I find City Atty. Scott Howard's attitude and behavior toward the
lawsuit of the four female Glendale police officers to be alarming
and disappointing.
The public should remind Mr. Howard that as city attorney, he is
also a prosecutor, and his job is not merely to represent the
Glendale Police Department brass but to see to it that justice is
done for all the people of Glendale.
Howard has always taken the side of the police department against
anyone making negative allegations against it. He has many times made
comments that a plaintiff is not credible because of a recent arrest
or for other numerous reasons, while at the same time praising
Glendale police officers and making every excuse he can to support
their credibility and judgment. He has defended them against judges
who have made rulings against them, citizens making complaints, and
civilians filing lawsuits against them.
These four uniformed policewomen and civilian employees are not
criminal defendants or just members of the general public. They are
sworn officers who continue to make arrests and whose word in court
is enough to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. Scott
Howard's office, along with the Los Angeles Country District
Attorney's Office, represents them in all felony and misdemeanor
matters and attests to their honestly and reliability whenever they
elect to prosecute their cases, along with all the other officers of
the Glendale Police Department.
One must wonder what kind of message Scott Howard is trying to
send when he makes statements such as "Given the scandalous and
somewhat fabricated allegations, we hate to see the officers have to
go through that again." Since both plaintiffs and defendants are
members of the same department, then obviously, some of them are
lying, and in Scott Howard's eyes, it's the women.
If that is the case, then how could his office ever prosecute
another of their criminal cases, thinking that they lied under oath
and fabricated allegations in their own case against would-be high
ranking police sex offenders? How can Scott Howard call these women
liars in court today, then urge a jury to believe them when
prosecuting a civilian defendant? How can Scott Howard "hate to see
the officers go through that again" when Sgt. York for the second
time has to take the stand to admit that he operated a pornographic
Web site, accessed it from the police station, and got suspended for
it?
Does Scott Howard "hate to see" a lieutenant's embarrassment when
