Posted on 02/17/2006 8:42:17 AM PST by thebaron512
A federal jury awarded $18 million to a teacher who claimed a sheriff's detective falsely accused him of kidnapping and assaulting a girl and hid evidence that would have exonerated him.
Wednesday's award was the largest ever against the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The jury could decide that plaintiff Raul Ramirez deserves more money when the trial enters its punitive phase Thursday.
Because the county is not insured, the award, if upheld, would be paid by the department at a time when Sheriff Lee Baca is complaining that underfunding is forcing him to release jail inmates early and preventing him from placing enough deputies in jails to improve security.
Ramirez, 29, a teacher at Charles R. Drew Middle School in Compton, was arrested after a student there identified him as the man who kidnapped her at gunpoint in May 2002 as she waited for a bus, drove her to another location and demanded that she perform a sex act. The 16-year-old girl managed to escape.
A jury found Ramirez not guilty after he produced ATM receipts and cell phone records showing he was miles from the scene when the crime occurred. A judge later made the rare finding that he was "factually innocent."
Ramirez, of Bellflower, then sued the Sheriff's Department, alleging that Detective Frank Bravo built a false case against him.
According to Ramirez's federal complaint, Bravo knew Ramirez did not match the victim's description of her assailant but withheld that information until just before trial. Ramirez's attorney also alleged Bravo did not disclose the existence of the girl's backpack, which did not bear Ramirez's fingerprints.
Bravo "arrested Mr. Ramirez and basically shattered his life based on the unreliable eyewitness identification of a teenage girl who was mistaken," said Ramirez's attorney, Michael Artan. "Then he hid evidence that would have exonerated Mr. Ramirez."
Bravo, a 20-year veteran assigned to the Century Station in Lynwood, could not be reached for comment by the Los Angeles Times.
Assistant County Counsel Roger Granbo said the county was disappointed by the verdict. Sheriff's officials believed they were not liable because prosecutors thought the case against Ramirez had merit, he said.
"The district attorney knew the problems with the case and the positive aspects and made an independent decision to prosecute," Granbo said.
The largest previous award against the sheriff's department was $15.9 million, which a jury ordered paid to 36 people who had been arrested at a Cerritos bridal shower six years earlier.
That's easily taken care of. Let the "whole dept. or police in general" get rid of those who misbehave. That doesn't happen so the only fair conclusion is that the whole organization tolerates that kind of conduct.
I wanna' know what happened to the girl.
"That doesn't happen so the only fair conclusion is that the whole organization tolerates that kind of conduct."
That is absolutely an untrue statement.
Understand, but its the judges ruling that throws me. He is factually innocent? A Photograph at the time of a crime is conclusive. Weird
Do you think newspapers publish all of the facts in any given case?
Almost everyone knows that people are photographed at an ATM.
Please keep your day job. I don't think you have the skills to be a detective.
Why isn't the county insured??
LA Co is self insured and has been for years.
We didn't discuss a reason with him and he didn't ask for one. He did tell us that it was the employment agency who decided to falsify his resume. We found out that agencies falsifying resumes is very common. We had people who pointed out on their original interview that the agency had insisted on falsifying their resumes.
"The largest previous award against the sheriff's department was $15.9 million, which a jury ordered paid to 36 people who had been arrested at a Cerritos bridal shower six years earlier."
My guess is that after the last huge SNAFU, the insurance companies all quoted annual premiums in excess of $1 million - to which the county, in their brilliance, decided the "big, bad insurance companies are trying to rip us off" and decided to go self-funded.
I'd bet that the premium looks damn cheap now.
You have some good suggestions. Maybe we could find a judge who would be willing to get a group of people together to listen to the evidence. They could decide who was at fault and how much.... No. That wouldn't work. We tried that and you didn't like it.
One for the good guys...
This is the same department that invaded a man's home in the Malibu Hills, shot the 75-year old senior citizen in front of his wife when he came down stairs armed, and confiscated his ranch.
Small Problem:
(a) Wrong County!
(b) Police informant "says" marijuana being grown on property. "Informant" used in many similar cases.
(c) No marijuana observed beforehand, None found.
(d) Racket: Sheriff confiscates rural properties.
(e) County gives sweetheart deals to "environmentalist" wired to Diane Feinstein
(f) "Environmentalist" sells property back to county as nature reserves.
(g) Over the years, about $100Million.
What do we think that case is worth? What's in it for the Sheriff?
Or you to see the judges ruling! Photographs are conclusive!
This is exactly what our taxes are for, right? To pay out huge awards for these shenanigans.
Most courts have what is called the power of remitter. This means a judge can unilaterally reduce an award which they believe is excessive and not supported by the evidence. I would expect the power to be invoked in this case. (but, you never know.....this IS California we are talking about)
I can never understand the outrage at the huge money settlements for damages issuing from people like you.
You know there is little correspondence between judgements
and their $$ awards and what the complainant actually gets, and WHEN and HOW he gets it. Even if he were to receice a lump sum tomorrow, I say good for him, and good for the collective taxpayers that in effect fund the payout, becuase, for all they know, it could be them next time and not Raul Ramirez this time. Enough of these hotdog prosecutors out to build a reputation for themselves on the backs of innocent citizens, and maybe the voters will think twice about putting certain people in office, who appoint certain other people. The beat goes on though, and this stuff happens in every big and small city and town eventually. If this happened in New Jersey where I live , I would have no problem , knowing that, oh, I dunno, maybe ten dollars of my property tax $$ went to pay the damages suffered by ANYONE falsely accused. PRECISELY BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE BEEN ME. And if continuing big money settlements "bankrupt" the Police Departments, it is THEY who should think twice and three times about what kinds of priorities they should have , and what they need to do to preserve the public trust, NOT US
And I HAVE been involved in campaigns to get innocent people out of jail , yes, Death Row, and there is NOTHING WORSE than being accused of a crime you did not commit, let alone spending years on Death Row as an innocent man .Ever hear of Randall Adams?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.