Federal Judge Won’t Order Christopher to Testify in Civil Suit : Courts: But the jurist says he would be welcomed as a voluntary witness in the trial of 22 police officers accused of violating the rights of three robbers.

A federal judge Tuesday refused to compel the former chairman of the Christopher Commission to testify in a civil case in which 22 Los Angeles police officers are accused of violating the civil rights of three men who were killed after they robbed a McDonald’s restaurant in the San Fernando Valley.

However, U. S. District Judge J. Spencer Letts, over the objections of attorneys for the city, said he would welcome the voluntary testimony of attorney Warren Christopher, whose commission concluded last summer that the Los Angeles Police Department tolerated excessive force and racism.

Letts also ruled that certain portions of the commission’s landmark report on the Police Department could be admitted in conjunction with the testimony of expert witnesses on police practices.

“The Christopher Commission has information, findings and conclusions that are germane to some of the issues in this case,” Letts said.

Assistant City Atty. Annette Keller told the judge that Christopher should not be allowed to testify because all he could offer was information he had learned from others who spoke before his commission.

The city attorney’s office also has said it objects to the report being introduced into evidence because it does not deal specifically with the case.

Letts acknowledged that the commission’s report did not deal with the McDonald’s incident. However, he said that the report dealt with important policy issues, such as an unwritten “code of silence” under which police officers agreed not to talk about the bad conduct of other officers.

“If it (the code) is there and is widespread, it almost certainly has to be brought into the courtroom,” Letts said.

Christopher and the report could play a crucial role in the case because of the way the trial, now scheduled to begin in January, will be conducted.

Many police brutality cases are split into two parts. That will not happen in this case, however. Both the conduct of the officers involved in the shooting and the actions of their superiors will be presented at the same time.

Stephen Yagman, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, said this will enable him to introduce evidence about a pattern of police misconduct from the start of the trial.

Deputy City Atty. Donald Vincent said he was concerned that the introduction of such information “could be prejudicial” to the 22 officers who are defendants in the case.

Tuesday’s hearing did not resolve all the issues that were raised last month when Yagman subpoenaed Christopher and the report.

Christopher’s lawyers have said that he wanted to cooperate but sources also said he was concerned about becoming a perennial witness in police brutality cases. Yagman has accused Christopher of engaging in an elaborate minuet in an attempt to avoid alienating either side.

Before the hearing began, Christopher’s attorney, Mark Steinberg, told Letts’ clerk that he intended to ask that Yagman’s subpoena be quashed. Letts quashed the subpoena after saying that Christopher was not an eyewitness and that expert testimony could not be compelled from him.

Letts said he thought it would set a “very dangerous precedent” to compel the testimony of individuals who had voluntarily served on commissions. Nonetheless, the judge said he thought Christopher could play a valuable role in a trial.

The judge then suggested that he might use Christopher as a court-appointed expert witness. He asked Steinberg to ask Christopher whether he would be willing to serve in such a capacity.

“I will promptly convey the court’s request to Mr. Christopher, who is traveling to New York (Tuesday),” Steinberg said. “We’ll obviously consider it very carefully.”

During the hearing, Yagman praised the former deputy secretary of state for rendering “enormous public service to this country,” including leading the commission. But in an interview with reporters during a recess, he lambasted Christopher for declining to testify voluntarily.

“Christopher acted like a weasel,” Yagman asserted. “He’s no friend of common folk, especially Latinos,” he said, referring to the plaintiffs in the case.

“What went on here today was an elaborate face-saving dance to make it seem he wanted to cooperate. He’s a white-bread, Establishment, uptown guy who doesn’t want to sully his mitts on police brutality except from his ivory tower.”

Steinberg said Yagman’s comments “surprised and disappointed” him.

“It is at odds with what he said to the court this morning,” Steinberg said, referring to Yagman’s earlier statements about Christopher’s public service.

“The second reason I am surprised by the comments is we have made it clear to Mr. Yagman and to others who have contacted us from the outset that we were willing to provide the information they felt they required to establish the admissibility of the commission report.”

The officers, who were members of the Police Department’s Special Investigations Section, are being sued by five relatives of the three men who were killed and the survivor, who is serving a 17-year prison term for the robbery.