Timothy O'Keefe, Helen O'Keefe v. County of Los Angeles, Eleanor Konrad, Robert Corrado, Douglas Sparkes, et al.
Published: Feb. 1, 2001 | Result Date: Oct. 19, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: C529739 Verdict – $13,506,400
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Norwalk
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
David D. Lawrence
(Lawrence, Beach, Allen & Choi PC)
Facts
On April 3, 1984, the Los Angeles SheriffÆs Department received a phone call from a person residing on Planter St. in Pico Rivera who reported that some of the neighborhoodÆs children had been sexually abused by unknown persons. Upon arriving at the complainantÆs home, defendant police investigators McQuay, Konrad and others were allegedly confronted by a group of angry residents in a "vigilante mood." The residents were purportedly threatening the physical safety of the unnamed and unknown persons who had allegedly abused their children. According to some reports, one of the fathers went up and down the street carrying a shotgun while dragging his son with him and demanding that the boy identify the alleged child abusers so that he could kill them. The SheriffÆs department investigation was assigned to defendant officer Konrad, who began to interview many of the parents and children on Planter St. Konrad felt that the investigation could best be handled by the SheriffÆs department Child Abuse Unit, but her request to transfer the investigation was denied. Konrad therefore continued her investigation and allegedly interviewed more than 10 sets of parents and children. Some of the children allegedly identified the "Ivy House" and similar claims were also made against two other neighbors, Jose Valentin and Myrna Malave, who resided at 9602 Planter St. Valentin and Malave were later arrested and taken into custody on the same charges and in the same manner as the plaintiffs. During the course of her investigation and interviews of the complaining parents and alleged child victims, Konrad purportedly left blank spaces in her written reports and summaries of these interviews. After the arrests had occurred, she allegedly went back and inserted the names of Valentin, Malave, Timothy J. OÆKeefe and Helen OÆKeefe, as well as their respective addresses into the blank spaces. The plaintiffs alleged that this was done to make it appear as if the complaining parents and child victims had actually specifically identified them as being the perpetrators. As of April 5, 1984, the only suspects ever specifically identified by the alleged child victims were "a black man in a ski mask" and a "teenage Hispanic male with tattoos." According to the plaintiffs, none of the complaining parents or child victims ever identified either of the plaintiffs as being their abusers, nor was their residence ever identified as having been on the scene of any alleged acts of child sexual abuse. On April 1984, at 11:00 a.m., a meeting was held in the SheriffÆs department Pico Rivera substation to plan a "freeze" operation for both 9602 and 9718 Planter St. In the early afternoon of April 6, 1984, defendant Sergeants Sparkes, Mosak and Soll, along with Deputies Ruedas and McQuay (among others) went to the plaintiffsÆ home at 9718 Planter St. in Pico Reivera. Other defendants similarly descended upon the Valentin and Malave home at the same time. The defendantsÆ alleged purpose was to "freeze" the locations to prevent the destruction or removal of any physical evidence of child sexual abuse. The plan was purportedly to secure the premises and any occupants while awaiting the issuance of both search and arrest warrants which were to be obtained by Deputy Konrad. On the afternoon of April 6, 1984, Helen O'Keefe, a 26-year-old real estate appraiser employed by a local bank was at home preparing her lunch and intending to get caught up on some paperwork. The defendants allegedly climbed over the backyard wall of
the plaintiffsÆ home with their handguns and shotguns drawn, while other defendants approached the front door and forcibly removed Helen OÆKeefe from the home. Defendant Soll purportedly took Helen OÆKeefe outside and pushed her to the pavement in the driveway while allegedly threatening to "shove her face into the concrete" if she moved. * * *
Settlement Discussions
CONTENTIONS: The plaintiffs contended at the time of the fourth trial by jury that they had been illegally detained and that their home had been illegally searched. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that they had been illegally arrested and taken into custody without warrants or probable cause and that they had not been timely arraigned. Additionally, they claimed that their federal and state civil rights had been violated by defendants. The plaintiffs further maintained that Wooldridge had not exercised "independent judgment" in filing the criminal charged on April 12, 1984 and that they were entitled to further damages for the period of their post-arraignment incarceration from April 12, 1984 through April 22, 1984. The defendants contended that Wooldridge had exercised "independent judgment" in filing the criminal charges on April 12, 1984. SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS: The plaintiffs demanded $6.5 million for Timothy O'Keefe and $5 million for Helen O'Keefe. The defendants offered $2 million for each of the plaintiffs.
Specials in Evidence
$52,000 (Timothy O'Keefe); $18,000 (Helen O'Keefe) $571,640 (Timothy O'Keefe) $820,066 (Timothy O'Keefe)
Damages
PROCEDURAL FACTS: The first trial of this case took place in 1989, resulting in a verdict in favor of Timothy and Helen OÆKeefe, Valentin and Malave in the combined amount of $3.2 million, plus attorneyÆs fees. As a result of Sergeant SollÆs testimony that he had participated in over 100 prior "freeze" operations, it was held that this conduct had been ratified by defendant County of Los Angeles and that the events occurred within the course and scope of the defendant sheriffÆs duties. The defendants appealed and the first judgment was reversed due to the trial courtÆs ruling that defendants had previously waived their right to a jury trial. While the case was on appeal, after the second trial the substantive law changed with regard to post-arraignment damages under Smiddy v. Varney, 803 F. 2d 1469. The appeal of the first case resulted in the unpublished opinion of Jose Antonio Valentin et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al. (referred to as Valentin I). The second trial, a jury trial, of this case took place in 1995 and again resulted in a verdict for all four plaintiffs, this time in the combined amount of $7 million, plus attorneyÆs fees. The defendants again appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The unpublished decision in Jose Antonio Valentin et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al. (referred to as Velentin II) upheld the liability verdict against all defendants and the punitive damages verdict against defendant Corrado, but ordered the case returned to trial court for retrial of compensatory damages and special issues due to an error in jury instructions (consistent with Asgari v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 15 Cal. 4th 744). The third trial of this case took place in September 199. However, approximately three weeks into the trial, both sides filed Writs of Mandate objecting to some of the trial courtÆs rulings and a mistrial was declared. The plaintiffsÆ interpretation of the holdings in Valentin I and II was upheld by the Court of Appeals in the published opinion Jose Antonio Valentin et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al. (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 212 (referred to as Valentin III). Valentin III held that as to their claims for the violation of state civil rights, the plaintiffs were entitled to all damages which were attributable to injuries arising from the false arrest and false imprisonment prior to their arraignment. As to their federal civil rights claim, the plaintiffs were entitled to the same pre-arraignment damages. They were also entitled to any damages attributable to their post-arraignment incarceration, but only if they could prove that Wooldridge did not exercise "independent judgment" in making the decision to file criminal charges, which was consistent with Smiddy v. Varney 803 F. 2d 1469. The case was then returned to the trial court for further proceedings. In the interim, Valentin and Malave settled their respective claims against all the defendants for $2 million each. The fourth trial of this case commenced on July 6, 2000. Pursuant to the prior opinions in Valentin I, II and III, the trial court instructed the jury of certain facts, which were already proven as true. The trial court instructed that defendantsÆ entry into the plaintiffsÆ home was illegal and the defendants illegally detained and arrested the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court instructed that defendants illegally searched the plaintiffsÆ home and they did not obtain a search warrant prior to their entry into the plaintiffsÆ home. Further, the defendants did not obtain an arrest warrant prior to their entry into the plaintiffsÆ home and they had no probable cause for the plaintiffsÆ arrest. The defendants also did not have any facts which justified their entry into plaintiffsÆ home, their search of the home, or their detention and arrest of plaintiffs. The court instructed that plaintiffs did not undertake any criminal activity and there were no exigent circumstances justifying their arrests. + + +
Injuries
* * * * (CONTINUATION OF FACTS) Although Corrado repeatedly denied this under oath, Wooldridge testified that he had indeed spoken to "Bobby" Corrado about this matter on three separate occasions on April 10th and 11th. Wooldridge further testified that he did not decide to file any charged against plaintiffs, Valentin or Malave until after those conversastions. According to the plaintiffs, on April 6, 1984, Konrad committed at least two separate acts of perjury by misrepresenting the facts, the content of the alleged victimsÆ statements and the status of the investigation of those allegations. Konrad allegedly committed the perjury in both her written affidavit for issuance of the search warrants and under oath in court at the hearing to obtain the search and arrest warrants. These warrants were issued long after the plaintiffsÆ residence had been searched and they had been arrested, taken into custody and transported to the Pico Rivera substation. On April 10, 1984, the SheriffÆs Department issued a Code 22 memo. The plaintiffs contended that this was nothing more than a press release in which defendants identified the plaintiffs, Valentin and Malave by name and address. The memo also listed the allegedly sensational and heinous crimes that each had been charged with and was distributed by defendants to the City News Service, United Press International, CBS and ABC. The plaintiffs, Valentin and Malave were later identified in both the local and national newspaper and television reports about their alleged crimes, their arrests, incarceration, arraignment and preliminary hearing. Even months later they were identified as being child molesters on national television shows such as "Oprah." Wooldridge testified that he interviewed each of the alleged child victims in the presence of Konrad on April 11, 1984. Although he instructed Konrad to prepare a written report and summary of those statements, no such document was produced by either the District AttorneyÆs office or the SheriffÆs Department at trial. Wooldridge was allegedly not fully informed by the defendants that at least two of the alleged child victims had documented serious preexisting psychiatric histories, including suicide attempts, acts of violence toward other children and psychiatric hospitalizations. Wooldridge was purportedly not informed by defendants that other children identified by the alleged child victims as also having been abused at the same time had been interviewed and had denied that any such events had ever occurred. On April 12, 1984, Wooldridge filed formal criminal charges against the plaintiffs, Valentin and Malave. At that time, they were arraigned and their bail was set at $1 million each. The plaintiffs remained in custody through April 22, 1984, when the amount of their bail was reduced. The plaintiffs were then required to retain counsel to defend against the criminal charges. By the time of the preliminary hearing, all but two of the children had recanted their accusations and each had admitted that they had lied, that they had never been sexually abused and that the alleged events had never occurred. Two of the children refused to recant, but Wooldridge only called one child to testify during the hearing. The only alleged child victim that testified was one of the children with a significant pre-existing psychiatric history. He testified that that Helen OÆKeefe would stare at him and make him float around the room while her eyes changed colors. He also testified that plaintiffs "cooked and ate Mexican babies." Following the conclusion of a six-week long preliminary hearing, the court found that this child witness was willfully false in his testimony, told fantastic and impossible tales and was not credible. All criminal charges against the plaintiffs, Valentin and Malave were then dismissed. This lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of Timothy and Helen OÆKeefe, Valentin and Malave in 1985.
Result
In phase one, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, finding the Wooldridge did exercise "independent judgment" in deciding to file the criminal charges against the plaintiffs on April 12, 1984. This resulted in the jury not being advised of any of the post-arraignment incarceration from April 12 through April 22, 1984 in the second phase of the trial. In phase two, the jury awarded a total of $13,506,450 to the plaintiffs. Timothy O'Keefe was awarded $7,483,450, while Helen O'Keefe received $6,023,000. The plaintiffs' counsel have been advised that these are the largest verdicts ever obtained on behalf of individual plaintiffs for false arrest, false imprisonment and violation of federal and state civil rights.
Other Information
INJURIES: The plaintiffs contended that they each suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their arrest, incarceration and threat of 85 years in prison. Additionally, they claimed that they suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder because of their contact with the judicial system and the publicity resulting from the Code 22 memo press release. They alleged that Corrado had pressured and influenced Wooldridge who was thereby prevented from exercising the necessary "independent judgment" in making his decision to file a criminal charges against them. The plaintiffs further maintained that their post-traumatic stress disorder had become chronic and continued to cause them pain, suffering and extreme emotional distress in the form of nightmares, fear of police, anxiety and continuing impairment of their good names, reputations and credit. The plaintiffs have received long-term counseling with a clinical psychologist and will seek future counseling on as-needed basis. Further, as a condition of their release on bail on April 22, 1984, the plaintiffs were ordered not to return to their home or neighborhood. Plaintiff Helen O'Keefe had grown up in that home and have lived there for the previous 23 years. The plaintiffs were thereby forced to sell their home at a loss and incurred additional packing, moving and rental expenses as a result. At the time of his arrest, Timothy O'Keefe was in his last semester of law school and was scheduled to take the July 1984 bar examination. He had already taken and passed the Ethics portion of the bar examination in his second year and despite false arrest and imprisonment, he was able to graduate with his class in June 1984. The plaintiffs contended that as a direct and proximate result of his arrest, incarceration and post-traumatic stress disorder, Timothy O'Keefe was unable to successfully pass the remaining portions of the bar examination. He took the examination seven times before finally giving up these efforts at the direction of his treating psychologist who opined that studying criminal law and constitutional law and preparing for and taking the examination was exacerbating his post-traumatic stress disorder. The defendants maintained that the plaintiffs suffered little, if any, emotional distress as a result of their arrest and incarceration and that Wooldridge exercised independent judgment. Further, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs were not suffering from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and that Timothy O'Keefe's repeated failure to pass the bar examination was unrelated to his arrest and incarceration. DAMAGES: Timothy O'Keefe: $10,000 (criminal defense attorney fees); $3,600 (pharmacy expenses); $3,300 (joint moving expenses); $1,411 (joint additional rent); $39,290 (joint loss of value in property). Helen O'Keefe: $10,000 (criminal defense attorney fees) OTHER INFORMATION: The defendant's post-trial motions and appeal of this second jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiffs are currently pending.
Poll
10-2 (economic damages), 10-2 (general damages)
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390