitled, "The Tactical Edge – Surviving High-Risk Patrol" firstprinted in 1986, which states that any distance from a suspect armed with a knife of less than 21 feet isdangerous, e.g., a suspect could reach the officer before the officer had the opportunity to draw his weaponand deliver two rounds center mass. This manual further states, "If he's holding a knife or other weaponthat extends his reach, like a club, expand your reactionary gap to 21 feet or more. Have your sidearmpointed at him while you're dealing with him." (emphasis in original). Although it is unclear what specificformal training Larrigan received regarding handling suspects armed with sharp-edged weapons, thisstandard of 21 feet is known by many officers. In a June 2001 article in the magazine, The PoliceMarksman entitled "Underestimating Edged Weapons", the same standard is repeated, "[T]he effectiverange of edged weapons is much greater than many officers realize: 21 feet or more if the officer's gun isholstered, at least 15 feet if his weapon is unholstered and down at his side, and 10 feet or more if theofficer is holding the suspect at gunpoint."

11

Further, no other citizen other than the man who had intervened at the corner of FourthStreet and La Brea Avenue became involved in the incident. There were no otherpedestrians in their immediate vicinity on the sidewalk, and the shopping cart never fellover on its side.

Clark could not recall whether she re-holstered her gun as they pursued Mitchellsouthbound from Fourth Street, but she believed she kept it drawn in a "low-ready"position10. Clark also testified that although she wanted to keep a safe distance behindMitchell, she also wanted to "close in" on Mitchell to some extent. When asked, Clarktestified that she understood the term "drag-stepping"11, but stated that she did not engagein this during the pursuit of Mitchell and had not been trained to "drag-step" as a way ofmaintaining balance.

Clark described Mitchell as partially running and partially walking fast. Clark said thatMitchell did not hesitate or turn back towards the officers as she proceeded south on LaBrea Avenue. Clark also testified that she did not believe she or Larrigan said anythingto Mitchell as they proceeded south on La Brea Avenue. All Clark rememberedverbalizing at that time was her concern to Larrigan that they needed to do something,i.e., get assistance from other units, because the situation seemed out of control andpeople could get hurt.

Clark described more specifically what happened before Mitchell was shot. Immediatelybefore the shooting, Mitchell lunged at Larrigan, but Clark testified that she wouldhesitate to describe the action as a "full out lunge". Clark testified that Mitchell's armwas raised above her head, and she took a step toward Larrigan, closing the distance.Further, Clark estimated that Mitchell was eight to ten feet from Clark and approximatelyone foot closer to Larrigan. Clark did not see where Mitchell received the gunshotwound, but from the relative positions of Larrigan and Mitchell, Clark would expect it tohave been to the front part of Mitchell's torso between the waist and shoulder.

Clark also that after the shooting a female off-duty L.A.P.D. officer12 came up frombehind and a female minister13 came out of the car dealership and asked if she couldattend to Mitchell. Clark recalled that the minister said something like, "look at her, she'sdying, let me tend to her". Clark did not know if the minister was permitted to approachMitchell, and Clark said she needed a minute to let her know. The minister was insistentand said, "no, let me tend to her, look at her". A supervisor came on the scene and Clarkwas told that the minister could approach Mitchell, so Clark gave the minister

10 According to Clark, having one's gun in a "low-ready" position is when the gun is unholstered andpointing downward.11 The phrase "drag-step" and "drag-stepping" was first mentioned by Officer John Goines during his July12, 2000, deposition, at which time he described it as follows: "It's where you put one foot in front of theother and slide the other one up. It's just to keep your platform just in case you do have to shoot." Goinesalso mentioned this during his January 31, 2001, Grand Jury testimony. Goines testified that both Clarkand Larrigan engaged in this activity as they pursued Mitchell.12 This off-duty L.A.P.D. officer was subsequently identified as Hope Young.13 This female minister was subsequently identified as Kelly Page.

12

permission. Clark also recalled that a male L.A.P.D. officer14 came to the scene fromacross the street. Clark recalled that he approached on motorcycle, rather than foot.

James Moody

James Moody, the citizen who approached Mitchell and the officers during this incidentin an attempt to persuade Mitchell to cooperate, has given formal statements on threeoccasions; (1) On the evening of May 21, 1999, the day of the incident, he wasinterviewed on audio-tape by L.A.P.D. investigators at the L.A.P.D. Wilshire Station; (2)On January 27, 2000, he provided a statement to F.B.I. Special Agent R. E. Stapleton, Jr.;and (3) On January 29, 2001, he testified during a Grand Jury investigative hearing. Atthe time of the shooting, Moody was 68 years old.

May 21, 1999, interview:

During his L.A.P.D. interview, Moody explained that earlier that afternoon he had beennear the intersection of Fourth Street and La Brea Avenue shopping for lamps with hiswife. He had driven through the alley from Third Street to Fourth Street and was at theintersection of Fourth Street and La Brea Avenue, in the eastbound right turn lane aboutto turn right on La Brea Avenue.15 At that point, Moody noticed something occurringinvolving a male police officer who Moody described as "large"16, a female police officerand an elderly lady pushing a shopping cart. (Hereinafter these individuals will bereferred to as "Larrigan", "Clark" and "Mitchell"). Moody recognized Larrigan and Clarkas police officers because of their uniforms, which were blue and included shorts andhelmets.

Moody observed that the officers, who had gotten off their bicycles, were trying toapproach Mitchell, but Mitchell was backing away from them with her cart. It appearedto Moody that Mitchell was trying to keep a distance between herself and the officers.Moody heard Mitchell say, "you're not a cop, you're not the police" to the officers.17 InMoody's opinion, Mitchell sounded deranged. As she said this, Mitchell held ascrewdriver in her right hand "swinging" it at the officers. When asked to describe 14 This L.A.P.D. officer was subsequently identified as John Goines.15 The route Moody said he took to arrive at Fourth Street and La Brea Avenue is incompatible with thegeography of the streets. The L.A.P.D. interviewer, however, did not follow-up on this discrepancy.16 Larrigan was 5'8" tall and, according to information Larrigan supplied in October of 1999 on a firearmsqualification form, he weighed 160 pounds.17 It appeared from off-hand statements Moody made during this interview, that Moody's wife may havealso observed Mitchell interacting with Larrigan and Clark. Moody, however, in this interview said he hadleft his wife at a lamp store before the incident and, in later interviews, adamantly denied that his wife waspresent. Nonetheless, Moody made the following statements during his interview with L.A.P.D.: "She's . . .hollering, 'You ain't no police.' The first time she said that, I looked at her. I said, 'What is she saying?' Mywife said, 'She said he's not a police.' She laughed, and I laughed. I said, 'That's right. I wonder what'swrong with her?' " and; "[W]e were standing there, my wife and I, talking, and we looked over and saw twoofficers and an old -- seemed like an old lady with a street bag, one of those bag -- one of those baskets.She was pushing it."

13

exactly what Mitchell was doing with the screwdriver, Moody said, "She was hitting athim, like the - - trying to stab him or cut him or something with it." During thisinteraction, Moody did not hear exactly what the officers said to Mitchell because he wastoo focussed on what was occurring. He knew they said something and believed one ofthem yelled, "put it down". Moody estimated that at the time, Larrigan wasapproximately two shopping cart lengths away from Mitchell and clearly "not closeenough to [be] hit . . . because he wasn't going to let her get that close." Moody alsoestimated that his distance from this encounter was between 12 and 16 feet.

Moody got out of his car and said something to Mitchell like, "Ma'am just wait a minute.You don't do that. These are officers." Moody was trying to get Mitchell to calm downand convince her that the officers were not going to hurt her. Mitchell, however, did notrespond to Moody but repeated, "they ain't no police - they ain't no police" and, "kept onstriking with [the screwdriver]". Moody ran up to Larrigan and said, "let me try to helpget her", believing he could have somehow gotten the screwdriver from her. The officerssaid, "that's okay". Moody again said to them, "let me try", and he started to approachMitchell. Although she still had the screwdriver in her hand, Moody was not concernedfor his safety because he did not believe Mitchell could get to him before he could get toher. The police, however, told him to get back and pulled him over18, and he stayed back.Again the police said, "that's okay, don't worry about it" and told him that he should notbe involved in the situation. In Moody's opinion, his actions did not distract the policefrom dealing with Mitchell because after telling him to get back, Moody simply watchedfrom a distance and did not follow them when they went south on La Brea Avenue.

From where she had been on the corner, Mitchell then ran south on La Brea Avenue withthe officers following her. She was pulling the shopping cart and still "swinging" thescrewdriver toward the officers. In Moody's words, Mitchell was moving the screwdriver"back and forth" and "sticking at them" with the screwdriver. Mitchell also continued toyell at the officers, but Moody did not know what she was saying.

Larrigan ran to where Mitchell was, and Clark stayed back on the "other side" of Larrigannear the front of the building that housed the car dealership. From Moody's perspective,it appeared that Larrigan was in charge because he, rather than Clark, was running towardMitchell. Larrigan, positioned himself closer to Mitchell, no more than four to five feetaway, and was getting ready to "get her" and disarm her. Moody stated, "He could havestopped her with his hands. That's what he was going to try to do, I think." According toMoody, with Mitchell holding the shopping cart by the handle and swinging thescrewdriver with the other hand, Larrigan was getting close enough so as to be able todisarm her. From his observations, Moody felt Larrigan "knew what he was doing".

Mitchell continued to swing the screwdriver toward Larrigan, although, in Moody'sopinion, she could not have hit him with it. Moody described Mitchell as "going back

18 It is unclear from Moody's interview statement, "they pulled me over", whether he meant that the officersphysically pulled him away from the incident or that the officers would not allow him to drive his vehicleaway at some later time.

14

and forth" with the screwdriver, and as "slinging" it. Moody was clear, however, thatMitchell did not raise the screwdriver over her head as if preparing to throw it.According to Moody, Larrigan had nothing in his hands. Larrigan ran towards Mitchelland was going to attempt to push the cart at Mitchell. In Moody’s opinion, Larriganwanted to scare her so she would stop what she was doing with the screwdriver. Moodydid not think Larrigan was going to get hurt because he seemed trained on how to handlethis kind of situation. According to Moody, Larrigan "dove kind of like" at Mitchell.Mitchell brandished the screwdriver again at Larrigan, and as he was getting ready to tryto "grab" her a second time, Clark shot Mitchell. Moody, at another point during thisinterview, described Mitchell as making "stabbing" motions immediately before she wasshot. Moody believed that Larrigan did not mean for Mitchell to get shot.

Moody stated several times throughout this interview that it was Clark, rather thanLarrigan, who shot Mitchell. When asked if he was certain that Clark shot Mitchell,Moody said, "I'd put my life on the chopping block. He didn't shoot that lady." Moodyreported that he saw Clark get her gun and shoot towards the street where Mitchell was:"[Question]: Did you see the officer point the gun? [Answer]: I saw the officer when shegot her gun. I wasn't looking at nothing else. [Question]: When she shot, was sheshooting towards the street from -- [Answer]: Yep, she was shooting toward the streets to-- not exactly. The streets where the lady was -- where she was shooting."

Moody described Larrigan as being so close to Mitchell at the time of the shooting thatMoody believed, at first, that Larrigan, rather than Mitchell, was the person who got shot.According to Moody, at the time of the shooting Larrigan was no more than four or fivefeet from Mitchell and Clark was six to seven feet from Mitchell. Mitchell waspositioned close to the curb with her cart, trying to "swing" the screwdriver. Moody, atthe time of the shooting, was 14 to 15 feet away. He explained during this interview thathe had walked along the sidewalk up to the planters near the car dealership, and could seeeverything that happened.

Moody also reported that at or near the time of the shooting, Larrigan had fallen to theground. This fact also contributed to Moody's momentary belief that Larrigan, ratherthan Mitchell, had been shot. When asked how Larrigan fell to the ground, Moody statedthat Larrigan had been running towards the shopping cart and pushed it, and might haveslipped a little. Or, when Larrigan grabbed the shopping cart, Moody theorized that thewheels of the cart might have been improperly attached, thus causing Larrigan to fall.

In Moody's opinion, the shooting was unnecessary. Larrigan was going to try to push thecart up to Mitchell and disarm her, and even he, Moody, could have prevented Mitchellfrom doing anything with the screwdriver. According to Moody, a lot of people sawwhat happened, but they did not want to say anything and they did not come down to thestation. Moody, however, "couldn't stand seeing that" so he made a statement.

15

January 27, 2000, interview:

Moody was interviewed by Special Agent Stapleton of the F.B.I. Pursuant to F.B.I.policy, this interview was not recorded in any way. This summary, therefore, relies onthe accuracy of Moody’s statements as they are reflected in the report prepared byStapleton. The following summary of this F.B.I. interview includes only those statementsthat either supplement or conflict with Moody's L.A.P.D. interview.

Moody explained that although Mitchell was waving the screwdriver at the officers, shedid not do so in a manner that would cause the officers to fear for their lives. Mitchellnever extended her arms or lunged at the officers. She was waving the screwdriver onlyin the area of the shopping cart that normally contains a child seat and keeping it close toher body. Moody told the F.B.I. agent that he never observed Mitchell wave thescrewdriver in a stabbing motion and never felt the officers' lives were in danger.

Moody stated that after the officers followed Mitchell southbound on La Brea Avenue,they both got within four or five feet of her. Also, he stated that both Larrigan and Clarkhad their weapons drawn. Moody told the F.B.I. agent that it was when he turned awayfor a few seconds to check on his car, that a shot was fired. When he turned back,Mitchell was falling to the ground and Larrigan, who was stumbling off the curb, still hadhis weapon out. Moody said Larrigan came close to falling all the way to the ground, butdid not. Moody also stated that although he did not see the shot fired, he is sure it wasLarrigan, rather than Clark, who fired the round.

Moody believed that if the officers had allowed him to talk to Mitchell, he could haveconvinced her to put the screwdriver away.

Moody denied ever telling L.A.P.D. detectives that he thought the shot was fired byClark. He also denied telling L.A.P.D. interviewers that Mitchell was trying to stab theofficers.


Moody was subpoenaed to and testified before the Grand Jury. The summary thatfollows contains only those portions of his testimony that are inconsistent with orsupplemental to his earlier statements to L.A.P.D. or the F.B.I.

Moody testified that his wife definitely did not see anything that occurred involvingMitchell. In Moody’s words, "She did not see a thing."

Moody testified that the first thing he observed was Larrigan pointing a gun at Mitchelland Mitchell holding a "little old screwdriver". Moody repeated the phrase "little oldscrewdriver" several times during his testimony. He also volunteered at an early point inhis testimony, that the screwdriver was "nothing really to worry about".

17

run a little faster, and shot Mitchell before he got close enough to attempt to get thescrewdriver from her. Moody said that even he, himself, could have knocked thescrewdriver out of Mitchell's hand without putting himself at risk and that was whatLarrigan should have done instead of shooting her.

Moody testified that he was absolutely certain Larrigan shot Mitchell. Moody said hesaw the gun in Larrigan's hand at the time Larrigan discharged his weapon. According toMoody, all that he might have said in the past regarding Clark, was that Clark could haveshot Mitchell, but not that she did. During his Grand Jury testimony, Moody made all ofthe following statements: (1) At the time of the shooting, he did not notice if Clark hadher gun out; (2) At the time of the shooting, he was looking at Clark and Clark was notpointing her gun at anyone; and (3) At the time of the shooting, Moody was turnedaround towards his car and when he heard the shot, he turned back around.

Moody also testified that he never thought that one of the officers, rather than Mitchell,had been shot, and he never noticed Larrigan falling down.

Officer Hope Young

L.A.P.D. Officer Hope Young, while off-duty, was driving her personal vehiclesouthbound on La Brea Avenue at the time of this incident and observed many of theevents. She gave four formal statements regarding her observations: (1) She wasinterviewed on audio tape by L.A.P.D. investigators beginning at 10:45 p.m. on May 21,1999, the night of the incident; (2) She was interviewed by Inspector General Eglash ofthe Los Angeles Police Commission on December 13, 199919; (3) She was interviewedby F.B.I. Special Agent Stapleton on September 15, 2000; and (4) She testified before theGrand Jury on January 31, 2001.


Young explained to L.A.P.D. investigators that she was driving eastbound on FourthStreet approaching La Brea Avenue sometime between 4:00 and 4:15 p.m. when she sawtwo L.A.P.D. bicycle officers on the southwest corner of Fourth Street and La BreaAvenue. The officers, a male and a female, got off their bicycles and approached anAfrican-American female who had a shopping cart. (Hereinafter these individuals will bereferred to as "Larrigan", "Clark" and "Mitchell"). Mitchell had a screwdriver in herhand and the officers had their guns drawn. Mitchell started waving the screwdriveraround in her right hand and yelling, but Young could not tell what she was saying.Young heard the officers say several times "drop the screwdriver, drop the screwdriver",but Mitchell did not comply.

At that point, a male African-American stepped from a red vehicle in front of Young and 19 None of the Police Commission interviews were reviewed in connection with the preparation of thisanalysis. See footnote #3.

18

started involving himself in the confrontation. He said something, but Young could nothear what he said. The man did not appear hostile, but in Young's opinion, wasinterfering rather than helping the situation. Mitchell continued to hold the screwdriverin her right hand and was waving it in circles, left to right, in a "real crazy" fashion.

Mitchell then turned around and fled southbound on La Brea Avenue with the shoppingcart, holding the screwdriver in her right hand. The officers followed directly behind her.Young observed that during the pursuit, Clark re-holstered her weapon, but Young wasunsure what Larrigan did with his weapon. Young made a right turn and followeddirectly behind in her vehicle, a black Toyota Four Runner. Her view of the incident wasunobstructed.

Near the newspaper stand, Mitchell turned around, still holding the screwdriver in herright hand. With it extended in front of her, Mitchell took a step forward towardsLarrigan and lunged at him with the screwdriver. Larrigan had his gun drawn and Youngheard a gunshot. Mitchell then fell to the ground. Young did not know which officerdischarged the weapon. After Mitchell fell, the screwdriver remained in her hand, butshe no longer had a grip on it.

Young got out of her vehicle, identified herself as an L.A.P.D. officer and offeredassistance. Young explained that during the incident, she did not want to distract theofficers' attention from Mitchell since Mitchell had a weapon, and, therefore, did notintervene.

Young did not notice whether Larrigan had fallen or stumbled at any point.

September 15, 2000, interview:

Young was interviewed by F.B.I. Special Agent Stapleton. This interview was recordedby Young's attorney, Russell Cole, with the permission of Agent Stapleton. Thatrecordation has not been reviewed by this office and this summary relies on the accuracyof the report prepared by Agent Stapleton. The following includes only those portions ofYoung's F.B.I. interview that are inconsistent with or supplemental to her L.A.P.D.interview.

Young explained during this interview that when she first saw the officers at the corner ofFourth Street and La Brea Avenue, they had their weapons drawn in a "low-ready"position. Young could hear the officers tell Mitchell to drop the screwdriver becauseYoung's passenger window was open. Young observed Mitchell hold the shopping cartwith her left hand and hold the screwdriver in her right hand in front of her. During thisinterview, Young clarified that Mitchell's right arm was not fully extended, but her elbowwas a few inches from her body and the screwdriver was pointed at the officers.

Young added that when the African-American man attempted to intervene, Larrigangrabbed him by the arm and pulled him away.

19

Young also explained that after Mitchell started pushing20 her cart southbound, theofficers followed, with Larrigan closer to the curb and Clark closer to a small retainingwall on the west side of the sidewalk. Young described Mitchell's gait as more of a "run"than a "walk". Young, however, could not remember if the shopping cart was betweenMitchell and the officers, or further south of Mitchell. During this interview, Youngrecalled that Larrigan continued to hold his weapon in a "low-ready" position as heproceeded south on La Brea Avenue, although she believed that Clark might have re-holstered her gun.

Young stated that when Mitchell stopped near the newspaper stand, turned toward theofficers and lunged at Larrigan, she was approximately five feet from Larrigan andsomewhat further from Clark. Young explained that the lunge was a thrusting motion,with Mitchell moving the screwdriver away from her body by extending her arm.Mitchell did not at any time, raise the screwdriver over her head as if to stab Larrigan,although, in Young's opinion, Larrigan's life was being threatened. Young, specified,however, that she never felt Clark's life was threatened. During this interview, Youngalso stated that Clark had re-drawn her weapon by the time of the shooting.

Young stated that she did not remember seeing Larrigan talk on the radio microphoneattached to his shirt. She also stated that since the incident, she had not talked to eitherLarrigan or Clark.


Young was subpoenaed to and testified before the Grand Jury. Again, the followingsummary represents only that portion of her testimony that is inconsistent with orsupplementary to her earlier statements.

Young testified that at the time of the incident, she had been an L.A.P.D. officer for threeyears and was working at L.A.P.D.'s 77th Division Station. When the shooting occurred,she was on her way to work, and her shift was scheduled to start at 5:00 p.m.

Young specified that the red vehicle belonging to the man who attempted to intervene,was directly in front of Young's vehicle on eastbound Fourth Street. The red vehicle wasnot stopped for a red light because it was too far west of the intersection and there was notraffic in front of it.

Young testified that she saw the officers get off their bicycles and immediately draw theirweapons. At that time, Mitchell was waving the screwdriver right to left, back and forth,and it was extended slightly in front of her from the elbow. Young clarified that whenthe intervening male approached this confrontation, he positioned himself in between the

20 The F.B.I. report does not indicate whether Young specifically used the term "pushing", whether thatword was supplied by Agent Stapleton or whether Young, in any way, distinguished between "pushing"and "pulling" during her interview.

20

two officers, one step behind them. She also said that she could not tell if hisinvolvement was welcomed by the officers. At this time, Young testified that she did notsee if either of the officers physically pushed him back.

Young also could not remember whether the officers had their guns pointed to the groundor at Mitchell during this initial confrontation. She estimated that the officers wereapproximately ten feet from Mitchell when they got off their bicycles and they movedslightly west, getting to within seven to eight feet of her.

Young testified that as the officers and Mitchell proceeded south on La Brea Avenue, shedid not know where the man who attempted to intervene was. He was no longer in herfield of view. Young explained that she intentionally remained behind the three of thembecause if something "went down", she did not want to get shot. Young also testified thatthere were no vehicles in front of her.

Young testified that when Mitchell stopped and turned to face Larrigan, the cart was notin between her and Larrigan. At that point, the cart was one to two feet to Mitchell's left.When asked, Young could not remember if Mitchell turned to look at the officers at anytime before she got to the newspaper stand.

Young was unable to remember whether Larrigan had his gun out as he ran, but sherecalled that Clark had re-holstered her weapon while still at the corner La Brea Avenueand Fourth Street. Also, Young did not know whether Clark or Larrigan said anything asthey pursued Mitchell. When asked, Young testified that she assumed "drag-stepping"was the process of moving without lifting one's leg. Young said that she saw neitherofficer do that. Further, she testified that "drag-stepping" was not something she haddone, seen any fellow officer do, or been trained to do.

Young estimated that after Mitchell turned, took her hand off the cart, and took one steptoward Larrigan, she was then approximately three to four feet away from him. AsMitchell took this step toward Larrigan, Mitchell held the screwdriver out in front of herand pointed it straight ahead with her arm fully extended at a height above her shoulder.Young, however, could not recall whether Mitchell held the screwdriver in an underhandgrip, or overhand, as in a stabbing position. Young also said she could not remember ifthe screwdriver was moving. Young added that when Mitchell took the step forward, sheleaned into it.

Young testified that at the time of the shooting, she was approximately five feet behindLarrigan, to his left. Based on where Mitchell was in relation to Larrigan, Young wouldhave expected that Mitchell was shot somewhere on her upper body, perhaps in the chestarea.

During her testimony, Young recalled that right before the shooting, after Mitchellstopped and turned toward Larrigan, both officers again yelled several times, "Drop theweapon! Drop the screwdriver!" Young testified that she never heard, "Stop or I'll

21

shoot!" Young also recalled that immediately before the gun was fired, Mitchell wasscreaming loudly, but Young did not hear any specifics or anything that made sense.Young did not recall Mitchell saying anything like, "You are not the police." In Young'sopinion, Mitchell did not seem mentally stable.

Young also testified that right before the shot was fired, she noticed a motorcycle officeracross the street involved in what she assumed was a traffic stop. Shortly after theshooting, the motorcycle officer came running over.

Young stated that immediately after the shooting, she got out of her vehicle and identifiedherself as a police officer to Clark. Young testified that she did not speak to Larrigan.Both Larrigan and Clark appeared nervous. She recalled that Clark was shaking as shewrote down Young's identifying information.

Young testified that in her opinion, Mitchell posed a threat before the shooting, at least toLarrigan, if not also to Clark and anyone else on the street. Further, it never seemed toYoung that Mitchell was trying to comply with Larrigan and Clark's orders to drop thescrewdriver.

Since the incident, Young had not talked to Larrigan, Clark or motorcycle officer Goines.

Derrick Keaton

Derrick Keaton was working as a car salesman at the car dealership located at thesouthwest corner of Fourth Street and La Brea Avenue at the time of this incident.Derrick Keaton provided information regarding his observations on three occasions: (1)On May 26, 1999, five days after the incident, he was interviewed on audio tape byL.A.P.D. investigators; (2) On February 9, 2000, he was interviewed by Special Agent R.E. Stapleton of the F.B.I., which was not recorded; and (3) On January 29, 2001, hetestified before the Grand Jury.21


Keaton told L.A.P.D. investigators that he was working as a car salesman and was out onthe ramp22 at the southwest corner of La Brea Avenue and Fourth Street, when he sawtwo bicycle officers approach a homeless lady with a shopping cart. (Hereinafter, theseindividuals will be referred to as "Larrigan", "Clark" and "Mitchell"). Keaton had seenMitchell on many occasions in the past and she always had a shopping cart. Keaton did 21 During his Grand Jury testimony Keaton said he also had his deposition taken by his attorney, Terrell,shortly before he was interviewed by the F.B.I., which he estimated to be in January of 2000. A transcriptof this deposition was not provided to or reviewed by this office.22 Along the exterior perimeter of the dealership showroom is a platform, or ramp, several feet wide thatruns parallel to the sidewalk on the west side of La Brea Avenue, which continues west, and runs parallel tothe sidewalk on the south side of Fourth Street. It is elevated several steps from the sidewalk and,displayed on the platform, are vehicles for sale.

22

not think Mitchell was mentally unstable; to him, she just looked mean and quiet, and didnot want to be bothered. When people spoke to her, she would barely speak. Whenasked, Keaton said that he had never seen her carry anything that looked like a weapon.Keaton also said that it was common in that area to see transients questioned by thepolice and asked to leave the vicinity where the businesses were located.

Keaton told L.A.P.D. investigators that he happened to be looking towards the streetcorner and, when he saw the police, he was just naturally curious; there was no shoutingor yelling that drew his attention. When Keaton first looked in their direction, Mitchellwas pushing the cart west on the south side of Fourth Street, and the officers were ontheir bicycles. The officers wore blue short pants and blue short-sleeved shirts that hadthe word "police" written on them.

During his interview, Keaton said that immediately after getting off their bicycles andbefore Mitchell took out her screwdriver, the officers took out their guns and had thempointed down and ready. Mitchell then took out a screwdriver and raised it up in front ofher. Keaton estimated that the officers were three to four feet away from Mitchell. Theywere asking her something, but Keaton could not remember what they said. They alsowere telling Mitchell to "stop" or words to that effect, but she did not cooperate. Mitchellkept repeating, "no, no, no". Throughout this exchange, Mitchell had the screwdriverraised up in front of her.

Keaton reported that as this occurred, a man who had been travelling southbound on LaBrea Avenue in a red car, pulled over at the northwest corner of La Brea Avenue andFourth Street and ran south across Fourth Street to where Mitchell and the officers were.This man inserted himself into the exchange between the officers and Mitchell, and saidto Mitchell, "Please, please cooperate with the officers. Please cooperate so you don't gethurt." Keaton thought that this man knew Mitchell. The man placed himself between theofficers and Mitchell, which Keaton would not have done out of concern for his safety.Keaton did not hear the officers say anything to him like "get back". They did not pushhim away. In fact, Keaton said the officers seemed pleased that he got involved, as if hemight be able to appeal to her. All that Mitchell said in response to this man was "no".She would not cooperate. When this was occurring, Mitchell's back was to Keaton andshe was facing the two officers and the man.

Keaton told investigators that Mitchell then suddenly grabbed her cart and ran south onLa Brea Avenue. She was pulling the cart with her left hand from the rear where the barswere. The officers were following her running parallel to one another. Keaton did nothear whether the officers yelled "stop" as she was running, nor did he see anything in herright hand as she was running. As Mitchell started moving south, Keaton moved southon the display platform to see what was going on, and he repositioned himself near theconvertible.23

23 Photographs taken shortly after the shooting show a convertible parked at the southernmost part of thedisplay platform. The southern end of the platform is approximately eight feet north of the newspaperstand.

23

Keaton said that when Mitchell got to the newspaper stand, he heard a shot. Mitchellnever stopped running or pulling the cart before the gun was discharged. At the momentshe was shot, her back was partially to the officers, with her left side towards the cart andnorth, and her right shoulder pointing south. According to Keaton, Mitchell waspositioned diagonally on the sidewalk, turned slightly to the left, almost facing the street.Keaton had his eye on her when she was shot, and it appeared that she was shot in theback.

Keaton estimated that the officers were three to four feet behind Mitchell and parallel toeach other. Keaton reported that Clark was closer to the street and Larrigan was onClark's right. It was Keaton's belief that Larrigan shot Mitchell. Keaton looked at theofficers immediately after the shooting and Larrigan’s complexion turned color. Heappeared very nervous and started to point to people as witnesses, saying, "You, you,you, and you, come here."

Keaton also told L.A.P.D. investigators that a black Toyota Land Cruiser pulled up as thiswas occurring and a woman got out immediately after the shot was fired. The officerssaid to her, "get back, ma'am, this is an accident scene" and Larrigan went to push heraway. The woman, however, identified herself as an off-duty officer.

During this confrontation, there was a motorcycle officer across the street writing a ticketand immediately after the shooting, he pulled up and started securing the scene. Heparked his motorcycle to block traffic and clear everybody out.

Keaton told L.A.P.D. investigators that, in his opinion, the officers did not want to harmMitchell. To Keaton, it looked as if the gun went off accidentally when Larrigan wasrunning. Keaton theorized that the "safety" might have been off. Keaton stated,however, that it was not true that Larrigan fell. Keaton also said that Mitchell did notlunge at the officers before she was shot. Keaton did say, however, that he thought therewere others at the scene who would have had a better view of the incident than he had,such as the off-duty officer.

February 9, 2000, interview:

Keaton was interviewed by Special Agent R. E. Stapleton of the F.B.I. Present during theinterview was Keaton's attorney, Leo Terrell, and Terrell's assistant. This interview wasnot tape-recorded and this summary relies upon the accuracy of the report prepared byAgent Stapleton. The following summarizes only those portions of Keaton's interviewthat are inconsistent with or supplemental to his statement to L.A.P.D. investigators.

Keaton stated during his F.B.I. interview that the screwdriver he saw in Mitchell’s righthand shortly after he first saw her was medium sized. She was holding it close to herbody and up near her face. She was waving it in a circular motion, but was notthreatening the officers with it.

24

Keaton told Special Agent Stapleton that when the male citizen intervened and toldMitchell to cooperate, Mitchell looked even more confused. Mitchell continued to wavethe screwdriver around while this man was talking to her.

During this interview, Keaton stated that as the officers followed Mitchell southbound onLa Brea Avenue, it was Larrigan who was closer to the curb and Clark toward the westside of the sidewalk. Also, Keaton added during this interview that as the officersproceeded south, Larrigan, at times, took a few steps out onto the street and then steppedback up on the sidewalk.

Keaton explained that at a certain point, Mitchell got as far as 15 feet in front of theofficers, but the officers began to close the gap. As she ran, Mitchell pulled the cart withher left hand and her right hand was "pumping" at her side to give her momentum. At alltimes, Mitchell kept the cart between her and the officers. Mitchell's left side was moretoward the officers and her face was turned toward the street.

Keaton told the F.B.I. investigator that after Mitchell was shot, he was in a state ofdisbelief that either officer would shoot her since she posed no threat. Keaton said thathe did not see which officer shot Mitchell, although he noticed that both had theirweapons out. He estimated that at the time of the shooting, Mitchell was seven feet awayfrom the officers.

Keaton explained during this interview that because of Larrigan's path during the chase,he initially thought that Larrigan's gun might have accidentally discharged as he wasstepping from the street to the sidewalk.

Keaton clarified to the F.B.I. agent that Mitchell was not waving the screwdriver at theofficers before she was shot. In fact, the only time he saw it in her hand was during theinitial encounter on the street corner when she was waving it at the officers. Mitchellnever lunged at the officers or attempted to stab them.


Keaton was subpoenaed to and testified before the Grand Jury. The followingsummarizes only those portions of his testimony that are either inconsistent with orsupplemental to his initial statement to L.A.P.D. or his later interview with the F.B.I.

Keaton testified that he thought the incident occurred on a Tuesday. He also indicatedthat he had been working at the dealership for three months at time of the shooting.

During his testimony, Keaton said that what drew his attention to the street corner wasMitchell screaming something like, "back away from me; get away from me; leave mealone". He could not recall if he also heard the officers say anything.

25

When asked if he had seen Mitchell before, Keaton stated that he had, and volunteeredthat she appeared to be "kind of nice." When asked to describe her mental state when hehad interacted with her, Keaton testified that "she wasn't friendly, but she wasn't mean".He described her as cautious of people, but he also said, "You could tell she had a meanstreak to her pretty much, but it didn't seem like she trusted people too much." Keatonalso said she was quiet and never engaged in any bizarre conduct.

Keaton testified that when he first saw her, Mitchell was pushing her shopping cart in anormal fashion, which, as usual, contained items.

According to Keaton, Mitchell took the screwdriver out of the shopping cart when theofficers approached her. Mitchell was "poking and swinging" the screwdriver at theofficers. This movement made Keaton "scared for her". Keaton demonstrated thatMitchell held the screwdriver overhead and made stabbing motions with it. He perceivedher actions with the screwdriver to be a threat.

Keaton testified that he recalled the officers saying to Mitchell, "Calm down, Ma'am,calm down." The officers had their guns drawn, but not pointed at Mitchell. The gunswere held straight down pointing at the ground.

Keaton testified that Moody, to whom he referred by name, interfered. Contrary to hisprevious statement, Keaton testified that the officers were unhappy that Moody tried tointervene. In Keaton's words, they were "clearly disturbed", and it was not hisimpression that they thought Moody might help resolve the situation. They raised theirvoices at Moody and said something very briefly to him like, "get out of the way", or"back away". Keaton could not remember whether the officers pointed their guns atMoody. Moody took two to three steps back, but remained on the sidewalk. WhileMoody was there, Mitchell continued to make overhead stabbing motions. Keatonexplained that in his opinion, Moody's physical positioning was unsafe because he wasbetween two police officers who had their guns drawn.

Keaton testified that after Mitchell took off running south on La Brea Avenue, she nolonger had the screwdriver in her right hand. Keaton said clearly that he looked and herhand was empty. He believed the screwdriver fell to the ground and landed somewherebetween the planter and the newspaper stand. He claimed that he saw the screwdriverafter the shooting lying on the ground in a similar place between the planter and thenewspaper stand. His best estimate was that the screwdriver was ten to fifteen feet awayfrom where Mitchell had fallen.

Keaton testified that as the officers chased Mitchell southbound, Larrigan was closer tothe street and parallel to Clark, separated by three to five feet.

At the time of the shooting, Keaton estimated that Mitchell was five feet away fromLarrigan. Mitchell never stopped, hesitated or turned toward the officers. She wasrunning very fast, up until the time she was shot. Also, according to Keaton, Mitchell

26

never said anything, and Keaton testified that he would have heard her, had she spoken.

Keaton testified that Larrigan was running close to the curb and, at one point, heappeared to slip off the curb, but he regained his balance. Keaton emphasized that hevividly remembered Larrigan's foot slipping off the curb as he ran. Shortly after he felland regained his balance, the shot was fired. It did not look like the gun accidentallydischarged because Larrigan slipped off the curb. In fact, Larrigan took aim at Mitchellbefore he shot her. It looked as if the gun was fired intentionally. Clark was "taggingalong" as back-up. Keaton testified that he did not see any abnormal or aggressivebehavior on Clark's part.

Keaton said that at the time of the shooting he was looking at Mitchell. He rememberedbeing surprised at how fast she could move with the cart, considering her small size. Hercart was north of her at the time she was shot, closer to the officers.

Keaton testified that when she was shot she was facing south on La Brea Avenue.Keaton would have expected her to get shot in the back. Larrigan was the officer thatshot Mitchell.

Keaton testified that the motorcycle officer came across the street approximately one ortwo minutes after the shooting. The off-duty female officer got out of her vehicleapproximately five minutes after the shooting.

Keaton testified that during this encounter, Mitchell seemed very angry and disturbed.Merely the sight of the officers made her very angry. She also seemed frightened. Theofficers did not seem angry, rude or hostile. They appeared calm.

Keaton explained that nothing obscured his vision during this incident.

Pamela Littky

Pamela Littky, who was driving southbound on La Brea Avenue at the time of theshooting, provided three statements: (1) On May 21, 1999, beginning at 7:15 p.m. shewas interviewed on audio tape by L.A.P.D. detectives; (2) She was interviewed by LosAngeles Police Commission Inspector General Eglash on December 9, 199924; and (3)On October 18, 2000, she was interviewed on video-tape by District Attorney personnel.


Littky told L.A.P.D. investigators that she was alone in her car traveling south on La BreaAvenue in the far right lane immediately next to the curb. She was stopped at the redlight at La Brea Avenue and Fourth Street and was the first car in her lane. The traffic 24 None of the Police Commission interviews were reviewed in connection with the preparation of thisanalysis. See footnote #3.

27

was extremely heavy and moved slowly, even after the light turned green.

Littky noticed two police bicycles on the ground and two male, police officers and ahomeless woman at the southwest corner of La Brea Avenue and Fourth Street.(Hereinafter the homeless woman will be referred to as "Mitchell"). In Littky's words,these individuals "were going back and forth". The officers, who were facing thehomeless woman approximately two and one-half to three feet away, would saysomething to Mitchell and Mitchell would then walk away a short distance and stop.Then the officers would again say something to Mitchell, who, again, would walk awayand stop. This happened several times. To Littky, it appeared that Mitchell did not wantto talk to the officers. At this juncture, Littky did not notice if the officers had anyweapons drawn. As noted, Littky also thought both officers were male.

As this repeated interaction occurred, the position of Mitchell's shopping cart wouldchange: at one point it was at Mitchell's side, and at another it was between Mitchell andthe officers. Suddenly, Mitchell took off southbound on La Brea Avenue, runningquickly, and pushing, rather than pulling, her cart. The officers stayed behind her,apparently wanting to pursue the conversation, although Mitchell "was done with them".

When Mitchell started to run, the light turned green and Littky crossed the intersection.Because the traffic was heavy, Littky drove slowly just behind Mitchell, which put Littkynext to what was occurring between the officers and Mitchell. Mitchell stopped runningand had some additional verbal exchange with the officers. The officer closest to thecurb was holding a gun in his right hand, although Littky did not see when this officerdrew the gun. Littky did not notice if the other officer had a gun drawn. Mitchell turnedaround and faced the officers holding some object in her right hand. She was holding thisobject and moving her hand as if she was in a sword fight. The movement she made withit was small. Littky did not believe Mitchell lunged at the police.

At this point, the officers and Mitchell were somewhat further apart, perhaps four feet.The officer closest to the curb, had his gun pointed at Mitchell, and shot her. This officerwas approximately four feet away from Mitchell at the time of the shooting. Littkypulled over and said to herself, "that couldn't have been a real gun". She was in a state ofdisbelief. Immediately before the gun was fired, Littky did not see any mouths movingand heard no yelling, although her car stereo was set to a high volume.

Littky went over and saw a screwdriver in Mitchell's hand. One of the officers pulled itout of her hand, looked at it, laughed and threw it on the ground.

October 18, 2000, interview:

Littky was interviewed by members of the District Attorney's Office. This interview,which took place at the offices of the District Attorney and at the scene of the shooting,was video-taped. The following summary includes only those portions of Littky'sDistrict Attorney interview that are inconsistent with or supplemental to her 1999

29

four occasions: (1) On May 21, 1999, beginning at 5:55 p.m. he was interviewed onaudio-tape by L.A.P.D. investigators; (2) He was interviewed by Los Angeles PoliceCommission Inspector General Eglash on December 21, 199925; (3) On January 27, 2000,he was interviewed by F.B.I. Special Agent R. E. Stapleton; and (4) On August 24, 2000,he was interviewed on video-tape by members of the District Attorney's Office.


Miller explained to L.A.P.D. investigators that he was heading north on La Brea Avenuein the far right lane and was stopped at a red light at Fourth Street. He was the first car atthe light and his windows were rolled up.

He could not hear everything that was happening, but he saw two male police officers incut-off pants and vests that said "police" having a verbal exchange with a woman with ashopping cart at the corner of Fourth Street and La Brea Avenue. (Hereinafter thewoman with the shopping cart will be referred to as "Mitchell"). Miller saw this bylooking out his car to the left, i.e., west, across La Brea Avenue.

Before stopping at the light, he saw nothing that drew his attention. He just happened tobe looking around. Miller could not remember if there was another car directly to hisleft, although he could see the officers full length. Also, later, he was able to see Mitchelllying on the ground, so Miller deduced that there were no other cars in the lanes of trafficto his left.

He then heard one of the officers telling Mitchell to "stop" or something to that effect.He saw that Mitchell was pushing the shopping cart south on the west sidewalk of LaBrea Avenue and the officers were 15 to 20 feet behind her walking side-by-side, five tosix feet apart. The officers were telling her something and she was yelling back, notlooking at them. It appeared that she was trying to get away from them. Miller assumedthe officers wanted her to stop, but she refused. Mitchell was not running; just walking.At this point, the officers were ten to fifteen feet behind her.

Neither of the officers had their guns drawn. Mitchell walked approximately 12 to 15feet without turning around towards the officers. She then turned and said something tothe officers and, at that point, Miller looked at the traffic signal for one to two seconds tosee if it had turned green because there was traffic behind him.

The traffic signal was still red and when Miller turned back, Mitchell had a screwdriverin her right hand, which she had not had before he turned away. Miller did not see wherethe screwdriver came from. Mitchell was turned half way around, with her body facingthe street and her head facing the officers as she talked to them. Miller did not seeMitchell make any motion with the screwdriver and it did not appear to him that Mitchellwas trying to attack the officers, who, at that time, were six to eight feet away from her. 25 None of the Police Commission interviews were reviewed in connection with the preparation of thisanalysis. See footnote #3.

30

Mitchell held the screwdriver down by the handle of the cart.

All of a sudden, a split-second later, the officer closest to the street shot Mitchell once.This officer was a Spanish-looking male with brown hair, and held the gun in his righthand. Although Miller did not actually see this officer fire his weapon, Miller assumed itwas this officer because he was the only one Miller saw holding a gun. Miller saw this"out of the corner of his eye". He was looking out his window to the left over hisshoulder, and the incident was behind him, so he could only see the officers from therear.

Mitchell fell to the ground and the shooting officer stepped off the curb and walked alittle closer, within three to four feet, and looked at Mitchell.

After the shooting, a third male officer came over. Also, a black, sport utility vehiclestopped at the curb and a woman quickly got out. Miller did not know whether anyonenear the car dealership saw the incident.

Miller drove away because he was very upset at what he had just seen. He arrived at hisdestination, a camera shop, and was there ten to fifteen minutes. After he left, he drovepast the scene and saw that everything was blocked-off. He stopped and told the officersat the scene that he had witnessed the shooting because he felt he had to say something.


Miller was interviewed by Special Agent Stapleton of the F.B.I. This interview was notrecorded in any way, and this summary relies on the accuracy of the report prepared byAgent Stapleton. The following summary of that interview includes only thosestatements made by Miller that are either inconsistent with or supplemental to his initialinterview with L.A.P.D. investigators.

Miller said in his F.B.I. interview that something caught his attention immediately beforehe looked to his left and saw the officers and Mitchell heading south on La Brea Avenue.He noticed that there was conversation between the officers and Mitchell, however, hecould not hear what was being said.

Miller told the F.B.I. investigator that when he looked back toward the incident afterchecking the status of the traffic light, Mitchell stopped, turned counter clockwise towardthe officers and, at about the same time, he heard a shot fired. Miller also indicatedduring this interview that after the shot was fired, the officer closest to the curb steppedoff the curb. Miller, however, could not tell whether this officer fell.

Miller told the F.B.I. agent that the screwdriver that he saw in Mitchell's hand appearedto be ten to twelve inches in length, but he could not identify the color.

31

August 24, 2000, interview:

Miller was interviewed by District Attorney personnel in the offices of the DistrictAttorney. This interview was video-taped. The following summary reflects only thoseportions of Miller's District Attorney interview that supplement or conflict with his priorinterviews.

Miller indicated that when he stopped at the red light on northbound La Brea Avenue atFourth Street, he was "panning around" when he happened to notice the police officerstrying to stop Mitchell at the corner of Fourth Street and La Brea Avenue. Miller alsosaid that he heard the officers saying something to Mitchell in a raised voice, whichcaptured his attention. He, however, did not hear what was said.

Miller said that when he first stopped there were no vehicles to his left, but at some pointduring this incident one car pulled up next to him directly on the left. Miller, however,had a view behind this car to the west. When asked, Miller said he did not see anybicycles near the officers.

Contrary to his earlier interview, Miller said that the officer furthest from him was afemale.

In order to see what was happening, Miller explained that he had to turn his head half-way around to the left.

Miller said that Mitchell stopped and turned toward the officers twice. When Mitchellhad gone south on La Brea Avenue six to eight feet, she turned toward the officers, saidsome unknown words to them, then turned back around and continued south on La BreaAvenue, pushing her cart at a somewhat quicker pace. The first time she turned towardthe officers, both of her hands were on the cart and there was nothing in them. Theofficers continued to follow her and sped up their pace as well. Miller had to leanforward and turn further to his left, over his left shoulder, to watch this.

The screwdriver Miller saw in Mitchell's hand the second time he saw her stop, wasapproximately 12 inches long.

Miller estimated 15 to 20 seconds elapsed between the time he first noticed these threeindividuals and the time he turned to check on the light.

Not until after Miller checked on the traffic light, did either officer have any weapons intheir hands as far as Miller could see.

Miller stated that he was certain that Mitchell did not have a screwdriver in her handbefore he turned to check on the traffic light. When he turned back to look at Mitchell,she had stopped, the screwdriver was in her right hand and her left hand was on the cart.

32

She had turned her body partially around so that she was facing the street. Thescrewdriver was pointed toward the street. She did not move the screwdriver at all. Themale officer had moved east, toward the curb. Mitchell was telling the officerssomething in a louder, more emphatic voice.

Miller stated that approximately five seconds after he turned his attention back toMitchell, he heard the shot. Miller was surprised because he did not see the maleofficer's hand extended out in front of him holding a gun before the shot. It looked as ifhe "shot from the hip".

Miller said the officer did not stumble off the curb before the shot. Rather, after the shot,in order to approach the fallen Mitchell, he deliberately stepped into the street.

Miller also stated that the entire time he viewed this event, there was no one else on thesidewalk and no one else with whom the officers interacted. During this incident, no carswere proceeding south on La Brea Avenue from Fourth Street. The southbound trafficlanes of La Brea Avenue were clear.

After the shooting, Miller continued north on La Brea Avenue when the traffic lightturned green. Even before that, however, a black and white police car driven by a male,African-American officer arrived at the scene of the shooting from the south, pulling upon the west side of La Brea Avenue, heading against traffic. He also saw a black sportutility vehicle that had been travelling south pull up to the scene.

Officer John Goines

L.A.P.D. motor officer John Goines, who was on the northbound side of La Brea Avenueat the time of this incident, provided information regarding his observations on fourseparate occasions: (1) On May 21, 1999, beginning at 9:50 p.m., he was interviewed onaudio tape by L.A.P.D. investigators; (2) On July 12, 2000, his video-taped depositionwas taken by attorney Terrell; (3) On September 22, 2000, he was interviewed by F.B.I.Special Agent R. E. Stapleton; and (4) On January 31, 2001, he testified before the GrandJury.


Goines was an L.A.P.D. motor officer assigned to the West Traffic Division. He hadcompleted a citation at Sixth Street and La Brea Avenue and was headed north on LaBrea when he saw a green sport utility vehicle make an illegal left turn from eastboundSixth Street to northbound La Brea Avenue. Goines stopped this vehicle to issue a trafficcitation approximately 250 feet south of Fourth Street in the number three, i.e., curbside,northbound lane of La Brea Avenue.

Goines contacted the driver, told him why he had been stopped, obtained his license, and

33

as Goines was walking back to his motorcycle, he saw two officers at the northwest26

corner of Fourth Street and La Brea Avenue walking southbound. One of the officerswas a white or Hispanic male, and the other was a white female, and they were followingan elderly African-American female. (These individuals will be referred to herein as"Larrigan", "Clark" and "Mitchell").

Goines estimated that he viewed this from a distance of 180 to 230 feet. According toGoines, the officers were parallel to one another, side by side, spread apart the width ofthe sidewalk with Clark further west. Larrigan had his 9mm weapon drawn and pointeddown in a "low-ready" position and was attempting to broadcast into his remotemicrophone which was pinned to his shirt.

Goines remembered Mitchell had one hand on the cart, but could not remember theposition of her other hand. Mitchell was moving continuously south at a slow pace. Shewas pushing, rather than pulling the cart, which was in front of her. When he first sawthem, the distance between Mitchell and Larrigan was 25 to 30 feet.

It was Goines’ impression that something was wrong: Larrigan's gun was drawn, somekind of verbal exchange with Mitchell was occurring, and it appeared Larrigan wasrequesting back-up assistance. From this, Goines assumed the officers needed to contacther for some reason and she was refusing to comply. Goines, thus, decided to go acrossthe street to assist the officers by preventing Mitchell from proceeding further south onLa Brea Avenue. Goines told the investigators he might have tried to stop her by"corralling" her. Goines began to run across to the west side of La Brea Avenue. As heran, Goines retained possession of the motorist's license.

As Goines neared the number one southbound lane of La Brea Avenue, a van travellingsouthbound passed in front of him, at which moment he heard a gunshot. His vision ofthe incident was blocked by the passing van. Goines had last observed Mitchellapproximately five feet from a newspaper stand.

After the gunshot, Goines' next view was of Larrigan standing at the newspaper stand andMitchell lying on the ground just under the stand. Goines could see a yellow-handled,metal-tipped screwdriver in her right hand which Larrigan brushed aside. Prior to theshot, Goines did not recall seeing a screwdriver.

Immediately after this, Goines ran back across the street, returned the license to themotorist to allow him to leave, and began to secure the shooting scene. Goines drove hismotorcycle to Fourth Street and La Brea Avenue to block southbound traffic andrequested paramedics. He believed Larrigan also requested paramedics. He observedthat Larrigan appeared to be in a state of awe, as if he could not believe what hadhappened. Later, Goines approached Larrigan who was seated in a police car, to checkon his welfare. At that time, Larrigan said to Goines, "you make sure they get that 26 From all other accounts, including Goines' later statements, this incident occurred at the southwest, ratherthan the northwest, corner of Fourth Street and La Brea Avenue.

34

screwdriver", and Goines said, "all right, we've got it covered."

Other units began to arrive at the scene and at a certain point Goines was told to obtainidentifying information from a female witness. When he approached the witness, shetold Goines she was a minister and wanted a few moments to talk to Mitchell toadminister her last rites. Goines stepped aside, allowing the woman to talk to Mitchell.From then on, Goines and the other officers proceeded to gather as many witnesses asthey could.

July 12, 2000, deposition:

The following summarizes only those portions of Goines' deposition testimony thatreflect information that is inconsistent with or supplemental to his interview on the night

35

Goines testified during his deposition, that he told his chief or commander that he did notcomprehend any reason for the use of force. Goines stated that his belief that theshooting was not within L.A.P.D. policy was due to his opinion that Mitchell did not posean immediate threat at any time. Goines also stated that if he had been in Larrigan'sposition, he would not have had his gun drawn. He would have waited for more officersto arrive to "get a better handle on the situation" and he would have used "gas". Goinesfelt that Larrigan had alternatives to the use of force. Goines, however, also stated that hecould not comment on the tactics used by Larrigan, because in order to so comment, hewould have to be Larrigan. Goines explained that what Larrigan might consider a threat,might not be what he would consider a threat, and Goines could only say what he wouldhave done in that situation.

Also during his deposition, Goines described Mitchell's movements as slow, staggeredand lethargic. Further, he stated that he never saw Mitchell lunge at Larrigan or makeany motion or gestures toward Larrigan or Clark.

Goines estimated that the time lapse between the moment he first saw Larrigan andClark, and the shooting, was seven to ten minutes, but probably closer to ten minutes. Hefirst estimated five minutes, but then commented that five minutes was too short.

September 22, 2000, interview:

Goines was interviewed by F.B.I. Special Agent R. E. Stapleton. This interview was nottape-recorded by Stapleton, but was recorded by Goines' attorney, Bradley C. Gage, whowas present for the interview. The following summarizes only those portions of thisinterview that are inconsistent with or supplemental to Goines' earlier statements andtestimony.

Goines stated that he observed Larrigan and Clark dismount their bicycles and bring theirweapons to a "low-ready" position. At the same time, he observed Mitchell pushing ashopping cart approximately 40 feet south of Larrigan and Clark. Mitchell was pushingthe cart with her left hand and her right hand was hanging to her side. According to thereport prepared of this interview, Goines stated that he saw nothing in her right hand.

Goines said that Mitchell's pace southbound La Brea Avenue was approximately thesame as the officers, although it was possible the officers were moving a little quickerthan Mitchell.

Goines explained that after seeing these individuals across the street, he decided he wouldassist Larrigan and Clark by crossing the street and coming up behind Mitchell, althoughhe did not feel Mitchell was a threat to the officers. After the van passed and he heard asingle shot, he saw Larrigan, approximately ten feet away from Mitchell, coming up froma crouched position with one foot on the sidewalk and the other in the street.

36

Goines told Agent Stapleton that he observed the screwdriver for the first time afterMitchell had fallen to the ground, and that it was in her hand.

Goines said he saw a male at the scene. This man had parked his car at the corner of LaBrea Avenue and Fourth Street and appeared to be yelling at Mitchell and using handgestures, as if he was pleading with her. The officers appeared to ignore this man.

Goines also stated during this interview that Mitchell never threatened the officers with ascrewdriver and never lunged at them. Further, Goines never felt that either officer's lifewas in danger at any time.

Goines said that an off-duty L.A.P.D. officer was passing by and she stopped to offerassistance. He further said that he told this officer that he thought it was a "bad shooting"and the off-duty officer agreed with this assessment.


Goines was subpoenaed to and testified before the Grand Jury. Again, the followingsummarizes only those portions of his Grand Jury testimony that are inconsistent with orsupplemental to his prior statements and testimony.

During his testimony, Goines said that when he saw Larrigan with his gun out hewondered why his gun was out when there was no threat. Specifically, Goines testified,"I was in a state of utter wonder why he had a gun out" considering the heavy trafficconditions, and that Mitchell "didn't really pose that much of a threat". He also testifiedthat he observed Mitchell with a screwdriver in her hand as she was proceeding south onLa Brea Avenue, but it was dangling down to her side. He testified that from across thestreet, he clearly identified the object in her hand as a screwdriver. He also testified thatMitchell never raised or waved the screwdriver.

During his testimony, Goines said that as she proceeded south on La Brea Avenue,Mitchell was turned sideways and was walking backward away from the officers facingthem.

Goines initially testified before the Grand Jury that Larrigan was right-handed, and heldthe gun in his right hand, supported by his left hand, and used his left hand to key into themicrophone pinned to his shirt. Goines then changed his testimony and said that he couldnot recall in which hand Larrigan held the gun.

Goines testified that when he first saw these individuals, Larrigan was 40 to 50 feet fromMitchell. Goines, himself, was approximately 200 feet from Larrigan, and approximately70 to 80 feet from Mitchell. Immediately before the shot was fired, Larrigan wasapproximately 15 to 20 feet from Mitchell, and right after the shot, approximately ten feetfrom her.

37

During his testimony, Goines said that Mitchell was "moving very slowly, taking littlesteps like she moved real lethargically". However, at a later time in his testimony,Goines said Mitchell was "still moving fast", but Larrigan was moving faster thanMitchell.

In his Grand Jury testimony, Goines said that he specifically recalled that Clark did nothave her gun out when he first saw her. During the pursuit, she had her hand on her gun,but it was not out. He described Clark as "drag-stepping" behind Larrigan. Goines alsotestified that his plan was to run across the street, approach Mitchell from behind, and"corral" her or give her a "bear hug" and snatch the screwdriver out of her hand.

Goines testified that he returned the license to the motorist before the van passed and saidto him, "go ahead, I don’t want to hold you up." He also said that the motorist drove offbefore the shooting.

Goines told the Grand Jury that Larrigan did not stumble or fall, but came up from acrouched position as soon as the van passed. He said Larrigan was crouched with his leftfoot on the street, and his right foot on the curb.

During his Grand Jury testimony, Goines said OC spray can be used from a maximumdistance of 25 to 30 feet, but that it is most effective from a distance of ten to fifteen feet.

Goines testified that he did not have any interaction with a female witness, but that heoverheard a woman tell another officer that she was a minister and wanted to giveMitchell last rites.

Jon Menick

Jon Menick was the motorist who had been stopped by Officer Goines at Fourth Streetand La Brea Avenue for a traffic violation. He was subpoenaed to and testified beforethe Grand Jury on January 30, 2001. Prior to this testimony he was not formallyinterviewed.28

Menick testified that he had been pulled over by a motorcycle officer because he hadmade a left turn from eastbound Sixth Street to northbound La Brea Avenue two minutesinto the period of time during which left turns were prohibited. (Although Menick didnot refer to him by name, the motorcycle officer will be referred to herein as "Goines").Menick stopped on the far right lane of northbound La Brea Avenue, south of theplanter/platform area surrounding the car dealership on the southwest corner of La Brea

28 Menick was represented by attorney Terrell. According to L.A.P.D. investigators, Terrell indicated thathe interviewed Menick, as well as Menick's passenger, Michael Leinert, but refused to provide copies ofthese interviews to law enforcement. Thus, Menick's Grand Jury testimony, and Leinert's, which follows,almost two years after the incident, are the only records of their statements that have been considered in thepreparation of this analysis.

38

Avenue and Fourth Street. Goines pulled over behind, i.e., south of Menick.

Goines contacted Menick at his driver's side front window, slightly to the rear of Menick.They had a very brief conversation during which Goines explained why Menick had beenstopped, and requested his license. As Goines remained next to Menick's window,Menick heard what sounded like someone screaming "in terror", in a high pitched,agitated voice, which caused Menick to look northwest across La Brea Avenue. Thesource of the scream was a small person, gender unknown, wearing a lot of clothing andpulling a shopping cart. (This small person will be referred to herein as "Mitchell").

Mitchell was running south on La Brea Avenue, pulling a shopping cart behind her withher left hand, and screaming as she turned back to face north. The cart was north ofMitchell and her right hand was raised from the elbow, holding a white circular object,that looked like a small purse, a large make-up bag, or a rolled-up newspaper.

Two bicycle police officers, a male and a female, were pursuing Mitchell south on LaBrea Avenue. (These individuals will be referred to herein as "Larrigan" and "Clark").Both officers were keeping their distance, travelling at a brisk pace in a crouching posturewith their hands down to their knees, appearing to be "stalking" Mitchell, rather thantrying to catch up to her. Mitchell, however, appeared to be running as fast as she could.Mitchell was approximately 40 yards from Menick when he first saw her. The officersand Mitchell were separated by ten to fifteen feet.

Goines was looking at Menick's license and was not alerted by the screaming voice.Goines remained near Menick's window and they had no further discussion. Menick didnot get a good look at Goines, but he clearly had a moustache and he appeared to beCaucasian, although Menick was not certain of his race.

Mitchell continued to run south approximately 40 yards, until she was just slightly northof Menick's vehicle. During the time she ran, Mitchell turned and looked back over herleft shoulder and screamed toward the officers three times. Thereafter, she appeared toget tired and stopped. Menick could not see whether she maintained possession of thiswhite object, but she had the cart the entire time.

The officers continued to follow Mitchell and when she began to slow down, Larriganwent east and straddled the curb, placing one foot in the street and one on the sidewalk.At the same time, Clark went slightly west, and the officers appeared to have some non-verbal communication or acknowledgment of each other. Mitchell and her cart were"corralled" by the officers. Larrigan never tripped, fell or went down on one knee. Hemaintained his balance. Although Menick assumed they were holding guns, he neversaw any guns. Larrigan was facing southwest and Mitchell was facing north. Larriganwas six to eight feet from Mitchell, and Clark was ten to twelve feet from Mitchell.

At that moment, a white van drove in front of him on La Brea Avenue and obscured hisvision, during which time a shot was fired. The van then seemed to stop for

39

approximately four seconds. Goines had not moved from his position next to Menick'scar window. At the sound of the shot Menick's passenger, Michael Leinert, screamed outsomething like, "Did they shoot her?" Goines said nothing.

Menick had no recollection of seeing any other people on the sidewalk during thisincident. At no time did Mitchell ever make any motion with her hands towards theofficers. None of the participants looked angry at any point, and only Mitchell appearedfrightened.

When the van passed, Menick saw Larrigan in the same position, but with his armsextended, holding a gun. Menick did not see the white object. The cart had fallen overon its side, although it had been upright before the van passed. Leinert got out ofMenick's car and ran north of the car and looked toward Larrigan. Goines ran across thestreet, still holding Menick's license and began to talk to Larrigan. Menick remained inhis vehicle. Approximately three minutes later, Goines returned to Menick, tossed thelicense into Menick's car and shrugged at him as of to tell him he could leave, which hedid. Goines did not speak any words.

Menick did not provide a statement to L.A.P.D., although they wanted to interview him,because Menick's attorney, Terrell, decided against it. After the incident, Menick did notknow what to do. He was shocked because the television coverage showed a picture of ascrewdriver which, according to Menick, was "not right".

Michael Leinert

Michael Leinert was a passenger in Menick's car when Menick was stopped for a trafficviolation. Leinert was subpoenaed to and testified before the Grand Jury on January 20,2001.

Leinert testified that he was with his "associate", Jon Menick, when Menick was pulledover for making an illegal left turn. Leinert said he was the sole passenger in Menick'svehicle and was seated in the right front. Leinert testified that he was "chagrined" thatMenick was pulled over for making a left turn only one minute into the prohibited timeperiod.

Menick pulled his car over to the right curb, which was the east side of northbound LaBrea Avenue, and the motorcycle officer started "hassling" Menick. (The motorcycleofficer will be referred to herein as "Goines"). Leinert also testified that Goines waslooking in Menick's vehicle for something that he and Menick could be "rousted about".Goines was wearing a helmet, sunglasses and had a small moustache. He appeared to beHispanic or Italian, with an olive complexion.

Menick's vehicle was stopped directly across from the newspaper stand that was on thewest side of La Brea Avenue, south of Fourth Street. When Goines approached Menick

40

from the driver's side, Leinert was, at first, focused on their conversation. Menick wasnervous, but cordial during his conversation with Goines. Menick gave Goines hislicense almost immediately. Leinert's attention, however, was soon drawn across thestreet where he saw two officers "jogging" behind Ms. Mitchell.29 At first, Leinertthought Mitchell was a small man because of the dark cap and very dark clothes shewore. She was pulling a grocery cart behind her with her left hand. Leinert made theseobservations through the windshield, and then when Mitchell and the officer proceededsouth on La Brea Avenue, Leinert made observations through the driver's side window.

Mitchell was pumping with her right arm for momentum trying to get away from theofficers, who were casually jogging behind her, approximately four to five yards away.The male officer was closest to the street and the female officer was by his side.(Hereinafter these officers will be referred to as "Larrigan" and "Clark").

The officers had nothing in their hands while they were jogging. Mitchell held an objectin her right hand that was approximately 16 or 17 inches long, and looked like a rolled-uppiece of paper or newspaper. She held it in her fist and it was pointed upward as she ran,pumping with her right arm. The object was tubular in shape and was definitely not ascrewdriver.

Menick seemed consumed with Goines and avoiding getting a citation, and Goines didnot seem to notice what was happening across the street. Menick and Goines were stillconversing while Leinert made these observations. Leinert became focused on the eventsacross the street and saw everything clearly, with no visual obstructions. Leinert testifiedthat he "never missed a thing". In fact, Leinert was particularly focused on the object inMitchell's hand.

Leinert testified that as this was occurring, pedestrians were walking up and down thesame sidewalk where Mitchell and the officers were. These people were letting theincident transpire and then going on about their business.

Before the shooting, Mitchell did not stop, hesitate, or turn back to look at the officers.Leinert testified that Mitchell was a "very small frame woman" who was exerting amaximum effort pulling her cart and trying to get away from the officers. She ran at thesame pace and held onto the item in her right hand during the entire pursuit. Leinertcould not tell whether any of these individuals said anything.

At the exact moment Leinert heard the single shot fired, a light, tan-colored van drove upand blocked Leinert's view for three to four seconds. Because Mitchell was moving andleaning forward with all her energy facing southbound, and "her inertia was goingforward", it was Leinert's opinion that Mitchell could not have stopped and turned aroundtoward the officers in the brief period of time the van obscured his vision. Leinerttestified that considering Mitchell's and Larrigan's last observed positions and assumingLarrigan shot Mitchell, he would have expected that Mitchell was shot in the back. If 29 During his testimony, Leinert referred to Mitchell by name.

41

Mitchell stopped and got shot in the chest area, Leinert would be surprised. Leinert,however, then testified that if Larrigan stepped off the curb, then Mitchell might havegotten shot somewhere from her left side to her front. Leinert, however, reiterated histestimony that he did not see Larrigan step off the curb until after the shot was fired.

After the shot, Leinert saw a gun in Larrigan's hand. He described Larrigan as holdingthe gun with his right hand out in front of him, slightly bent at the elbow and cradling thebottom of the grip in his left hand. Before the van obscured his view, neither officer hada weapon drawn.

According to Leinert, Goines remained next to Menick's driver's window facing Menickuntil after the shot was fired. Leinert testified that Goines had his back to the shootingincident and, "didn't see a thing." Further, Goines never walked back to his motorcycleor wrote a citation. Leinert also thought Menick was involved in matters relating to thetraffic stop during the shooting incident. Leinert remembered a lot of conversationbetween Menick and Goines related to the driver's license and the alleged violation.

Neither Goines nor Menick reacted to the gunshot, although, they clearly heard it.Leinert asked out loud, "Was that a shot?", and only then Goines turned around. Goinesthen proceeded across the street, still holding Menick's license. When Goines got half-way across the street, Leinert got out of Menick's vehicle and walked around to the front.Leinert looked very carefully and thoroughly across the street, in an effort to "burn [thescene] into my memory".

Leinert saw Larrigan step off the curb, point the gun down and drop it. Then, in Leinert'sopinion, Larrigan pretended to be hurt. Leinert thought Larrigan was feigning an injurybecause Leinert saw nothing that could have caused Larrigan any injury or pain, andLarrigan did not trip or fall. Had Larrigan stumbled or fallen Leinert definitely wouldhave seen it. A female civilian walked up to Larrigan from the north and seemed toattend to him. An African-American male civilian, who had not been at the scene earlier,also approached on foot from the north to see what was going on. A couple of otherpeople also walked by, but they did not stop. Leinert estimated that he was 30 feet orslightly further from Mitchell when he made these observations from the front ofMenick's vehicle.

During his testimony, Leinert volunteered that he visually examined the gutter and therewas nothing in the gutter. He had seen the news that night which showed a screwdriverin the gutter, and there had been no screwdriver in the gutter immediately after theshooting. Leinert specifically looked in that area because he assumed he would betestifying someday about the shooting and he wanted to remember everything. Leinertsaid he focused with equal intensity on the sidewalk and there were no items on thesidewalk either. It was also true, however, that after the van drove by, Leinert neveragain saw the object that had been in Mitchell's hand.

Leinert remained at the front of Menick's vehicle until Goines returned with Menick's

42

license, approximately five to ten minutes later. Menick did not get out of his car. WhenGoines returned Menick's license, Goines said, "Get the hell out of here", and theyimmediately drove off northbound on La Brea Avenue. No one obtained his or Menick'sname or identifying information.

Leinert said that prior to these questions posed to him during this Grand Jury appearance,he had not been interviewed. He testified that L.A.P.D. wanted to interview him, but hedeclined because he was afraid of L.A.P.D. and feared reprisals. Leinert also statedduring his testimony that he was concerned that because of his testimony, he would nowbe "harassed" by the police.

Leinert testified that Terrell began representing him in connection with this matterapproximately one or two days after the shooting. Leinert testified that on the same dayas the shooting, he contacted every news station, but they were not interested in talking tohim. Menick contacted Terrell after hearing him on the radio, and that was how Terrellcame to represent Leinert.

Kelly Page

Kelly Page, who was visiting the car dealership at the time of the shooting, providedinformation on two occasions regarding her observations of the shooting: (1) On January4, 2000, she was interviewed by L.A.P.D. investigators; and (2) On January 30, 2001, shetestified before the Grand Jury.


Page told L.A.P.D. investigators that she was standing in the showroom of the cardealership located at the corner of Fourth Street and La Brea Avenue about to exit whenshe became aware of a commotion on the street corner. From the door to the showroomshe saw a male and a female police officer with their guns drawn yelling unknown wordsat someone who was to their west. (These officers will be referred to herein as"Larrigan" and "Clark"). Page could not see this person because her view was blockedby the display vehicles. The officers began to chase this person westbound on FourthStreet, and when they turned around and headed east, Page saw that it was an elderlyAfrican-American woman with a shopping cart. (This elderly woman will be referred toherein as "Mitchell".)

Page saw Mitchell have some kind of interaction with the officers, and then Mitchellgrabbed the front of the shopping cart and pulled it as she walked away, now headingsouth on the west sidewalk of La Brea Avenue. When Mitchell had walkedapproximately 20 to 30 feet south, Page saw her waving a screwdriver at the officers in athreatening manner, as if to tell them to "get away". Before Mitchell and the officers leftthe street corner, Page saw a tall man standing to the west of them, but he did not doanything and Page did not hear him say anything.

43

As the three individuals moved south, Page followed them visually from inside theshowroom to the point furthest south, and could see them only intermittently because herview was blocked by display vehicles. Larrigan was closer to the curb and Clark wasnear the car dealership. At a certain point, only Larrigan remained in view. Page sawLarrigan lunge in a south direction with his arms extended out. He then moved back andlost his balance and slipped off the sidewalk, using his left hand to prevent him fromcompletely falling down. Page was unsure whether Larrigan had a gun in his hand.Larrigan stood up, but Page's view of him was blocked by a vehicle. Then Larriganmoved back into view and Page heard him yell, "Stop or I'll shoot!" Page warned peoplein the showroom to stay away from the window and, as they started to move back, Pageheard a gunshot. She saw Larrigan raise the gun but did not see him discharge theweapon.

Page then ran outside to help. The officers told her to move back and she explained thatshe was a minister and was going to minister to Mitchell. The officers permitted her toapproach Mitchell. When Page was next to Mitchell, Clark approached and told her thewoman's name was "Margaret", but Page did not know how Clark obtained her name.

January 30, 2001

Page was subpoenaed to and testified before the Grand Jury. The following summarizesonly those portions of her testimony that are either inconsistent with or supplemental toher interview with L.A.P.D.30

Page testified that what caught her attention was the noise of raised voices from thestreet, north of the dealership building. She could not discern any words, but she recalledmale voices. As far as she knew, however, several persons could have been yelling.

Page said that she remained on the south side of the showroom and made observationsfrom there. She realized there was some trouble on Fourth Street because the officers hadtheir guns pointed toward some unknown person to their west and they were followingthis person in a westerly direction. The officers were very obviously police officers 30 Before subpoenaing Page to the Grand Jury, efforts were made to interview her informally at the officesof the District Attorney. Her attorney, Elliot Abelson, adamantly refused to cooperate with such aninterview. He said this case had become a "circus" and a "hot potato", and it was not in his client's bestinterests to give a statement. When he was told that she would then be subpoenaed to testify before theGrand Jury, Abelson said that he could "destroy her testimony" because she was mentally unstable andlacked any credibility. He would not elaborate further. Senior District Attorney Investigator Dennis Louiehad to make several attempts to serve Page with the Grand Jury subpoena. The only address he couldlocate for Page, even after searching Department of Motor Vehicle records, was the address of theScientology headquarters on Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood. When Louie went to that address, theindividual manning the entrance doors would not allow Louie into the building and would not cooperatewith Louie's efforts to serve the subpoena. Page was eventually served at the entrance to the Scientologyheadquarters after Louie explained to Abelson that the District Attorney's Office insisted on subpoenaingPage to the Grand Jury, and arrangements were made with Abelson to meet Page at the entrance to theScientology headquarters to effect service.

44

because of the way they were dressed.

At times Larrigan and Clark held their guns straight out, as if they were pointed atsomeone, and other times, they were pointed toward the ground. The officers weresaying something, but Page could not tell what it was, and they were moving verycautiously.

Page saw another male out on the sidewalk at this time who seemed to confuse things, byputting himself in a "difficult" situation. He was out of place and he forced the officers topay attention to him when they were trying to concentrate on Mitchell. This man was inhis early to mid-forties, Caucasian and athletic-looking. He was positioned between theofficers and Mitchell, but further north, perhaps even in the street. Besides these fourindividuals, there was no one else on the sidewalk. When Mitchell and the officers leftthe corner, Page completely lost track of this man. After that, Page saw no one else nearthem. The only male African-American Page was aware of, arrived after the shooting,and he seemed to come from the car dealership.

Page testified that when she first saw Mitchell, Mitchell was pushing her shopping cart ina normal fashion westbound on Fourth street, trying to get away from the officers. Sheturned around, grabbed her cart and started heading east, pulling it behind her rather thanpushing it. When Mitchell changed her direction, she got very close to the officers,approximately two to three feet away. They let her pass and made no attempt tophysically contact her. This was when Mitchell first had the screwdriver in her left hand.She was holding it by the handle, with her arm extended in front of her and her elbowslightly bent. The tip of the screwdriver was pointed slightly upward and to the left.

When Mitchell was travelling south on the west side of La Brea Avenue, she was pullingthe cart behind her as fast as she could. The cart appeared heavy for her, preventing herfrom running. She was walking as fast as she could. At one point she let go of the cartand positioned herself beside it. That was when, in Page's words, Mitchell "shook" thescrewdriver at the officers, and was, "shaking her little thing". Page demonstratedMitchell's movements by extending her left hand in front of her, slightly bending theelbow and moving her hand up and down by the elbow and wrist. Page could not tell ifMitchell said anything as she shook the screwdriver.

As the officers followed her, Larrigan was closer to the building and Clark was closer tothe street. They were approximately 15 feet behind Mitchell. Something was being said,but Page could not tell what it was. When Mitchell stopped, the officers stopped as well.Shortly before the shooting Larrigan fell while standing on the west side of the sidewalk.He was not near the curb. Larrigan lost his balance and stumbled accidentally, althoughhe did not fall all the way to the ground. Page recalled that he might have broken his fallwith his hand.

Mitchell then continued southbound and the participants' voices, particularly Larrigan's,got louder and angrier. Mitchell's voice also sounded angry and Page recalled that

46

the events leading to the shooting of Mitchell took place, and he provided formalstatements on two occasions: (1) On May 28, 1999, he was interviewed by Special AgentStapleton of the F.B.I., which was not recorded; and (2) On January 29, 2001, he testifiedbefore the Grand Jury.


Henley told Agent Stapleton that he was driving south on La Brea Avenue and wasstopped at a red traffic light at Fourth Street when he noticed a motorcycle officerstanding near his motorcycle in the northbound lanes of La Brea Avenue. Henley thenlooked to his right and saw a woman moving quickly on the sidewalk, being chased bytwo police officers. Henley could not tell the gender of the officers. The woman waspulling a shopping cart with her left hand and the cart was trailing between her and theofficers. (This woman will be referred to herein as "Mitchell").

Henley stated that the officer closest to the curb lost his or her balance and fell to the left,off the curb, ending up in a kneeling or leaning position. As the officer was falling,Henley heard a gunshot and saw that Mitchell fell face down near a newspaper stand.Henley saw nothing in Mitchell's hand. In the officer's hand, Henley noticed anautomatic handgun, which he had not noticed before the gunshot. Henley did not see theofficer remove the gun from his or her holster.

At the time of the shooting, the officers were only a few feet away from Mitchell, andthey seemed to be catching her.

After the shot, the motorcycle officer who had been on the east side of La Brea Avenue,ran across the street to where the shooting took place. Henley also recalled seeing afemale, driving a possibly black sport utility vehicle, get out of her vehicle and runtoward the scene. When Henley pulled his vehicle up past the curb where Mitchell waslying, Henley noticed that she was still breathing and there was movement in her eyes.


Henley was subpoenaed to and testified before the Grand Jury. The following summaryreflects only those portions of Henley's testimony that are inconsistent with orsupplemental to the statements he provided to the F.B.I. on May 28, 1999.

Henley testified that before he made any observations, while he was stopped at the redlight there was a "surreal stillness" in the air and his attention was intuitively drawn to thewest side of the street. There was, however, nothing in particular like something he heardor saw that drew his attention to this area.

Henley testified that he was stopped for the red light in the far right lane and he did notthink there were any cars ahead of him stopped at the light.32

32 Pamela Littky also claimed that her car was the first car stopped at the red light in the far right lane of

47

When he saw Mitchell, he did not see anything in her hands, however her right hand wasnot visible to him. She was pulling the cart with her left hand. Henley testified that theofficers' hands were visible to him and he noticed nothing in them. As far as he couldrecall, nothing obstructed his view of Mitchell and the officers. Mitchell was walkingvery fast, and the officer closest to the curb was running. They were separated byapproximately ten feet.

Mitchell was moving south, but because she was pulling the cart behind her, her upperbody was somewhat twisted north.

Henley testified that he did not recall hearing any voices or any yelling.

When the officer closest to the curb fell, he or she fell to the ground, and landed on thesidewalk, very close to the street. This officer might have landed in a sitting position.

Henley testified that his first thought was that the motorcycle officer shot Mitchell,because Henley did not see the officer closest to the curb in possession of a gun, andimmediately when the shot was fired, the motorcycle officer was running across thestreet. Henley never saw a gun until after the shooting. Henley said that the shot rangout within a "split second" of the officer going down. It happened "almostsimultaneously". Henley testified that the officer was on the ground when the shot wasfired and that clearly, this officer did not get up, steady him or herself and then dischargehis or her weapon. If the officer who had fallen was the one who had discharged his orher weapon, Henley testified it would be a very strong possibility that the discharge wasaccidental. Henley stated he still did not know which of the three officers shot Mitchell.

Henley said that at first, he was not even certain it was a gunshot that he heard. Thesound was more flat than what he expected a gunshot to sound like based on what he hadseen in films.

Henley testified that it was absolutely clear to him that the officer closest to the curbaccidentally fell. That officer did not crouch down or, in any manner, intentionally godown. The officer simply lost his or her footing.

When the shot was fired, Henley estimated the distance between the officer who fell andMitchell was anywhere from four and ten feet.

Henley testified that for a second or so immediately before the shooting, he was notlooking at Mitchell and he could not say what she was doing, because Henley wasfocused on the officer. Since immediately thereafter the officer fell and the shot rang out,Henley was not looking at Mitchell when she was shot, but at the officer.

Henley estimated that the period of time between the moment he first saw Mitchell and southbound La Brea Avenue when the incident took place.

48

the discharge of the weapon, was two or three seconds. Henley also testified that henever observed a screwdriver in connection with anything that occurred during thisincident. All of Henley's observations were made from within his car.

Medical Evidence

Los Angeles City Fire Department paramedics arrived at the west sidewalk of La BreaAvenue, south of Fourth Street, at 4:26 p.m. Mitchell was treated at the scene andtransported to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where she arrived at 4:50 p.m. In theemergency room, several surgical procedures were performed in an attempt to sustainMitchell's life, which were unsuccessful. At 5:09 p.m. death was pronounced by Dr. JeffArnold.

On May 23, 1999, a post-mortem examination of Mitchell was performed by DeputyMedical Examiner Jeffrey Gutstadt. Dr. Gutstadt concluded that the cause of death wasfrom a single gunshot wound to Mitchell's right chest. Specifically, he found that froman indeterminate distance, Mitchell was shot in her upper right chest, with the entrywound being 11 inches from the top of her head and one and one-half inches to the rightof midline. The projectile traveled from front to back, right to left and slightly upward.It fractured the right clavicle, perforated the right jugular vein, severed the spinal cord,fractured the number two left back rib and exited Mitchell's left back. The exit woundwas in the upper left back, ten and one-half inches from the top of Mitchell's head andtwo and one-half inches to the left of midline. A toxicological analysis of Mitchell'sblood was performed, which was negative for alcohol or controlled substances.

Larrigan's Background

L.A.P.D. provided what appeared to be a complete copy of Larrigan's personnel file.According to the information contained in the file, Larrigan graduated from High Schoolin 1989 and spent a short time attending Pasadena City College. He attended the policeacademy from April of 1994 to October of 1994. His first assignment was to theSoutheast Division until October of 1995 when he was transferred to Wilshire Division.He was a member of Wilshire CRASH33 from April of 1996 to July of 1997, and in early1998, he was temporarily assigned to Wilshire CRASH detectives. In October 1998 thisassignment was extended. In March of 1999, he returned to a position as a patrol officerand was assigned to the Wilshire Bicycle unit.

Other than any disciplinary action with respect to this incident, on two occasions Larriganwas disciplined for misconduct. In May of 1995 Larrigan was suspended for one day for"neglect of duty" because he lost a taser that had been checked out to him. In January of1999, he was counseled for "failure to qualify" because he neglected to qualify with his9mm service weapon in November of 1998. 33 "CRASH" is the acronym for the L.A.P.D. program, "Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums".

49

In the five years Larrigan had been an officer, he received numerous commendations andhis Performance Evaluation Reports were generally favorable.

Physical Evidence

Eighty items of physical evidence were collected by L.A.P.D. in connection with theinvestigation of this case. Forty-eight items were recovered from the scene of theshooting. The vast majority of these items came from within the shopping cart that wasin Mitchell's possession. Among those numerous items that had been in the cart was anL.A.P.D. citation and notice to appear in the name "Margaret Laverne Mitchell" for analleged violation of "22435.2(f) B&P – obs'd viol in possession of a shopping cart –(Staples)". The remaining 32 items of physical evidence collected included firearmsevidence, e.g., live and test-fired cartridges and cartridge casings from Larrigan's 9mmservice weapon; clothing and personal items that had been worn by Mitchell at the timeof the shooting; and items collected by the coroner, specifically, bullet fragments fromMitchell's fractured right clavicle, and hair and fingernail kits.

The items recovered of greatest relevance were: (1) Property Report Item #3, a 12 inchoverall length, metal flathead screwdriver with a yellow, plastic handle, which was

50

southeasterly direction. L.A.P.D. also submitted photographs of Officers Larrigan andClark taken shortly after the incident. The photographs of Larrigan show a fresh, small,round, red abrasion on the bottom right side of his right knee.35

Measurements were taken at the scene with the following results: La Brea Avenue is 70feet in width and the shooting in question took place on the west sidewalk of La BreaAvenue approximately 90 to 105 feet south of the south curb of Fourth Street and twofeet west of the west curb of La Brea Avenue. The west sidewalk measures 15 feet inwidth. La Brea Avenue is bordered on the south by Sixth Street36.

Two communications tapes were submitted to this office by L.A.P.D. which reflect radiocommunications regarding this incident on two L.A.P.D. frequencies. At the beginningof one of the tapes, just after an unrelated robbery is reported at a location described as"12th Street and New Hampshire", there is a brief communication by a male officeridentifying himself as "seven cycle 26", requesting back-up and additional units at whatsounds like La Brea Avenue. "Seven cycle 26" was the assigned unit for Clark andLarrigan. Heard during this brief communication, is a considerable amount ofbackground noise, including a raised female voice. The male officer sounds excited andthe communication is abruptly disconnected before a more exact location is reported.Almost immediately thereafter, as the dispatcher is beginning to broadcast the officer'srequest for back-up, the dispatcher is interrupted by the same male officer, still soundinghighly agitated, who now requests three additional units and a supervisor at La BreaAvenue, just south of Fourth Street. The ensuing radio communications on bothfrequencies reflect the police activity that occurred in the aftermath of the shooting.

An L.A.P.D. Firearms Analyzed Evidence report indicated that Larrigan's 9mm serviceweapon was test-fired from various distances at a stationery target in an effort toreproduce the gunshot residue patterns found on the shirt and sweater worn by Mitchell.This was done to help fix the limits of the probable distance from which Mitchell wasshot. These tests were completed on June 22, 1999, the results of which establish thatgunshot residue patterns culminating from test-firing at distances greater than one footand less that six feet most closely resembled the patterns detected on Mitchell's clothing.

Mitchell's Criminal History

No automated criminal history of any type could be located for Mitchell. Mitchell,however, had been issued citations for unlawful possession of a shopping cart on fourrecent occasions: November 4, 199837; January 28, 1999; February 18, 1999; and 35 As previously mentioned, Larrigan's statement to L.A.P.D. was not reviewed in the preparation of thisanalysis, so the source of this abrasion is not known.36 The report prepared by L.A.P.D. erroneously states that, on the south, La Brea Avenue is bordered byFifth Street.37 A copy of this citation was found among Mitchell's belongings. Further, in the Release From CustodyReport prepared for this arrest, the bicycle officer making the arrest wrote that during the police contact,Mitchell became very uncooperative with the officers.

51

February 19, 1999.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Pursuant to the District Attorney's Legal Policies Manual, the determination of whether tofile criminal charges must include a consideration of the defenses likely to be raised byan accused. Among the criteria for charging, is the following:

The prosecutor has considered the probability of conviction by an objective factfinder and has determined that the admissible evidence is of such convincingforce that it would warrant conviction of the crime charged by a reasonable andobjective fact finder after hearing all the evidence available to the prosecutor atthe time of charging and after considering the most plausible, reasonablyforeseeable defense inherent in the prosecution evidence. Legal Policies Manual,Chapter 1, IA4.

Therefore, in order to determine whether criminal charges should be filed in connectionwith the shooting of Margaret Mitchell, the issue must be resolved as to whether there issufficient evidence that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Mitchell's death wasdue neither to an accidental discharge of Larrigan's gun nor to a justifiable act of self-defense. Thus, there must be sufficiently convincing evidence that Larrigan intentionallyshot Mitchell and that he did not do so in lawful defense of himself or another.

The doctrine of self-defense is as follows: The use of deadly force constitutes a lawfuland justifiable act of self-defense or defense of another, when the person using the deadlyforce actually and reasonably believes (1) that there is imminent danger that the personagainst whom the deadly force is used will either kill or cause great bodily injury tohimself or another person and (2) that it is necessary under the circumstances to usedeadly force to prevent that person from killing or causing great bodily injury. SeeCALJIC Instructions 5.12, 5.13, 5.14 and 5.16. Thus, it is necessary to determineLarrigan's beliefs at the moment he decided to fire his weapon and whether those beliefswere reasonable. Since Larrigan's compelled statement would not be admissibleevidence in a criminal proceeding, and there is no other evidence of any other statementsor admissions he made, his state of mind can only be inferred from the facts immediatelypreceding the discharge of his weapon. Similarly, whether Larrigan discharged hisweapon intentionally or accidentally is, likewise, dependent on the same facts.

It is the considered opinion of this office, after carefully reviewing all availableinformation surrounding the shooting of Margaret Mitchell, that the state of the evidencepertaining to the conduct of the involved individuals, i.e., Mitchell and Larrigan, is notsufficiently certain to establish with any confidence what transpired before Mitchell wasshot or to disprove Larrigan's anticipated claims of accident or self-defense. Specifically,the statements and testimony provided by the percipient witnesses to this incident are sodisparate and, in some cases, unreliable, that to base a criminal prosecution on them

52

would be capricious.

Before proceeding to an analysis of the specifics of the various witnesses' statements,several facts, not in dispute, must be noted. First, the screwdriver recovered from thescene was 12 inches in length overall, with the metal segment alone measuring seveninches. Compared to the size of most screwdrivers, the one wielded by Mitchell wasexceedingly large. Second, the vehicles found at the scene closest to the incidentbelonged to off-duty Officer Young and civilian James Moody, suggesting that they bothhad favorable vantage points. Third, Larrigan appeared to have a fresh abrasion on hisright knee, suggesting that he may have hit the ground with his knee with considerableforce at some point. Finally, and most important, the gunshot wound suffered byMitchell, entered her upper chest, just right of the midline of her body and exited herupper left back, two and one-half inches from her midline. This angle strongly suggeststhat Mitchell had turned completely around and was facing north, and that Larrigan wasin front of her to her right, when the shot was fired. For Mitchell to have twisted herupper body north, keeping her lower body pointed south, or even southeast, Larriganwould have had to have been south of her or parallel to her to have inflicted a wound withthe indicated path, neither of which has been suggested by any witness to the incident.

The key factual issues to determine whether Larrigan intentionally fired his weapon and,if so, whether he did so in self-defense, involve (1) Mitchell's conduct immediatelybefore the shooting; and (2) Larrigan's conduct immediately before the shooting. Inassessing the quality and reliability of the various witnesses' statements, it is necessary toconsider each witness' consistency, both internally and when compared with otherevidence38, as well as his or her logic, opportunity to perceive, and bias.

Officer Clark, the witness in closest proximity to the incident, clearly stated that Mitchellwas extremely hostile, threatened to kill her and Larrigan several times, and lungedtoward Larrigan with the screwdriver in a stabbing motion, after turning completelyaround to face him. She also stated that shortly before the shooting, Larrigan wasinvolved in some physical commotion, but she did not see whether he fell or stumbled.Clark remained fairly consistent in her description of these events throughout her severalstatements and Grand Jury testimony. Changes in her statements involved her latertestimony that: (1) Moody's involvement was a hindrance which, in her opinion,contributed to their "losing control" of the situation; (2) Larrigan physically pulledMoody away from the encounter; and (3) Mitchell's movement toward Larrigan was "nota full-out lunge", but rather a step toward Larrigan with her arm raised above her head.

These differences are not direct contradictions, and it must be noted that in her earlier 38 Naturally, inconsistencies among witnesses as to details are to be expected and do not pose any seriousconcern. This is acknowledged in CALJIC 2.21.1, which states, "Discrepancies in a witness's testimony orbetween a witness's testimony and that of other witnesses, if there were any, do not necessarily mean that awitness should be discredited. Failure of recollection is common. Innocent misrecollection is notuncommon. Two persons witnessing an incident or a transaction often will see or hear it differently. Youshould consider whether a discrepancy relates to an important matter or only to something trivial." Ofgreater consequence are inconsistencies in the evidence as to material facts.

53

statement, Clark was not asked specific questions that would normally elicit thesedetailed responses. Also, the substance of these added facts are consistent with Clark'sinitial explanation of events, so that it cannot be said that her assessment of the situationhas changed. Her testimony was logical and consistent with known facts, althoughcertainly not consistent with other witnesses' statements. Overall, Clark's demeanorduring her Grand Jury appearance was cooperative and responsive, and she displayed noobvious bias. Other than an arguably inherent bias she may possess as a police officer,and her admitted friendship with Larrigan, she is a credible witness.

Citizen James Moody was also in an advantageous position to observe the events leadingup to the shooting of Mitchell. Moody, during his initial statement to L.A.P.D. said, atvarious points, that Mitchell was trying to "stab" and "cut" Larrigan, was "swinging" and"slinging" the screwdriver toward the officers, and was "sticking it" at them. Moody wasclear that Clark, rather than Larrigan, shot Mitchell as Larrigan was attempting to disarmher and that Larrigan was four to five feet away from Mitchell at the time. Moodyreported that there was nothing in Larrigan's hands immediately before the shooting, andthat Larrigan had fallen to the ground. He stated that, at first, he thought Larrigan hadbeen shot by Clark.

During his interview with the F.B.I., Moody reported several significantly different facts.He said that Mitchell never waved the screwdriver in a stabbing motion and neverextended her arms. Moody also said for the first time that he saw a gun in Larrigan'shand before the shooting, and that it was Larrigan, rather than Clark, who shot Mitchell.Moody also said for the first time that he was turned toward his car at the exact momentthe shot was fired, and when he turned around, Larrigan was stumbling with the gun inhis hand. Moody also denied ever stating that Clark shot Mitchell or that Mitchell wastrying to stab the officers.

During his Grand Jury appearance, Moody testified to other significantly different facts.Moody said that the only motion made by Mitchell with the screwdriver was whenLarrigan approached her and pointed his gun at her, and then she only moved it up anddown by the elbow. Mitchell never tried to "hit" "cut" or "stab" the officers. He alsooffered his opinion, without being asked, that Mitchell did not see the words "police" onthe back of the officers' jackets. He testified that Larrigan had his gun pointed at Mitchellthe entire time he was moving south on La Brea and he never made an attempt to disarmMitchell. Moody also said he never noticed that Larrigan stumbled or fell and he neverthought Larrigan might have been shot. He was definite that Larrigan, rather than Clark,shot Mitchell and he testified that all he had said in the past was that Clark could haveshot Mitchell, but not that she did. Also, Moody made both of the following statements:(1) he did not notice whether Clark had her gun out at the time of the shooting; and (2)Clark was not pointing her gun at anyone at the time of the shooting. Moody also statedfor the first time that when he tried to get involved in the situation, Larrigan pointed hisgun at Moody and said "get away".

From these varying statements, Moody appears to be an unreliable witness. There are

54

contradictions among his statements, as well as contradictions within his statements.These inconsistencies go to material facts, as well as collateral facts. Also, there is somequestion as to his competency as a witness. For instance, it is very troubling that withinthe same interview, Moody stated that he dropped his wife off at a store before he sawMitchell, but inadvertently commented that he and his wife discussed Mitchell's conductas they viewed it.

This negative assessment of Moody's value as a witness was arrived at only afterreviewing both the transcript and the tape-recording of his statement. Further, evenallowing for the possibility of innocent misstatement, and considering Moody's animatedstyle of communication, the discrepancies are too conspicuous to be discounted. In termsof demeanor, Moody sounded biased during his Grand Jury testimony. He repeatedlyreferred to the screwdriver wielded by Mitchell as a "little old screwdriver" and made itclear that he believed that Larrigan acted maliciously. His opinion of Larrigan's attitudemight not be so disturbing had Moody not expressed such a favorable opinion of Larriganduring his initial interview. This bias is further supported by Moody's testimony thatLarrigan pointed his gun at Moody to force Moody to stay away from the officers'encounter with Mitchell. Considering that during his L.A.P.D. interview, Moody'sdescription of Larrigan's reaction to his attempt to intervene was to say, "that's okay, don'tworry about it", the extreme response of pointing his weapon at Moody seems tooincongruous to be credible. Based on these factors, Moody cannot be relied on toaccurately shed light on the facts leading up to Mitchell's shooting.

Another witness who seems to have been in an advantageous position to observe theseevents is off-duty Officer Young. In her interview with L.A.P.D. on the night of theincident, Young said that before the involved individuals left the corner, Mitchell hadbeen yelling and waving the screwdriver in an irrational way. Immediately before theshooting, Mitchell turned toward Larrigan, and with the screwdriver extended in front ofher, took a step toward Larrigan and lunged at him. Young was unaware of which officerdischarged the weapon and did not notice whether Larrigan fell.

During her subsequent interview with the F.B.I., Young described Mitchell's "lunge" as athrusting motion, with Mitchell extending the hand which held the screwdriver out infront of her. Young clarified that Mitchell did not have the screwdriver held over herhead. The only inconsistent statement Young made was that she said that Larrigan hadhis gun in a "low-ready" position during the pursuit, but she was unsure about Clark,whereas during her earlier interview, Young said that Clark had re-holstered her weapon,but she was unsure about Larrigan. During her Grand Jury testimony, Clark said she wasunsure whether Mitchell held the screwdriver in an underhand or overhand manner whenshe lunged at Larrigan. Arguably, this is inconsistent with her statement to the F.B.I. thatMitchell did not hold the screwdriver over her head. Also, Young testified that she didnot see whether either officer physically pushed Moody away from the encounter, andshe told the F.B.I. that Larrigan grabbed Moody by the arm and pulled him away. Thesedifferences in her statements may be due to the passage of time and Young's fadingmemory. In any event, they do not seem to affect the gist of Young's testimony that

55

Mitchell appeared to be making an attempt to harm Larrigan with the screwdriver.Young did not convey any bias during her testimony and said she had and has norelationship whatsoever with Larrigan or Clark. Other than bias that might be ascribed toher by virtue of her profession, Young appeared to be a fairly credible witness.

Civilian Derrick Keaton was working at the car dealership. Although in his initialstatement to L.A.P.D., he said he thought others, particularly Officer Young, had a betterview than he had, nonetheless, Keaton gave a fairly detailed description of hisobservations. Keaton stated that before she was shot, Mitchell did not turn around towardthe officers and was shot as she was running from them. Also, according to Keaton,Mitchell never lunged toward the officers. Based on his observations, Keaton expectedthat Mitchell was shot in the back. This, however, is not consistent with the evidence andsuggests that Keaton may not have been in a position to make these importantobservations.

Further, although Keaton remained constant on these points, in other areas his testimonychanged. During his initial statement to L.A.P.D., he said the following: (1) He hadsome prior contact with Mitchell and described her as "mean and quiet"; (2) WhenMoody tried to intervene, the officers seemed pleased and did not push him away; (3)Clark was closer to the street and Larrigan was closer to the car dealership; (4) Larrigandid not fall; and (5) Keaton thought that Larrigan's gun went off accidentally as he wasrunning. In his later statement to the F.B.I. and during his Grand Jury testimony, Keatonsaid the following: (1) Mitchell was "kind of nice" and "not friendly, but not mean"; (2)The officers were clearly disturbed that Moody tried to intervene and raised their voicesat him; (3) Larrigan was closer to the street and Clark was closer to the car dealership; (4)Larrigan slipped off the curb and fell, but regained his balance before the shooting; and(5) Larrigan did not accidentally shoot Mitchell and, indeed, took aim at her beforeshooting her. Keaton also testified that Mitchell's hands were definitely empty as she ransouth on La Brea Avenue and he believed she dropped the screwdriver near someplanters next to the car dealership. This is inconsistent with a majority of the otherwitnesses who saw the screwdriver in Mitchell's hand either as she was running or whenshe fell to the ground. Whether these changes in Keaton's testimony are due to hisinability to perceive, his fading memory or a recently developed bias is unclear. In anyevent, Keaton is not a sufficiently reliable witness.

Civilian Pamela Littky, a passing motorist, said that Mitchell was running south on LaBrea Avenue, and immediately before she was shot, turned around toward the officers,had a verbal exchange with them and moved her hand in their direction as if she wasengaging in a sword fight. Littky further said that Mitchell had some object in her hand,although Littky did not know what it was. According to Littky, the movement Mitchellmade with her hand was small and she did not lunge toward the officers. Littkyestimated that Larrigan was four feet away from Mitchell when she was shot.

During her subsequent interview with members of this office, Littky added that there wasanother instance as Mitchell proceeded south on La Brea Avenue, when she turned

56

around toward the officers. Littky, however, first said that Mitchell and the officers wereten feet apart the first time Mitchell turned toward them, and four feet apart the second,and last, time she turned toward them. Later, during the same interview, Littky reversedthese distances. Littky also said that a blond woman, who she later saw driving a blacksport utility vehicle, approached Mitchell and the officers while they were on the streetand the officers may have told this woman to get away. It appears that Littky confusedYoung's involvement with that of Moody. Littky also said that her car was the first onestopped at the red light on southbound La Brea Avenue in the far right lane, the sameposition that witness Henley claimed his car occupied during the incident. Theseinconsistencies and misperceptions, however, do not appear to be the result of any bias onLittky's part. In other respects and in terms of her demeanor, Littky appeared to be acredible witness.

Civilian Gary Miller was a motorist driving north on the opposite side of La BreaAvenue. To see the incident, he had to turn his head to the left and, as to the key eventsthat occurred just moments before the shooting, Miller had to turn his head further andlook over his left shoulder. Basically, Miller said two male officers were walking behindMitchell, neither of whom were armed. Mitchell turned toward the officers and saidsomething. Miller turned away for two or three seconds and when he looked back,Mitchell had a screwdriver in her hand and was holding it toward the ground at her side.The officer closest to the curb then shot Mitchell once. Miller assumed this officer shotMitchell because he was the only one Miller saw with a gun. Miller observed this "out ofthe corner of [his] eye", and could only see the officers from the rear.

During his later interview with the F.B.I., Miller added that after the shot was fired, theshooting officer stepped down from the curb, but Miller could not tell if he fell orintentionally stepped down. During his most recent interview by members of this office,Miller said that the officer did not stumble, but deliberately stepped off the curb. He alsosaid that he observed that the officer furthest from him was female and the one closer tothe curb was male. Miller added that Mitchell turned back twice toward the officers.Also, when Larrigan shot Mitchell, he did not extend his arm out. It was as if he "shotfrom the hip".

In evaluating him as a witness, the inconsistencies noted above may be due to acombination of assimilating information he acquired since the incident, and, simply,fading recollection. They do not change the basic tenor of his observations, and hedisplayed no apparent bias. Of greater concern is that his opportunity to observe eventsmight have been hampered by his position across the street while facing north. Althoughhis more recent statement that Larrigan "shot from the hip" could be consistent with thetheory of an accidental discharge, according to Miller's first statement, his view ofLarrigan was limited to a rear perspective, rendering that conclusion speculative.Further, based on the position of Young's sport utility vehicle as reflected in thephotographs of the scene, there seems to be a reasonable possibility that Miller's viewwas at least partially obstructed.

57

Before analyzing Officer Goines' value as a witness, it should be mentioned that inconnection with this shooting, Goines has been somewhat of a controversial figure.Slightly more than a year after the incident, Goines stated publicly that he believed theforce used by Larrigan was excessive. Shortly thereafter, Goines filed a lawsuit againstL.A.P.D. for damages based on his allegation that L.A.P.D. had retaliated against him forbreaking an alleged "code of silence" with respect to this case. Thus, Goines, arguably,has some interest in a finding that Larrigan's conduct was unwarranted and/or criminal, inthat his credibility would be bolstered thereby.

In Goines' initial statement to L.A.P.D. on the night of the incident, Goines said thatbased on his observations of the officers' pursuit of Mitchell, their request for back-up,Mitchell's verbal exchange with them and her apparent refusal to cooperate, he perceivedthat something was amiss. Goines did not include among these observations, thatMitchell was armed. Goines, thus, decided to assist Larrigan and Clark by approachingMitchell from behind, and preventing her forward, i.e., southerly, progress. As he tried toget across the street, however, a van stopped in front of him, blocking his view, duringwhich time Mitchell was shot. It was only afterwards that he saw the screwdriver inMitchell's hand.

His next statement, 14 months later, was a deposition taken by attorney Terrell in thecivil lawsuit, portions of which were reported by the media. During this deposition,Terrell played the entire tape of Goines' L.A.P.D. interview for Goines to comment upon,question by question. In this deposition, Goines said that, in fact, he had seen thescrewdriver in Mitchell's hand before the shooting and his purpose in going across thestreet was to disarm her. He said that while another suspect in the same position andarmed similarly to Mitchell might pose a deadly threat, Mitchell did not because of hermental condition and size. Inconsistent with this first interview, Goines was adamantduring his deposition that he returned the motorist's license before, rather than after,Goines proceeded across the street. Goines also mentioned that after the shooting,Larrigan was rising up from the street to the curb, as if he had slipped off the curb,causing Goines to think that the discharge may have been accidental.

During his next statement, which was an F.B.I. interview, Goines' reverted to his earlierassertion that he had not seen anything in Mitchell's hand before she was shot. Goinesalso explained that Larrigan did not slip, but was coming up from a crouched positionafter the shooting, with one foot in the street, and one foot on the sidewalk.

Finally, in his Grand Jury testimony, Goines again reversed his statement, and said thathe did, in fact, see the screwdriver in Mitchell's hand before the shooting and he wasplanning on disarming her. Further, he described it as dangling down at Mitchell's side,which she never raised or waved at the officers. Goines stated that he was shocked thatLarrigan had his gun out. Goines first testified that Larrigan was right-handed and hadthe gun in his right hand, but then said he could not recall in which hand Larrigan had thegun. He also said, again, that Larrigan clearly did not stumble or fall, but came up from acrouched position.

58

Goines' various assertions are confused and sometimes conflicting. Goines' earlierdescription of the facts is much less critical of Larrigan than his later statement. There isno doubt that he has extremely negative personal feelings toward L.A.P.D., whetherjustified or not. These feelings, however, cannot be ignored in assessing him as awitness. More troubling is his apparent willingness to change his statement regarding thepoint at which he returned the motorist's license. Regardless of his attitude towardL.A.P.D., there is no legitimate explanation for such a blatant change in what is a verystraight forward fact, and it may indicate his tendency to alter his testimony toaccommodate his own interests. Thus, in several ways, Goines can be discredited as awitness. Even assuming the absence of any bias, his statement that he could not see whattranspired immediately before Mitchell was shot because of the passing van, renders himof limited value.

Civilian Jon Menick, the motorist stopped by Goines on the east side of La Brea Avenue,testified that as he was seated in his car, he saw Mitchell being pursued by the officers.He saw her turn toward the officers three times and scream. When Mitchell started toslow down, Larrigan moved toward the curb and straddled it. At that point, a white vancrossed in front of him blocking his view, at which time he heard a single shot. Also,Menick said that Larrigan never tripped or fell. Menick insisted that there was noscrewdriver involved in the incident and that Mitchell was holding a circular white objectin her right hand, like a rolled-up newspaper or a purse. He was also certain that Goinesdid not observe any of these events because Goines never moved from his position facingeast at Menick's driver's window. Further, Menick, contradicting Goines' most recentstatement, said that Goines did not return his license until after the shooting.

During his Grand Jury testimony, Menick seemed highly critical of Goines. Also,Menick stated that he did not participate in an interview with L.A.P.D. on the advice ofhis attorney, Terrell, although he knew L.A.P.D. wanted to talk to him. This couldindicate a bias against L.A.P.D. or law enforcement in general. Further, his steadfastinsistence that there was no screwdriver, considering his disadvantageous distance fromthe scene, could derive from a tendency to believe that police officers fabricate evidence,or an honest misperception. The reasonable conclusion from all the evidence is thatMitchell was, in fact, armed with a screwdriver, calling into question Menick's ability toperceive, if not his bias.

Similarly, Menick's passenger, civilian Michael Leinert, testified that Mitchell wasrunning with a tubular object that looked like a rolled-up newspaper in her hand, and thatno screwdriver was involved. He also stated that a van blocked his view just when theshot rang out. All of the same credibility issues that relate to Menick are just asapplicable to Leinert. In fact, Leinert more directly, expressed his negative feelingstoward L.A.P.D. and his distrust of their tactics. He stated that Goines was "hassling"Menick, that Goines was looking to find something in Menick's vehicle that was "worthbeing rousted about", and that members of L.A.P.D. might "hassle" him in retaliation forhis saying unfavorable things about the role of law enforcement in this case. Leinert also

59

stated his suspicion that Larrigan was pretending to be injured after the shooting. Leinertwas adamant that after the shooting, he looked at the scene from across the street and wasabsolutely certain there was no screwdriver anywhere near the incident. He wanted to"burn" the scene into his memory because he anticipated a later controversy over theevents of that afternoon. Further, Leinert testified that he would have expected Mitchellto have been shot in the back, contrary to the medical evidence. For several reasons, e.g.,an obvious display of bias, inconsistency with known facts, and a limited opportunity toperceive, Leinert is not a reliable witness and would not be well-received by a jury.

Civilian Kelly Page, a customer in the dealership showroom, lost sight of Mitchell beforethe shooting, but saw Larrigan lose his balance and fall to the ground and then yell "stopor I'll shoot" before she heard a gunshot. Prior to losing sight of Mitchell, Mitchell hadwaved the screwdriver at the officers in a threatening manner. Page said that an athletic-looking, male Caucasian tried to intercede and a curly red-haired motorcycle officerresponded from across the street, both of which are faulty descriptions of the involvedindividuals. Page also said that Larrigan was to the west and Clark was to the east, whichis inconsistent with the weight of the evidence. Page testified that after the shooting, shehad a heated exchange with Larrigan over whether she could approach Mitchell. It wasclear from her demeanor on the witness stand as she described this exchange, that shewas still angry about this. In other respects, she appeared to be an unbiased, forthcomingwitness, despite the curious remarks by her attorney regarding her mental stability andlack of credibility. Nonetheless, as a witness to the events immediately before theshooting, Page is of limited value because she lost sight of Mitchell at the most criticalmoment.

Civilian Barry Henley was a passing motorist, who, like Littky, claimed to be occupyinga car positioned southbound on La Brea Avenue in the western most lane of trafficstopped at a red light at Fourth Street. Henley said that as Mitchell was travelling southon La Brea Avenue, twisted slightly around toward the officers, Larrigan accidentally fellon the sidewalk near the street, simultaneously with which a gun was discharged. At thetime he fell, Larrigan was only a few feet away from Mitchell and Henley thought thatthe motorcycle officer, who he had seen across the street, might have shot Mitchell.Henley saw nothing in Mitchell's hands, although he could not see her right hand, nor didhe see a gun prior to the shooting. Henley was certain that Larrigan fell accidentally, andthat the timing of the gunshot was such that Larrigan could not have gotten up, steadiedhimself and discharged his weapon. Henley strongly suspected the shooting was theresult of an accidental discharge. Henley appeared to be a credible witness and his GrandJury testimony was fairly consistent with the earlier statement he had provided to theF.B.I. Obviously, however, his recollection of the facts varies with what other witnesseshave reported.

From a review of the above, there is some support for each of the following scenarios: (1)Larrigan accidentally discharged his weapon when he lost his balance; (2) Mitchelllunged toward Larrigan with the screwdriver in her hand moving it in some type ofthreatening manner, in response to which Larrigan intentionally shot Mitchell; and (3)

60

Mitchell turned toward Larrigan, with or without the screwdriver in her hand, andLarrigan intentionally shot her, even though she made no overtly threatening motiontoward him.

Neither scenario (1) nor (2) would support a criminal prosecution of Larrigan for the fatalshooting of Mitchell because they tend to suggest, respectively, the defenses of accidentand self-defense. While scenario (3) might warrant a criminal prosecution of Larrigan,the witnesses upon whose testimony such a theory would rely, have significant credibilityproblems: James Moody, Derrick Keaton, John Goines, Jon Menick and Michael Leinert.Indeed, as to some facts, these witnesses contradict each other. Witnesses Littky, Millerand Page have fewer credibility problems, but they appear to have had too limited a viewto have made some of the more crucial observations. Also, it would be unrealistic topremise a criminal prosecution solely on these witnesses, without, in some way,reconciling the statements of the remaining witnesses. One of those witnesses is BarryHenley, a seemingly credible, reliable witness, whose testimony most strongly supportsthe theory that the shooting was accidental.

The witnesses who appear to have had a full opportunity to observe all critical facts andwhose testimony and statements, on their face, are most consistent, are Officers Youngand Clark. Even after considering their possible law enforcement bias, Clark's personalfriendship with Larrigan and their arguable roles and experience as practiced witnesses,the force of their testimony as defense witnesses would be difficult to overcome in acriminal prosecution. More importantly, when viewed in combination with the conflictsamong the remaining witnesses, there is a persistent concern as to what actuallytranspired in the moments before Mitchell was shot.

Based on an irresolvable conflict in the evidence, this office must decline to institute anycriminal proceedings in connection with this matter.

STEVE COOLEYDistrict Attorney

By

SUSAN CHASWORTHDeputy District Attorney

Documents

REPORT ON THE DEATH OF Margaret Laverne Mitchell · REPORT ON THE DEATH OF Margaret Laverne Mitchell JUSTICE SYSTEM INTEGRITY DIVISION STEVE COOLEY District Attorney August 7, 2001