Fed Jury Awards $740,000 in Damages for County Jail Brutality Case…With More Damages to Come

On Thursday afternoon, a 7-person federal jury awarded a total of $740,000 in what are called actual damages to five inmates and found that 27 Los Angeles Sheriff’s deputies were liable for using excessive force when they reportedly tazed, kicked and repeatedly struck a group of 21 inmates during a 2008 incident that took place in LA’s troubled Men’s Central Jail.

Thursday’s high $$$ award is will not be the end of the damages the county taxpayers will pay out in relation to the 2008 incident. The same jury has also voted to award punitive damages for actions by the deputies that the jury members deemed “malicious,” “sadistic” and “reckless.”

The amount of those punitive damages will be announced next Tuesday.

---

THE “WORST OF THE WORST”

Among the interesting aspects of the case is the fact that the plaintiffs were not, on the surface of things, at all sympathetic. They were high risk jail inmates whom deputies who testified repeatedly called “the worst of the worst.”

Furthermore, just prior to the incident around which the case was built, a group inmates including the plaintiffs had reportedly been protesting jail conditions, and did so by breaking pieces off of nearby porcelain sinks and toilets and throwing the shards, starting at least one fire in the cells, and generally causing problems. The jail supervisors wanted the inmates out of their cells so that deputies could, among other things, search for weapons. (No weapons were found.)

The inmates refused to come out, and so a “cell extraction” was ordered.

A cell extraction means just that. When an inmate declines to come out of his or her cell voluntarily, a cell extraction is ordered, and a planned use of force occurs.

“You need to do cell extractions quickly, forcefully, and efficiently,” said a former jails supervisor. “The deputies need to go in like a machine—get the inmates, and get out.”

It is not supposed to be punitive.

Instead, in this case the inmates were allegedly brutalized to the point that, of the 21 inmates involved, 19 of were hospitalized for injuries, which ranged from broken orbital bones, broken noses, and concussions, to broken limbs, seizures, anal tazings, and more. At the same time, although the deputies testified that the inmates attacked them—thus necessitating as many as 20-to 30 blows against certain inmates—-no deputies sustained any injuries, either large or small.

---

JURIES AND MESSAGES

Juries are notoriously reluctant to give much in the way of damages to inmates, said the plaintiff’s attorney, Ron Kaye. “In fact, we decided not to ask the jury for any dollar amount. The jury came up with the numbers themselves.”

Kaye said that he believed the jury members were making a point with their verdict. “It sends the message that you can’t treat the people who have the least amount of power as non-human. You have to respect their human dignity. And you have to respect the rule of law.”

Kaye also noted that with a case involving an incident inside the jail, like this one, there is a “much higher standard to prove” than there would be for a use-of-force case that took place on the street.

“Because people are in jail, in part, to be punished,” said Kaye, “you have to prove that the conduct of the deputies was not only excessive, but that it was ‘malicious and sadistic.’ And that’s what the jury found, that the deputies’ actions were malicious and sadistic.”

As to what evidence persuaded the jury to find unanimously for the plaintiffs:

“I think some of the video evidence made a huge difference,” he said.

Department regulations reportedly require any cell extraction to be videoed. However, although Kaye was able to find some videos of the massive cell extraction, there was on-camera evidence that other, better videos had been made of the action. However, those videos had vanished, much to the vexation of the judge.

Still the videos that remained backed the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, showing multiple blows—and in at least one case, repeated stomps and kicks—aimed at non-resisting or limp-bodied inmates whose moans and cries of apparant pain could be heard even when the visual quality of the video was hazy.

“The fact that the jury found with these dollar amounts for the plaintiffs,” said another court observer, “meant they believed the so-called worst of the worst were telling the truth, and the deputies”—who to a person said only necessary force was used—“were lying.”

According to trial observers, it likely didn’t help that deputy testimony had similar quality, “as if they were reading from the same script.”

---

CLERGY BARRED FROM NEGOTIATING

ACLU of Southern California legal director, Peter Eliasberg agreed and said that he thought other witness testimony was also influential.

“For example, I think the testimony of Sister Patty Bartlett was one of those that made a big difference.”

Bartlett—corroborated by the accounts of other witnesses—told how several of the jail chaplains who had developed positive relationships with the men on the unit in question, asked to go in to talk to the inmates, feeling that they might be able diffuse the situation, thereby making the extraction unnecessary. However, Dan Cruz who was the on site supervisor at the time, reportedly refused to allow the chaplains to try.

As for the LASD’s take on the verdict, Sheriffs’ spokesman Steve Whitmore told reporters that the department would comment on the case after Tuesday’s punitive damages decision, but that it would be “improper” to comment now when the jury was still deliberating.

---

MORE HIGH TICKET SETTLEMENTS STILL TO COME?

According to attorneys with knowledge of the case, the cell extraction trial, which stretched out over several weeks, will be one that will likely cost the county big bucks, not just in damages, but also in legal fees—both the fees of the plaintiff’s lawyers, which the county now must pay, and those of the county’s lawyers, who Kaye described as having run a “scorched earth defense.”

Former jails commander, Robert Olmsted, who is one of those challenging Lee Baca in the 2014 election for sheriff, said that he fears that this new jury decision along with the recent Willis case—in which the sheriff himself was held liable for damages—are representative of more high ticket lawsuits still to come.

“This case was from 2008, but in 2010 and 2011 the force numbers went up by 75 percent.” That suggests, he said, “that a lot more of these cases are going to come down.”

---

We will, of course, be back with more news on this case after next Tuesday’s announcement of additional damages.

However for those wanting more now, ABC-7 has an interesting report on the verdict.