« Previous | Main | Next »

Exclusive: Real Agents to Sue Over Depiction in 'American Gangster'

December 05, 2007 9:56 AM

Exclusivereal_mn As the final credits roll on "American Gangster," the Universal Studios flick starring Denzel Washington as Harlem drug thug Frank Lucas, a screen appears that states three-fourths of the drug enforcement agents assigned to New York were convicted as a result of Lucas cooperation.  There were no such convictions, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) says, and a group of former agents and the attorney who prosecuted the case are demanding a retraction.

According to former U.S. attorney Dominic Amorosa, who prosecuted Lucas and his cohorts in the federal case, the assertion that Lucas' cooperation with "outcast cop" Richie Roberts "led to convictions of three-fourths of the New York City's Drug Enforcement Agency" is baseless and "impugns and damages the reputations of hundreds of honest, decent and courageous agents."

Amorosa represents Gregory Korniloff, the DEA case agent on Lucas' federal case. On Nov. 23, he sent a strongly worded letter to Universal Studios' general counsel Maren Christensen.

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

"It is far more than ironic for 'American Gangster' to deprive New York City's DEA and the USAO of credit for apprehending and prosecuting Lucas and his gang while at the same time smearing DEA agents with false allegations of corruption: it is actionable on behalf of a whole class of DEA agents," the letter states. And Amorosa says he represents other members of that class.

While the movie draws its tension by pitting Lucas against Richie Roberts, played by Russell Crowe, which may not be strictly accurate, it is certainly no different than any other "based on fact" fiction, Amorosa says. That is not what is at issue.

"The movie is a fictionalized account; we know that," Amorosa says. "It's the language that has to be removed. It's defamatory."

"After risking life and limb for two and a half years in this investigation we are portrayed as a gang of corrupt hoodlums," Korniloff says.

And behind the scenes in Washington, high-level DEA officials, who also strongly object to the final language, are trying to determine what, if any, action the agency might take to protect its reputation as well, sources say.

"Just on the face of it, there were about 300 agents in New York at the time," Korniloff says. "Leaving the theater you get the impression that the movie audience comes to believe we are corrupt."

"Bill O'Reilly on Fox News endorsed the movie because, according to O'Reilly, it exposed the corruption of police at the time. He's supposed to stop the spin; he bought it," Korniloff says.

What Amorosa wants immediately is the removal from all future copies of the film of the offending coda that says Lucas and Roberts' "collaboration led to the convictions of three-fourths of the New York City's Drug Enforcement Agency."

"I suggest you immediately cause the false statement at the end of the film to be removed from further distribution." That is, as it were, the final screen of Amorosa's letter to Universal.

Universal Studios declined to comment on the issue.

"We are not commenting at this time," spokesperson Cindy Gardner said in an e-mail.

Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?

December 5, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (24)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Fact: Frank Lucas was the most dangerous man on the streets of New York in that era, in terms of his influence; Frank Lucas was capable of paying off hundreds of police officers, thus single handedly undermining the integrity of an institution that couldn't pay those officers half as much.

Question: Who wouldn't take a commission from a man who could make a million dollars a day? Very few people in the height of the drug kingpin era would have turned that money down...Frank Lucas's record would indicate that he was for awhile invincible and unstoppable.

Posted by: Nino Costanza | Dec 9, 2007 7:09:58 PM

If The Shoe Fits, Wear It!

I did see the movie and was under the impression that this was a fact based movie from real life experiences from both Frank Lucas and Richie Roberts (played by Crowe). I did believe the statement at the end of the movie too. Are they trying to say that there were “NO” corrupt DEA agents convicted? Just how many where convicted and how many went untouched. I think when you do those figures you will have you three-fourths if not more. Who really care any way? One rotten apple can mess it up for the whole bunch; so why even bother to fight to have it removed from the credits. The damage is done. If you want to blame someone, blame those crooked DEA that left the stain in the first place.

Posted by: Tonya | Dec 12, 2007 10:49:58 AM

If trucker can pass a background check. Why not get everyone that has a driver license, to get a baackground check and a eye scan. Roy the trucker.

Posted by: roy | Dec 16, 2007 10:31:52 AM

"honest, decent, courageous" does not apply to ANY employee of any branch of any government anywhere in the world.
....Sorry, but that is such a bogus statement. Every coin has two sides. Just as there is corruption everywhere, there are also good, decent people who are doing their best in spite of whatever corruption there is around them. There are bad apples everywhere, but that doesn't mean the whole barrel is bad. There are good firemen (male and female), policemen, police women, mail carriers, soldiers, and more. They don't deserve to be bunched into a group. Look at each one individually, and don't use such a broad stroke to brand them all something they're not. I can see why those who weren't corrupt in this case would want to be vindicated in a court of law. The only thing you take with you and leave behind you when you're gone is your good name and charachter. Even though it's only a movie and I enjoyed it very much...the truth is that they have a right to stand up and tell their side as much as anyone else does. Anything else is unfair, in my eyes.

Posted by: Mary | Jan 17, 2008 7:35:13 AM

Post a comment