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.
You're very absolutely right; having your name tarnished is something very, very tragic when you have not comitted a crime.
What do you want, the transcripts of the trial?
Seriously, both sides made their cases to the jury and the jury found the police liable. I will trust the jury on the decision against the police.
What seems to be in dispute is what is to be fair compensation, yet you are suggesting the jury was wrong in finding him guilty? At first I thought 18 million was high, but consider that this cost this guy his job, time in jail, his reputation, his chances of future employment and has dragged on for what, maybe three or four years?
No, I think it's probably a culture that has developed in that department. Otherwise, why would a cop knowingly supress evidence and push for prosecution?
Try and account for that period of time on your resume.
Q: Mr. Ramirez, I noticed a gap on your resume. Could you explain this?
A: Yes, Sir. I was falsely accused of raping a sixteen year old girl after kidnapping her at gunpoint. During the time in question, I was an involuntary guest at the state correctional facility.
He can also use the guys on his old cell block as references.
Won't work, sorry. Although the article doesn't mention it, ATMs also film you using them, so they can identify the odd machine theft. Your wife will need a ski mask - and you will need a reason to tell the jury (about why you had to wear a ski mask)...
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.
The ruling ALONE shows there there was no photographic proof
A judge later made the rare finding that he was "factually innocent."
How is someone "Factually Innocent" with photographical proof?
Mr. Ramirez will not have to worry about teaching EVER again.....is the money TAX FREE??????
I disagree with you.
In a case where the Police would deliberately subject an innocent man to an arrest and build a false case, no monetary figure in high enough.
And the Police perpetrators should be criminally prosecuted.
Wondering if any of the false accusations against priest would be resolved in this way?
Detectives and prosecutors who hide evidence should do prison time.
I can tell you how one guy accounted for it. We had an employee who described killing his wife to another employee. I had to check that out. Seems that he found his wife in bed with another man and shot her ("Right between the eyes, just a lucky shot"). He didn't really cover it up but the employment agency did. They listed his employment with them for the ten years he was in prison. We got rid of him and the agency.
"Maybe then they'd know what it's like to walk in Mr Ramirez's shoes."
Since he has already got $18 million and may get even more, those shoes are going to be made by Prado or Gucci. That's just too much $$$. This jury award needs to be overturned.
"This is the clue. He doesn't really mean no military."
Yes, I will give 1 mil to anyone who will call the cops and tell them I raped them. Payable after the lawsuit, of course.
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.