Scribd
Upload
457 views4 pages

The Verdict

The presiding judge was Gary A. Feess, a notable fact for his connection to the LAPD. On July 17, 2009 lifted a decade-long consent decree on the Los Angeles Police Department. The consent decree happened after the Rampart scandal which affected the anti-gang unit of the police force. http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Gary_Feess

Uploaded by

https://twitter.com/wagelabour
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
457 views4 pages

The Verdict

The presiding judge was Gary A. Feess, a notable fact for his connection to the LAPD. On July 17, 2009 lifted a decade-long consent decree on the Los Angeles Police Department. The consent decree happened after the Rampart scandal which affected the anti-gang unit of the police force. http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Gary_Feess

Uploaded by

https://twitter.com/wagelabour
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

1 CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attorney (SBN 86629) MICHAEL L. CLAESSENS, Senior Assistant City Attorney 2 CORY M.

BRENTE, Assistant City Attorney RENA M. SHAHANDEH, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 198072) 3 200 North Main Street 6th Floor, City Hall East 4 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Email: [email protected] 5 Phone No.: (213) 978-7047, Fax No.: (213) 978-8785 6 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT (LAPD), WILLIAM J. BRATTON, PAUL RAZO and MINERVA 7 MOTA 8 9 10 ) 11 G.H by and through her Guardian ad Litem DAWN HOPKINS, ROBERT R. ) ) 12 GREGG individually, and as victim ) decedents personal representative, 13 JUDITH GREGG, individually, and as ) victim decedents personal representative ) ) 14 ) Plaintiffs, ) 15 v. ) ) 16 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipality of the State of California, ) ) 17 LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, a public agency within ) ) 18 the City of Los Angeles, WILLIAM ) BRATTON, an individual sued in his 19 official capacity and individual capacity, ) PAUL RAZO, an individual, MINERVA ) ) 20 MOTA, an individual, and DOES 1 ) through 100, inclusive, ) 21 ) Defendants. 22 23 24 TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR 25 ATTORNEYS OF RECORD THEREIN: 26 27 28
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NO. CV08-02368 GAF (AGRx) Honorable: Gary A. Feess Magistrate: Alicia G. Rosenberg

JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL BY JURY

This action came on regularly for trial on October 13, 2009 in Courtroom

1 740" of the United States District Court for the Central District of California before the 2 Honorable Gary A. Feess, United States District Court Judge. Plaintiffs G.H by and 3 through her Guardian ad Litem DAWN HOPKINS, ROBERT R. GREGG individually, 4 and as victim decedents personal representative, JUDITH GREGG, individually, and as 5 victim decedents personal representative were represented by Stephen Allen Jamieson 6 and Donald W. Flaig. The Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES 7 POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM J. BRATTON, PAUL RAZO and MINERVA 8 MOTA, were represented by Deputy City Attorney Rena M. Shahandeh. 9 A jury of eight (8) persons were regularly empaneled and sworn.

10 Witnesses were sworn and testified and documentary evidence was introduced and 11 admitted into evidence. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury 12 was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury with directions to 13 return a verdict on the issues, if after proper deliberations, they could do so. The jury 14 deliberated and thereafter returned to the court with their unanimous verdict as follows, to15 wit: 16 17 18 19 WE, THE JURY, in the above-entitled action, unanimously find on the JURY VERDICT

20 questions presented as follows: 21 22 QUESTION NO. 1: Do you unanimously find by a preponderance of the

23 evidence that LAPD Officer Minerva Mota used unreasonable force in violation of Mark 24 Greggs right to be free from unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment? (Please 25 check one) 26 27 28
2

Yes

No

1 Go to Question No. 2. 2 3 QUESTION NO. 2: Do you unanimously find by a preponderance of the

4 evidence that LAPD Officer Paul Razo used unreasonable force in violation of Mark 5 Greggs right to be free from unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment? (Please 6 check one) 7 8 9 If your answer to Question No. 1 or 2 was yes please proceed to Question Nos. 3 and 4. 10 If you answered No to both go to Question No. 5. 11 12 QUESTION NO. 3: Do you unanimously find by a preponderance of the Yes No T

13 evidence that either LAPD Officer Minerva Mota or LAPD Officer Paul Razo, in the 14 performance of their duties on July 24, 2007, acted maliciously, in reckless disregard, or 15 with oppression, within the meaning of this Courts instructions? 16 17 18 19 20 QUESTION NO. 4: Do you unanimously find by a preponderance of the Minerva Mota: Paul Razo: Yes Yes No No

21 evidence that the actions of Chief William Bratton violated Mark Greggs constitutional 22 rights by knowingly ratifying the unconstitutional conduct of either Officer Mota or 23 Officer Razo. 24 25 26 27 28
3

Yes

No

QUESTION NO. 5: Do you unanimously find by a preponderance of the

2 evidence that either LAPD Officer Minerva Mota or LAPD Officer Paul Razo committed 3 assault and battery on Mark Gregg on July 24, 2007? 4 5 6 7 8 QUESTION NO. 6: Do you unanimously find by a preponderance of the Minerva Mota: Paul Razo: Yes Yes No No T T

9 evidence that either LAPD Officer Minerva Mota or LAPD Officer Paul Razo acted 10 negligently in their encounter with Mark Gregg on July 24, 2007? 11 12 13 14 15 DATED: October 16, 2009 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DATED: 10/23/09 26 27 28
4

Minerva Mota: Paul Razo:

Yes Yes

No No

T T

Presiding Juror JUDGMENT

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1. That judgment be, and hereby is, entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs; 2. 3. That the Plaintiffs shall take nothing; That the Defendants recover their costs of suit herein.

HONORABLE GARY A. FEESS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

You might also like