Jennifer Francis v. City of Los Angeles (LAPD) Verdict

Stanley Mosk Courthouse, downtown Los Angeles

April 5, 2019
I arrived on the 5th floor of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse a little before 10am. I was late to court. I had gotten all the way to the bus station when I realized I didn't have my Metro tap card or credit card. I had left them in the pocket of the jacket I had worn yesterday.

Jennifer Francis's counsel were in the hallway as well as two of the alternate jurors. A little farther away down the hall were a group of attorneys from the LAPD's Legal Affairs Office. They had been in the courtroom for the past week.  Defense counsel Reginald Roberts, along with Deputy City Attorney Karen Park, have stayed inside the courtroom waiting on deliberations.

I started reading the web and got lost for a bit. The next time I looked up, there were several jurors in the hallway and John Taylor was headed into the courtroom. Not long after, a new courtroom assistant was hanging a sign on the outside of Dept 56 that said, "Jurors wait in the hallway until called." I was guessing that the jurors were either on a break or they had a question.

The verdict form has eight questions the jurors, depending on their answers along the way will answer. Here is verdict form question number 1:

My friend Matthew McGough arrives and we find out that the jury had a question that was answered. Here is the first  question from the jurors.

The answer that was sent back to the jurors is "No."

Everyone's now back inside the courtroom. The courtroom assistant, a man I've never seen before, is telling the clerk at the desk that the jurors need five sheets of paper. They have five questions.

11:07AM
Another buzz from the jury. The courtroom attendant enters the jury room. A file folder is brought out. The attendant makes copies and walks the papers into Judge Fujie's chambers. They have their second question.

Mr. Roberts states, "I thought there were five questions. The attendant replies, "maybe expect four more buzzes. Ms. Park shows me the jurors question on her phone. I don't write it all down quickly enough.

11:12AM
Judge Fjuie comes out from her chambers for a moment. Plaintiff's counsel John Taylor and Matthew McNicholas leave, then come back.

11:15AM
Judge Fujie is on the bench. She reads out loud for the record the second question from the jury.

The jurors continue deliberating while counsel argue to the court what the answer should be.

I have in my notes this comment, but I'm not certain if it's the court, the Defense or Plaintiff's counsel who said it. It is not what is in her mind ... It is up to the jury to determine if the content of the disclosure is a violation of state or federal law. It's possible this is what the court said.

Counsel for the Defendant, the City of LA, argue the answer should be "Yes." Counsel for the Plaintiff, Jennifer, argue the answer should be "No."

And back and forth it goes. Like I've seen many times during this trial, the court is indecisive and waffles back and forth on the record. At first, Judge Fujie appears to side with the Plaintiff. The court and Defense argue back and forth about what the prior case law has interpreted this issue.

I believe it's defense counsel who states, something to the effect of ... [it's the] Plaintiff's burden to establish ... accessory to murder. In the discussion, It appears to me the court cannot decide on how to answer the question. Judge Fujie states, in reference to question #1, "It's confusing."

Ms. Park and Mr. Roberts discuss the issue between themselves.

Judge Fujie muses, "I'm looking at .. is whether if what Ms. Francis disclosed ... if they ... true or if ... would have been [against?] a state or federal law."

Both sides of the aisle just want either a yes or no answer to the jury. Judge Fujie decides to draft her own answer for the jury.  The court tries to craft something out loud. "Is it up to the jury to decide ... if what the plaintiff disclosed ... potentially is a [violation] of State or Federal law?"

I believe it's the Defense who states, "The instruction does not say potential." Mr. Roberts has serious objections to the instruction. John Taylor speaks, and it appears everyone is talking at once. Judge Fujie, appearing exasperated addresses counsel, "Please stop talking."

Judge Fujie goes back into chambers and drafts her own answer to the jury and comes back out with it. Defense counsel agree with the instruction. Plaintiff's counsel is still considering it at the start of the lunch hour.

The lunch hour is called and I have to leave for a special dental appointment I've been waiting months to get. I could not have rescheduled it. It was set months ago. I cannot stay to see if the Plaintiff's counsel agrees with the court's language in the answer to the jurors' question #2. I tell Matthew he's on his own if a verdict comes in while I'm gone.

I take the Expo Line train down to the Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry at USC.

I'm sitting in the dental chair, waiting for the professor to stop by when I get this text from Matthew around 2:08 pm: "Jen lost - 12-0 on question #1." Matthew tells me that Jennifer left the courtroom before the jury was polled.

My heart sinks for Jennifer.

This is the answer the court crafted for the jurors to their second question.

It is up to the jury to determine if the contents of the disclosure, if true, violated state or federal law.

MyNewsLA.com - Jury Rejects LAPD Criminalist's Whistleblower Case
LA Times - Jury Sides With City in Retaliation Lawsuit

Jennifer Francis v. City of Los Angeles (LAPD) Verdict Watch, Day 1

 Stanley Mosk Courthouse, downtown Los Angeles

UPDATE 4/16: Corrected the spelling of Detective Shepard's last name. Sprocket
CORRECTION 4/15: I've made a correction to the section on defense counsel's closing statement, regarding what John Ruetten told detectives in 1986. In my original post, I did not say or intend to say that defense counsel Reginald Roberts intentionally misled the jury, only that he had misstated what John Ruetten told detectives in 1986. The corrected text below is based on actual transcripts and official records, some of them dating back to 1986. Sprocket
UPDATED 4/5: Adding Jeff Thompson's title, Asst. Lab Director. Sprocket
 
April 4, 2019
Closing arguments were presented to the jury today.

[Note: What follows is a very short summary of closing arguments. I will have a more comprehensive report when I publish my daily notes. Sprocket.]

9:40AM
In the morning session, the jurors heard closing arguments from both parties. The plaintiff's attorney John Taylor went first. Much of Taylor's closing argument was reviewing with the jury defense counsel Reginald Roberts opening statements and characterizing many of the statements as misleading or outright wrong.There are quite a few statements that Taylor goes over with the jury.

John Taylor told the jury of the many people that Francis told about what Cold Case Detective Cliff Shepard said to her in 2005, that John Ruetten's ex-girlfriend, a detective, didn't murder Sherri Rasmussen. She was cleared. Those people included, in order of who she went to, [then] DDA Shelly Torrealba, Detective Greg Stearns, Harry Klann, Jeff Thompson (Assistant Lab Director), Detective Dan Jaramillo, Detective Debra Winter and finally the Office of the Inspector General.

[Note: When Francis went to the Inspector General, that notification finally triggered an Internal Affairs investigation. Sprocket]

John Taylor told the jury that Jeffrey Thompson, a supervisor in SID (Science Investigation Division) admitted on the stand he ordered Jennifer Francis to Behavioral Sciences Section (BSS) for psychological counseling without the approval or review by the commander of SID.

Taylor reminded the jurors of DDA Beth Silverman's testimony where she indicated she had heard from other Deputy DA's in her office, negative comments about Jennifer's ability to be a team player and that she wanted to lead investigations. Taylor told the jury about DDA Silverman's testimony regarding the DA's office "Brady" database, where, any accusation or complaint about police officers is kept and could potentially be turned over to the defense as part of discovery in a criminal case.

In his closing, Taylor told the jurors that the LAPD's decision to send Jennifer to BSS was retaliation and caused her emotional pain and suffering. Taylor pointed out that Jennifer's reputation suffered with the DA's office.

[Note: Jeff Thompson in his deposition, stated that DDA Beth Silverman told him she did not want Jennifer Francis doing any DNA analysis on the Grim Sleeper serial killer case she was prosecuting. That DDA Silverman told him that Francis would be defense witness number one. Sprocket]

Based on Jennifer's estimated lifespan of 83 years, Taylor recommended the following compensation for Francis. For the age period of age 50 to 60 years, she should be compensated somewhere between $875,000 to $1.2 million, per year.  Taylor then recommended another amount, over $500,000 per year for the age years from 60 to 83.

Taylor spoke for approximately an hour. The jurors were given a break and then defense attorney Reginald Roberts started his closing argument right before 11am.

Roberts started off by talking about his biggest fear as a lawyer was getting some fact wrong for his client. He then directs the jurors to focus in on one of the instructions the jurors were given, the Casey instruction 0329.

[Note: I believe I have that correct in my notes. Sprocket]

Roberts then went through several sections of Detective James Nuttall's testimony and interpreting it for the jury.

Roberts stated that all the evidence the Plaintiff told them referencing the murder of Sherri Rasmussen, going back 33 years, "... that's a distraction. ... This case is about 2004 to now."  Roberts told the jurors that Francis was one of several criminalists who worked on the case, she wasn't the only one. He stated that the LAPD Detectives "stuck with the case over time ... [and] got the right person [Lazarus]."

Roberts mentions the commemorative award Francis received for her work on the case. "You don't retaliate by giving [the] highest award. This was a public honor for a team [effort]."

Roberts tells the jury a "... homicide team ...  worked to put Lazarus in prison." Roberts lists on the screen the many names of detectives, Deputy District Attorneys and criminalists who worked on the Lazarus case. "Jennifer is the only one who claims retaliation."

As Roberts speaks to the jury, he paces a bit and waves his arms around a lot. He tells the story of watching [I believe] a golf tournament or golfer on TV with his young 4 year old son, and that his son when asked the golfer's name, said Lion instead of Tiger [Woods].

Roberts stated "... Plaintiff never disclosed a crime ... [plaintiff] complained about the way Detective Shepard conducted the investigation not that [misconduct?] was done."

PREVIOUS TEXT DELETED

CORRECTED TEXT
Roberts tells the jury, "John Ruetten was interviewed. And he was crying when he was telling the detective, Detective Mayer way back when, 'I don't have any problems with an ex-police officer girlfriend.' He told the detetives back in '86, 'I don't have a problem with anyone else.'"

[Note: During Roberts examination of Detective James Nuttall on 3/18/19, Roberts asked the following question:

Roberts: So was it your understanding that he was crying when he was telling the detective, no, I don't have any problems with an ex police-officer girlfriend?
Nuttall: That's correct, sir.

Here is what John Ruetten told Detective Lyle Mayer in their interview on 2/24/86, the night of the murder:

Mayer: You were not having any family problems, or marital problems, or anything?
Ruetten: We were having the best time. We just got married.
Mayer: No financial problems? She's not having any problems with an  ex-boyfriend? Or you with an ex-girlfriend?
Ruetten: No.

During the crime scene walkthrough the following morning, 2/25/86, John Ruetten gave Detective Mayer Stephanie Lazarus's name and informed him that she was a police officer. There's no evidence that John in 1986 ever described Stephanie Lazarus to Mayer as a girlfriend or ex-girlfriend.

EDITOR'S NOTE: T&T is always happy to make a correction, if warranted, upon request. Sprocket]

Roberts tells the jury that after Francis developed the female profile, the Rasmussen murder fell into the lowest classification tier [#4] of cases to work within the Cold Case Unit and that Detective Shepard was "very busy."

Cold Case Unit Classification Level [Highest to lowest priority]
1. DNA hit [connected] to an specific person who is free [not in custody].
2. DNA hit to a specific person who is in custody.
3. DNA hit case to case but no specific person known.
4. No DNA hit to a known suspect.

Roberts tells the jurors that Jeff Thompson in his testimony said Francis "... didn't have a single bit of evidence Cliff Shepard [had] committed a crime."

Roberts tells the jurors that the Cold Case Unit's working conditions were so cramped that when Detective Shepard worked on a case, he had to run over to a storage unit to get a file and run back. Detective Shepard had over 100 cases on his plate, including serial killers.

[Note: It is my memory that I heard Detective Shepard testify earlier in this trial that when he was moved to the Grim Sleeper Task Force, the Rasmussen murder book was locked in a file cabinet behind his desk. Sprocket]

Roberts mentions again that Detective Nuttall never picked up the phone to call Detective Shepard.

Roberts tells the jury that when Detective Nuttall started looking into one of their own for the murder of Sherri Rasmussen, "... he didn't get any push back..." [from his superiors]. Roberts states that the Van Nuys unit kept the investigation under wraps because they knew Stephanie's husband also worked in the same building as them.

Roberts arms are flailing around as he talks to the jury. Roberts then talks about the Lazarus arrest.

Roberts tells the jury that the Plaintiff never told anyone or used the words "cover up" that it was her own counsel, a different counsel than the firm representing her now, who was with her during her interview by the Internal Affairs investigator who used that term. Roberts goes over the various people Francis told about Detective Shepard's statements and that every time she was asked if she was reporting misconduct by Shepard and Francis said no, that she was not making an accusation of misconduct. Like he did in his opening statement, Roberts plays portions of Jennifer's taped deposition for the jury answering these questions.

Roberts claims that the LAPD did not retaliate against Francis. She was not demoted and she did not lose any pay, so there was no retaliation. After the Lazarus trial Jennifer's supervisors gave her higher performance evaluations and she received a commendation. Roberts claims that Francis continued to testify in court on DUI toxicology cases.

Roberts tells the jury that after the Internal Affairs investigation, "... Plaintiff didn't like the outcome ... so we're here." Roberts tells the jury, Francis was "... sent to BSS although she was also under her own therapy at the same time."

[Note: This is not an accurate statement. Francis did not seek her own psychological counseling until after she was ordered to BSS. Sprocket]

Roberts then brings up things in Francis's personal life that she talked about with her own therapist. These are the same things Roberts mentioned in his opening statement, such as her father was dying of cancer during the same time frame. Roberts tells the jury her therapist testified "... she had a lot of problems going on ... these can be an extreme emotional mental burden ..."

[Note: Some of the things that Roberts tells the jury that Jennifer spoke in confidence to her therapist about I will not repeat here. It is my own personal opinion this information is private and would re-victimize Jennifer. Sprocket.]

Roberts tells the jury "... she was dealing with all [this] family stuff [during] the same time frame ... we [LAPD] didn't cause any of those personal things ..."

In closing, Roberts goes over the eight questions on the verdict form that the jurors need to fill out and how he feels they should answer each question.

Roberts finishes his closing about six minutes into the lunch hour. He apologizes to the jurors for taking up some of their lunch time.

Judge Fujie then asks the jurors if they would like to go to lunch now or listen to the Plaintiff's rebuttal arguments before they go to lunch. The jurors say they would like to listen to the rebuttal arguments before they go to lunch.

John Taylor presents his rebuttal arguments. Taylor tells the jury again that defense counsel misled them and cherry picked out information. He talks about psychosomatic symptoms and that they are not all in Jennifer's head.

Taylor brings up Harry Klann's deposition [Jennifer's immediate supervisor at the time] where he adamantly states he did not believe what Jennifer told him about Detective Shepard, a homicide detective, possibly covering up a murder. 

Taylor tells the jury, "Not one LAPD person, ... did you see one [person] who cared about Jennifer Francis."

Taylor talks about the LAPD being incapable of policing themselves. They [LAPD] want to know if they got away with it again. Taylor says, "You get to see how the LAPD treats one of their own ..."

Taylor tells the jury that the damages numbers he recommended to them "... those [numbers] are low. ... They know it. ... If [you come back with a number any lower] ... they [LAPD] will be clinking champagne glasses ..."

Taylor concludes his rebuttal argument around 12:20pm Juge Fujie then tells the jurors to return to the courtroom at 2pm. She tells them, "I bought you snacks [that are] in the jury room. No court funds were used." She says this is her gift to them.

3:39 PM
Some jurors exit the courtroom for a break.

3:49 PM
Jurors start to file back into the courtroom.

4:31 PM
No verdict today. Deliberations continue tomorrow at 9:30am.

Explosive Accusation by DDA Beth Silverman, Moments After Testifying in Francis v. City of LA (LAPD)

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

March 29, 2019
Today’s most dramatic moment came in the afternoon session. This morning, if someone had told me that this event happened without witnessing it myself, I never would have believed them.

DDA Beth Silverman was called to the stand by the defense to testify why she did not want Criminalist Jennifer Francis assigned to the Grim Sleeper case in 2010, after Lonnie Franklin was arrested. Francis had performed some DNA analysis on that case.

Moments after stepping down from the witness stand, DDA Silverman went out into the hallway, then came back inside and announced loudly to everyone in the court room, in front of the jury, “I am being attacked by co-counsel in the hallway.” DDA Silverman asked for an escort to the escalators to get out of the building.



The disruption threw the courtroom into a tizzy. Defense counsel Reginald Roberts exited the courtroom, came right back, and complained aloud, “Courtney McNicholas.” All three defense attorneys condemned McNicholas’s conduct, based solely on DDA Silverman’s outburst.

 Although no one in the courtroom witnessed the incident, Judge Fujie also immediately condemned McNicholas and called her behavior in the hallway “appalling.” Judge Fujie did not question any witnesses about what had happened outside the courtroom. Defense counsel then demanded that McNicholas be barred from the courtroom for the duration of the trial. Judge Fujie promptly agreed.

All of this played out in front of the jury.

Eyewitnesses interviewed by T&T reported that there was no physical altercation between McNicholas and DDA Silverman. All the eyewitnesses reported that McNicholas and DDA Silverman were angry and exchanged words, after which McNicholas walked away and sat on a bench.

T&T has reached out to both parties for comment.

In other Francis trial news, LA Times reporter Alene Tchekmedyian, who has dropped in occasionally on the trial, has a story about Dorothy Tucker, the LAPD BSS psychologist who Francis was ordered to see. 


I’ve been attending most of the trial and hope to catch up on my daily recaps soon.

Additional reporting by Matthew McGough.

Jennifer Francis v The City of Los Angeles (LAPD) Day 2

Jennifer Francis testifying at Lazarus' trial, Feb. 2012;

Nels & Loretta Rasmussen in the gallery.

© 2012 by Thomas Broersma (thomasbroersma@yahoo.com). 

All rights reserved by the artist.

UPDATE 3/28 10:00pm: Short update to voir dire on this date, see below. Sprocket
UPDATE 3/28: I forgot to mention that my trial friend Matthew McGough has been attending every day of the trial and many of the pretrial hearings. Sprocket.
March 12, 2019 Note: Jury selection did not start in this case until March 12. The parties dealt with pretrial issues and some jury instructions on March 11. Sprocket

Background
Jennifer Francis is a DNA analyst currently employed with the LAPD's Forensic Science
Division (previously called Science Investigation Division or, SID). She is a civilian employee and not a sworn officer.

Sometime before 2004, LAPD Cold Case Detective Cliff Shepard submitted the February 1986 murder of Sherri Rasmussen to SID for DNA analysis in the hopes that a DNA profile of a suspect could be developed.

In late 2004, Francis was assigned with developing a DNA profile from evidence collected in the Rasmussen murder. During that time, Shepard and Francis communicated about the case. Francis was instrumental in spurring staff at the LA County Coroner's Office to search their Evidence Control Section freezers for a piece of evidence listed in the case file but was not in LAPD custody. That evidence was a bite mark swab collected from the victim's body by LA County Criminalist Lloyd Mahaney. 

In 2005, the DNA profile that Francis developed from that swab indicated Sherri's murderer was a woman. That DNA profile eventually led to the June 2009 arrest of LAPD Detective Stephanie Lazarus for the murder of Sherri Rasmussen. Lazarus was convicted of first degree murder in 2012, a trial I covered from gavel to gavel.

The Civil Case
On October 30, 2013 Jennifer Francis (plaintiff) sued her employer, the City of Los Angeles, LAPD (defendant).

Francis's lawsuit alleges retaliation by the City for having alerted LAPD management that detective(s) may have known about Lazarus in 2005, but failed to act on that information. Francis alleges that she was labeled as unstable and ordered to undergo psychological counseling after she alerted several superiors within the LAPD. You can read the full complaint HERE.

This case was assigned to Dept 56 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Francis's lawsuit has been languishing in the LA County Superior Court system for over five years before coming to trial. In the five plus years the Francis case has been in Dept. 56, three different judges have presided over the department. The current judge is the Honorable Judge Holly Fujie.

Francis's counsel of record is the law firm of Taylor Ring. John Taylor is jointly assisted by the law firm of McNicholas & McNicholas. Matthew McNicholas is in court and occasionally his associate Douglas Winter. However, it was Courtney McNicholas who I saw at all the pretrial hearings I've attended over the years.

Over the past five years the City of Los Angeles has had several different Deputy City Attorney's assigned to the case. The case was eventually farmed out to an independent law firm, Sanders Roberts in 2018 to defend. Reginald Roberts, Shawn Thomas and Melvin Felton are all seated at the defense table.

Jennifer Francis has been sitting in the gallery for most of the trial, since there is no room for her at the plaintiff's table. Also in the gallery are Tim Lai, from LAPD Legal Affairs and Karen Park, a supervisor in the City Attorney's office. Ms. Park is always sharply dressed and I've been envious of the beautiful scarves she wears to adorn her ensemble. On a few occasions, counsel and gentlemen in the gallery have discussed the potential meaning of the color of their ties, and if the tie color signals an allegiance to a specific sports team.

The Stanley Mosk Courthouse
The Stanley Mosk Courthouse is a civil courthouse located in downtown Los Angeles. It is the largest courthouse in the nation. It is a sprawling building that takes up almost an entire city block. There is an entry to the building on Hill Street, on First Street and one on Grand Street. There are close to 100 courtrooms in this building, each one with a busy, over-burdened schedule. My recent divorce was granted in this courthouse.

The first thing you notice when you walk into one of these courtrooms is how absolutely tiny the majority of them are. You could almost fit two of these courtrooms into one of the 9th floor courtrooms of the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center. The well of the court area is very tiny. There are approximately 50 stadium type, fold down and nicely padded seats in the gallery. Since I've recently lost a noticeable amount of weight, these seats are finally comfortable for me. However, if you have a little bit extra on your hips, these seats might not feel so nice. (For those of you interested on how I've lost about 55 pounds in the last year, please feel free to email me. Sprocket)

Like the courtrooms in the criminal court building, there are no separate tables for the defense and plaintiff like what is depicted in many TV shows. It is one long table where the plaintiff's counsel sits closest to the jury box, and the defense on the other side. There is barely enough room for the five counsel at this table. The gentleman who is handling the presentation of all the exhibits put up on the big computer screen for the jury is sitting in the gallery in the first bench row and a small folding table is crammed partially in the aisle for his laptop.

Criminal vs. Civil Cases
I've covered criminal trials, mostly murder cases for about 12 years now. This is a civil case and the rules covering them are quite different than a criminal matter. I'm literally a fish out of water.

One of the first differences to note is, in State court, a civil case that is not adjudicated or brought to trial within five years can be dismissed. Evidence that is going to be presented at trial must be disclosed to the other party at least 30 days before trial. You cannot spring a surprise witness or evidence on the opposing party just days before the start of a trial, like the defense did in the Kelly Soo Park murder case. The judge would not allow it.

Jury instructions are different too. I'm familiar with California's CALJIC and CALCRIM, standard instructions in criminal cases. However, I am totally lost in the sea of jury instructions outlined for civil litigation. Jury instructions will be a noteworthy issue in this case. The trial has started and several jury instructions are still being negotiated. This means I don't know at this date what specific issues in the original complaint will be decided by the jury.

The judge in a civil case can also limit counsel to the number of hours each side has to present their case. Judge Holly Fujie has limited each side to just 30 hours of court time to present opening arguments, their case, cross examination and closing arguments. Judge Fujie is keeping a running tab on how many hours each side uses in voir dire, opening statements and examining witnesses. The courts total of the hours spent so far is usually asked for by the parties at the end of the day. It remains to be seen if Judge Fujie will keep the parties to these limits. (Note: As of the close of court on March 27, the plaintiff disagreed with the court's tabulation of their hours spent. Sprocket)

Tuesday, Pre-trial Witness: Dr. Annette Rittmann
Last Friday and Monday, Dr. Rittmann was order by the court to appear in Dept. 56. She gave testimony not related to the trial itself that the jury would hear, but related to motions filed by the plaintiff and the defense. Dr. Rittmann was the personal physician of Dorothy Tucker, Ph.D., (deceased). Dr. Tucker was a psychologist that the plaintiff, Jennifer Francis saw, when she was ordered by a superior into counseling with the LAPD's Behavioral Sciences Services Division (BSS). Once I obtain documents, I will have more on why Dr. Rittmann's testimony was a positive outcome for the defense.

Voir Dire
Right after Dr. Rittmann was released from the stand a group of jurors were called to Dept. 56. Jury selection continued on March 13, 14 and 15. In the afternoon of March 15, opening statements were presented by both parties. I was unable to attend opening statements but I hope to obtain a copy of the court reporter's transcript.

UPDATE: Voir Dire - Continued
When the jurors were brought in, Judge Fujie talked to the jurors about her own grandparents who came to this country and were not allowed to vote or participate in the legal process. Judge Fujie said she thinks of her grandparents every time she has a trial. With a smile on her face, Judge Fujie also told the jurors, "I give snacks." She told the jurors that it would take 9 of 12 jurors to reach a verdict. She then gave the jurors the standard pretrial instruction.

Each side gave a short statement explaining to the jurors what the case was about from their perspective.

Mr. Roberts cuts a nice figure in his tailored suits. When it was his turn to address the jury, he told the jurors to imagine themselves as a pilot on a plane.

I took very few notes during voir dire on this day.

The next post on the case can be found HERE.

Jennifer Francis v. City of Los Angeles (LAPD), Trial Day One

Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Downtown Los Angeles

March 11, 2019
Jury selection begins in the civil case of Jennifer Francis v. City of Los Angeles (LAPD). This case is related to the Stephanie Lazarus murder trial. In 2012, Lazarus was convicted of first degree murder in the 1986 death of Sherri Rae Rasmussen.

Francis is the LAPD DNA analyst who in 2005, developed the DNA profile that pointed to a female suspect having murdered Sherri.

Francis is alleging retaliation by the City for having alerted LAPD management that investigators may have known about Lazarus in 2005, but failed to act on that information. Francis alleges that she was labeled as unstable and ordered to undergo counseling after she alerted her superiors.

The questions in this case that relate to the Lazarus case are, what did the LAPD know about Lazarus, and when did they know it? Did LAPD detectives look the other way once DNA showed that Sherri’s killer was a woman, and possibly a fellow officer?



This trial is expected to last two weeks or more. I hope to cover the entire trial. If I cannot attend, I will be getting updates from fellow journalists.

Jennifer Francis v. LAPD Civil Case

Stanley Mosk Courthouse, downtown Los Angeles.

Source: www.lacourt.org

UPDATE 12:30 pm correction in speaker's name from Taylor to McNicholas
UPDATE 9:25 am minor spelling errors corrected. Sprocket
April 26, 2018
On Thursday, April 26, after the Gargiulo hearing in the morning, I stayed for lunch so I could drop in on an afternoon hearing in a civil case that my friend Matthew McGough has been following. For those of you who don't know, McGough is writing a book on the Stephanie Lazarus case.

This case is in Department 56 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse and relates to the Lazarus case. And let me tell you, from my perspective, it was a bizarro day for an afternoon court session. I've attended a few of the hearings in this case over the past few years but this is the first time I'm writing up my notes in detail. Civil cases can be just as complicated as a long cause criminal trial and I had a great deal of difficulty following what was going on.



For those of you who followed the Stephanie Lazarus murder trial, Jennifer Francis is the LAPD criminalist who developed the female DNA profile back in February 2005.

On October 30, 2013, Francis sued the LAPD alleging harassment and retaliation for alerting her superiors to a possible cover-up in the Stephanie Lazarus case. I highly recommend reading the complaint to get an understanding of what this case is about. 
The LA Times published a article when the lawsuit was filed and there was a write up by City News Service in My News LA.

Francis is represented by Courtney McNicholas and John Taylor of Taylor Ring. I first met John Taylor at the Phil Spector trial, when he represented the family of Lana Clarkson in their wrongful death suit against the music mogul. Taylor also represented the parents of murder victim Sherri Rae Rasmussen, Nels and Loretta Rasmussen in their lawsuit against the City alleging an LAPD coverup. That case was dismissed.

The Francis case is slated to go to trial October 1, 2018. Civil cases filed in California must be brought to trial in five years or the case is dismissed without prejudice. Section 583.310 California Code of Civil Procedure. 



The Stanley Mosk Courthouse was renamed in 2002 after Justice Stanley Mosk. The courtrooms in this 1950's building are truly tiny, little square boxes. There are only 13 seats in the jury box and just a few dozen in the gallery.  And trust me, the old flip down style seats are not that comfortable if you have extra padding on your hips.



Inside Dept. 56, 1:30 pm
John Anthony is the attorney for the City (LAPD). McNicholas & Taylor work at setting up their files. McNicholas is wearing a nice black suit and Taylor, wearing a light gray suit looks like he just walked out of a Brooks Brothers ad. Matthew McGough is here. 

 It’s been about three weeks since I last saw Matthew at his 10th annual “Baseball Hot Stove Dinner,” and I almost didn’t recognize him in his white shirt, dark jacket and Dodger blue tie. I'm comforted that, despite wearing a jacket and tie, he is wearing jeans like I always do. I notice for the first time that Matthew is sporting some gray hair. Matthew has been keeping tabs on all things related to Lazarus since June 2009.


Before the hearing starts, Francis comes over to us and mentions something about the Golden State Killer. The news broke of an arrest in that 40 year cold case a day or two earlier. Joseph DeAngelo was a former cop who was fired for shoplifting in 1979. His DNA was never entered into CODIS.   Jennifer speculated if the arrest didn’t come through CODIS, did the investigators utilize a public DNA data base to nab their killer. Later that day, news broke that Jennifer’s theory was correct.


Judge Holly Fujie takes the bench.

Judge Fujie issued a tentative order denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions on the City for not complying with discovery demands, deposition subpoenas, and producing witnesses for depositions. Judge Fujie says she assumes the plaintiffs would like to argue the tentative order.

Taylor tells the court it’s not the sanctions they wish to argue it’s the outstanding issues with discovery and depositions. Taylor tells the court the City has not produced all the documents the plaintiff is entitled to.



Judge Fujie tells the parties, “I will go back and take a look at this. This case is...” 



McNicholas offers the description, “Unwieldy.”



Judge Fujie replies, “Yes.”



A bit of background on Department 56. Judge Fujie was only recently assigned to Dept. 56, within the last few months. The previous judge in Dept. 56 was Judge Michael Johnson. Incidentally, back in 2010, Judge Johnson was once assigned to the downtown criminal court, Dept. 108, where he presided over the Michael Gargiulo preliminary hearing. 



In the Francis case, because of prior discovery disputes, the parties agreed to split the cost of a discovery referee, a retired judge, Judge Cooper. McNicholas tells the court they’ve paid $60,000 to the referee in just three months (October, November and December 2017). That means the City has paid the same amount, in taxpayer money.



According to McNicholas, the discovery referee ordered the City to produce documents regarding Detective Cliff Shepard. 

Judge Fujie replies, “I came in at the end of the case.”


I’m amazed the court implied on the record that the court is not familiar with what’s been going on with this case. As a court watcher, I understand that our courts are overburdened. LA County has the largest court system in the US. However, it’s the court’s responsibility when they come in on a case, to get up to speed. Judge Fujie says she wants to see the transcripts of what the discovery referee said.



The upcoming schedule is discussed.


Judge Fujie tells the parties, “I’m going to go back and take a look at the documents with the issues the plaintiff has with discovery.” The court leaves the bench to look over the case file. 

When Judge Fujie returns, she tells the parties, “I’ve gone through everything in our files. I’m going to ask a few questions and I want short answers.” The court says, “The motion for sanctions ... the issues with that motion, two feet tall, still remain.”



Apparently, McNicholas filed a monster brief of all the problems they’ve had with the City not turning over documents or not providing witnesses for depositions.


To me, it seems Judge Fujie is frustrated with McNicholas. McNicholas explains they are still waiting for the City to produce several records including emails from an Internal Affairs Sargent who investigated the Rasmussen family allegation of a coverup.



Judge Fujie asks to see transcripts of what exactly the discovery referee said. The court then tells the parties, “I want to get this case to trial ... I want a minimum of drama.”



Anthony, the City attorney responds, “I don’t have a problem producing emails. ... I just need to see if we have them and if they’re privileged.”



Judge Fujie orders the plaintiff to produce a “very specific” chart of all items the plaintiff wants the City to turn over. Judge Fujie wants the parties to get the discovery done, so the case can go to trial.  



McNicholas tells the court she thinks it’s a two to three week trial from opening to closing. The court firmly tells the parties, “This case will go forward.”



McNicholas asks the court to order the City to provide a date for the deposition for Commander Rick Webb, the former commanding officer of Internal Affairs.

Judge Fujie informs Anthony the City must give a date for Webb’s deposition by May 3. Anthony hemmed and haws, saying Webb might be out of town or on vacation. McNicholas states she can provide Webb’s phone and home address if Anthony can’t get it. 



Judge Fujie further clarifies what she wants on the chart of the outstanding discovery request. The court schedules the deadlines for the plaintiff to produce the chart and the City’s response. 



McNicholas brings up the issue of Dorothy Tucker. Dorthy Tucker was the LAPD’s Behavioral Science Services psychologist that Francis was ordered to see by her superiors.

Tucker died in December 2017, before she could be deposed. McNicholas tells the court she knows of witnesses who were ordered not to appear at scheduled depositions, inferring this is what happened with Tucker. It’s my understanding the City notified Francis’s attorneys in 2015 that Tucker was deceased. After that notification, McNicholas discovered Tucker was still alive. Then Tucker actually did die before her deposition could be taken.

The City tells the court Tucker may have been too sick to sit for a deposition. Judge Fujie tells the City to produce documentation from Tucker’s doctor that she was too sick to sit for a deposition before she died.


My eyes had already started to glaze over about 45 minutes into this hearing. I don’t know how Matthew keeps any of this information straight. 



The court and counsel set up a schedule for briefs; they will discuss Tucker and other issues on June 29.  Judge Fujie says that her priority is that the parties are prepared for an “efficient trial.”



At the end of the hearing, the trial date is moved to October 1, 2018 at 9:30 am.  Final status conference will be September 15, 2018 at 8:30 am. And that’s it for this hearing. We slowly file out of the courtroom about 3:30 pm.



I’m wondering what will happen to this case if it doesn’t go to trial by October 30.


Complaint
LA Times article
My News LA Calif.
Code of Civil Procedure 583.310

Rasmussen v. Stephanie Lazarus - Civil Case

Sherri Rae Rasmussen, murdered by Stephanie Lazarus

UPDATED 11/14: Clarity

Tuesday, November 12, 2013
There was a hearing today in the Rasmussen family civil suit against Stephanie Lazarus for the murder of their daughter, Sherri.  Nels and Loretta Rasmussen are suing Lazarus for wrongful death. Although the Rasmussen's lost their suit against the Los Angeles Police Department, their case against Lazarus continues to go forward.

I arrived at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse at about 8:15 AM. The line to get in the building was wrapped half way around the side street. I didn't know if I would make it inside in time. My friend Matthew McGough arrived a few minutes later. 

Up on the fifth floor, the hallway was a sea of dark suited men and women.  There were very few casually dressed people in the hallway. John Taylor was sitting on a hallway bench, waiting for Dept. 48 to open. He was wearing a medium grayish-beige suit with a subdued pattern in the threads.

When I arrived John Taylor indicated that it would just be a status conference and a request to the judge to trail Lazarus' criminal appeal. For her criminal appeal, Lazarus is represented by attorney Donald Tickle of Volcano, California. Once her appeal has been heard and ruled on then Taylor would present a motion for summary judgement against Lazarus in the civil case.

This is the same strategy Taylor used for the Clarkson family lawsuit against Phil Spector, and to me it makes the most sense. Taylor also indicated that Mark Overland is Lazarus' attorney of record.  Apparently, Overland's criminal defense of Lazarus also included representation for a single appeal. Overland's representation is not an 'appeal' per se, but a defense. I'm not surprised he would defend Lazarus in the civil case and not the criminal appeal.  Appeals are usually handled by counsel who specialize in those cases. Overland did not make the hearing today.

When Dept. 48 opened, we entered and sat in the front row.  Most of these courtrooms in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse are quite small.  They are not like the courtrooms that are depicted on most crime dramas, with lots of space and a stately bench for the judge. They are little square boxes. In the gallery, there were six seats across on each side of the single center aisle, and four rows, making a total of 48 individual seats.

Due to the fiscal crisis in California, there have been severe budget cuts to the LA County Superior Court. The court no longer provides a court reporter in civil cases. If a plaintiff wants to have a record of a court proceeding, they must pay for a court reporter themselves. It's my understanding that a court reporter can cost $750.00 a day, or $350.00 for half a day. And, there isn't a deputy in the courtroom either.  They were replaced by a civilian assistant of some sort, who ends up helping the clerk with their work. The court clerk does keep minutes of the judge's rulings for the case file, but that's it.  Civil cases that request a jury trial (as opposed to a bench trial), must pay the court a deposit ($150.00) and pay jury fees.  The clerk prepares a bill to the plaintiff at the end of the week.

When Judge Elizabeth Allen White takes to the bench, my first impression is of a woman straight out of the 50's. She's wearing glasses and has short brown hair. Three other cases are heard first. There is a final ruling in a car jacking case where an individual was injured. There was a case against the Walt Disney company that is given a trial date in October, next year. Another case where only one attorney showed up. The defendant's counsel did not respond to some motions filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's attorney then decided on a bench trial instead of a jury trial.  Next, the Rasmussen case was called.

Taylor tells Judge White where the criminal appeal stands regarding the filed briefs. The Attorney General's responding brief was filed on November 8, 2013. A trial date of May 12, 2014 is put on Judge White's calendar. A final, pre-trial status conference of May 7, 2013 is also scheduled.  And that's it.

At minimum, it could take at least two months or more for Lazarus' defense to file a responding brief to the Attorney General's response.  It will probably be another couple of months after that before oral arguments are scheduled.  Then, the state has about two months to issue a ruling on the appeal.

I am still trying to get a copy of Lazarus' appeal brief, just to see the arguments that were raised. For some unknown reason, the LA County Library has not been able to locate a copy of the brief yet.  As soon as I get it, I will publish it.

Once Taylor moves for a summary judgement in this case, it will be up to Judge White to make a determination as to what the damages will be. In wrongful death suits, it's usually the spouse who is in first position to sue. Next in line after a spouse are children; after that are parents.  It's my understanding that John Ruetten does not want any part of this civil lawsuit against Lazarus. Since John and Sherri didn't have children, that leaves her parents.  There's loss of love, affection and pain and suffering.  It's difficult to understand how a value can be placed on a human life, but somehow, the court must do exactly that.

It's unknown what Mark Overland's strategy will be, once the criminal appeal is finished. Most likely, Taylor will put Nels and Loretta Rasmussen on the stand to describe the relationship they had with their daughter. From that testimony, Judge White will first decide compensatory damages then punitive damages. It's my understanding that Lazarus' pension cannot be attached by a lawsuit. The modest home she bought in Simi Valley after the 1994 earthquake is now in her husband's name. There are no big assets to go after, like there were in the Spector case. However, once Judge White makes her ruling on damages, that will follow Lazarus for life.

After the hearing, Matthew and I dropped by the Law Library to check on the status of obtaining a copy of Lazarus' appeal.  Next hearing date: May 7th, 2014.

DNA Analyst in Stephanie Lazarus Case Sues LAPD

Jennifer Francis testifying at Lazarus' trial, Feb. 2012;

Nels & Loretta Rasmussen in the gallery.

© 2012 by Thomas Broersma (thomasbroersma@yahoo.com). 

All rights reserved by the artist.

T&T readers may remember Jennifer Francis, the DNA analyst who testified in the Stephanie Lazarus trial. Francis tested the bite mark swab taken from Sherri Rasmussen's arm the night of her murder. Nearly 20 years later, in early 2005, Francis developed a female DNA profile. The lab report was entered into evidence during the trial (Defense Exhibit HH). Her testimony is recounted in my posts covering  Day 4,  Day 5 and Day 6 of the Lazarus trial.

Last night, I received an email from civil attorney John Taylor informing me that Francis has filed a lawsuit against the LAPD.  Taylor also included a copy of the complaint.

The complaint alleges:

Francis has been subjected to numerous acts of retaliation and harassment for disclosing and reporting potential inappropriate practices at the LAPD concerning the investigation into the February 1986 murder of Sherri Rasmussen. Plaintiff reported to her supervisors, the LAPD, the District Attorney, and the Office of the Inspector General, that her DNA analysis indicated the direction of the investigation was not correct and that potential suspects were being improperly excluded.  Plaintiff was reporting what amounted to obstruction of justice, false and misleading statements, and other violations of state and federal law and the state and federal constitutions. In essence, Plaintiff was outing a cover-up that lasted almost 25-years, ultimately leading to the conviction of LAPD Detective Stephanie Lazarus for the murder of Sherri Rasmussen, and prompting a public apology by Chief Beck.

 ...

Plaintiff was repeatedly shut down when she reported that a female with personal ties to the victim may be involved in the Rasmussen murder.

You can read the full complaint HERE.

UPDATE:
LA Times - Evidence Pointing to LAPD Officer in Murder Case Ignored, Suit Claims

Stephanie Lazarus Case: Rasmussen Family Civil Suit

Photo © Loretta Rasmussen; used with permission.

Left to right: Teresa Lane, Nels Rasmussen, Sherri Rae Rasmussen, 

Loretta Rasmussen, Connie Rasmussen, on November 23rd, 1985, Sherri's wedding.

UPDATED 3//2 spelling, clarity, new link
On February 20th, 2013, the California Supreme Court declined the Rasmussen family's petition to review the lower court's decision in their civil suit against the LAPD. 

Here is the LA Times story on the decision.

In 2010, the Rasmussen's sued the LAPD for violation of civil rights, wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent concealment.

On Tuesday, I spoke to the Rasmussen family attorney, John Taylor, to find out what's next for the Rasmussen family.

T&T: Is this the end of the road for the Rasmussen family's lawsuit?

JT: No.

T&T: Are there any future appeals planned?

JT: The appeals for this specific lawsuit are over.  We're exploring other avenues of legal recourse.

T&T: How did Nels Rasmussen take the news?

JT: They're disappointed.  The Court of Appeal said that they should have brought an action [against the LAPD] by 1998.  If they had brought a lawsuit in 1998, what would the lawsuit have been?  What specific charge could they have made? It wasn't until Stephanie's arrest in June 2009 that the family's suspicions were confirmed.

T&T: You told the Los Angeles Times that the LAPD promised a full investigation into what went wrong in 1986.  Who made that promise?

JT: Several people within the LAPD.  More than one person, on more than one occasion, assured the Rasmussen family that there would be an investigation into the handling of the case in 1986.  As of today, we're not aware of any investigation into the handling of the case at the time of the murder.  The LAPD owes it to the Rasmussen family.  And also, you'd think they would do it for the future, to find out what went wrong so no other family would go through what these people did.

Twenty-seven years ago this past Sunday, February 24th, Sherri Rae Rasmussen was murdered by Stephanie Lazarus.  T&T will continue to follow any future developments in this case.

Initial Appellate Court Decision

Stephanie Lazarus Case: Sherri Rasmussen Family Civil Suit, II

Sherri Rae Rasmussen, '85

UPDATE 5:20 PM
I emailed John Taylor for a comment on the decision.  Here is his response:

First paragraph of opinion says it all: unfortunately cannot get to merits of case because of statute of limitation, which works an injustice here. 

No court or investigative body has ever said that this wasn't a cover up. The Rasmussens have incredible patience and perseverance and will continue pursuing their judicial remedies. 

California Courts of Appeal Decision
I just received the email notification a few minutes ago.  The California Courts of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision rejecting the civil suit filed by the Rasmussen family against the Los Angeles Police Department. HERE is the 14 page opinion issued by the justices.

The law firm of Taylor & Ring filed the complaint on behalf of the Rasmussen family.  It is unknown at this time if the Rasmussen family will appeal to the California Supreme Court, which is not obligated to hear the appeal.

My thoughts and prayers are with the Rasmussen family.

Stephanie Lazarus Case: Sherri Rasmussen Family Civil Suit, Part II

California Courts of Appeal, Second District

300 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA

UPDATE 9/25/12: spelling, clarity

September 20th, 2012
Continued from initial post....

When I first arrived at the building I cleared security pretty quickly. I was startled by the guards question asking if I was wearing a belt.  If I had a belt, it had to be removed before I walked through the security scanners.  Once you enter the plaza, you see that the building is structured with an open atrium center that has large animal statues, seating areas and trees.  There are open walkways around all four sides of the upper floors.  You can see the entrance to the third floor courtroom from the open plaza.

I headed up to the cafe on the second floor to grab something to eat.  I skipped breakfast since Mr. Sprocket had to get out the door early and I worked on household projects until it was time to leave for downtown.

As soon as I entered the seating area, I saw Nels and Loretta Rasmussen sitting with their attorney, John Taylor of Taylor Ring Law Firm. Also sitting at the table was a pretty blond woman, Holly Boyer.  John Taylor mentioned to me that Holly was "very sharp" and she would be the one presenting arguments to the court.  I exchanged smiles and hugs with Nels and Loretta and then went to get a banana from the cafe.

Holly told me that she has argued before the Courts of Appeal before, so this would not be her first rodeo.  Most of the conversation from Nels and Loretta centered around their great-grandchild, Hannah, 4, who I previously saw at the sentencing hearing.  (Hannah is the daughter of Rachel, who is the daughter of Connie, Sherri's older sister.  During the trial, we saw 1985 Christmas photos of Sherri with Rachel as young baby. Sprocket.)

This appeal that has been filed by Taylor Ring is not the typical sort of appeal in front of the court, since there has been no trial with a verdict.  I believe it is Holly who states that what the LAPD filed is called a demurrer.

There were seven cases on the court's calendar, and it was not listed when the Rasmussen case would be argued.  As it got closer to 1 PM, we made our way to the third floor and the single appellate courtroom.

Security to get inside the courtroom is tight.  No electronics whatsoever are allowed in without prior approval from the court.  (For example, during the Spector oral arguments, Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times received special permission to use her laptop to cover the hearing.) Once you pass through security, your electronic items are taken from you and you are given a plastic clip-on badge with a number.  Those numbers correspond to drawers in a special cabinet right outside the courtroom where they are stored by security.

You enter the courtroom from the very back of the gallery on the right.  The judge's bench is along the back wall.  In the center of the courtroom is the well area, with gallery seating on all three sides.   We are the first people to take a seat in the gallery and are able to get seats front row center.  Holly enters the well, checks in with the clerk and takes one of the several extra seats in the well, where only attorneys are allowed.

One of the officers demonstrates to all the waiting counsel how to raise and lower the podium so that the microphone is at the proper height for the individual presenting arguments.  There is no court reporter.  The arguments are tape recorded.  I do not know if it is possible to obtain an audio copy of the proceedings before a decision has been rendered, or even at all.

Four justices sit on Division Eight of the Second District.  Any three of the justices will be assigned a case for review.  A majority of two makes the decision.  The Justices are: Tricia A. Bigelow, presiding justice,  Laurence D. Rubin, Madeleine I. Flier and Elizabeth A. Grimes.  When the justices come out,  Justice Rubin is not with them.  Justice Bigelow explains that Douglas Sortino has been (temporarily) assigned by the court system to help out while Justice Rubin is away.  Justice Sortino is a former prosecutor.  He was the original prosecutor assigned to the Phil Spector trial.  DDA Alan Jackson took over the case when Sortino was appointed to the bench.  During the first Phil Spector trial, the defense called Sortino as a court witness to testify outside the presence of the jury.

Justice Bigelow advised counsel that the proceedings were tape recorded.  For those cases where Justice Rubin was one of the deciding voices, counsel had the right to have their case argued when Justice Rubin was available.  Otherwise, he would be listening to their arguments via the audio recording.  Bigelow also advised counsel that they have read all the briefs and issued for each case a "tentative opinion," so that counsel can tailor their arguments.

 The first case argued was an individual representing themselves, suing Kaiser Permamente over an emergency surgery performed on her.  The courts of appeal tentatively affirmed the lower court's verdict.

The second case argued was a divorce case where the husband was appealing the lower court ruling that he had to pay his ex-wife's legal fees.  The courts of appeal tentatively affirmed the lower court's ruling.

The third case, the courts of appeal tentatively reversed the lower court ruling.

The fourth case was the Rasmussen case, and it would be heard by Bigelow, Rubin and Grimes.  The tentative ruling was to affirm the lower court's dismissal on the basis of statute of limitations.  The court felt the latest the Rasmussens could have filed a claim against the LAPD was in 2000, since their last contact with the LAPD was in 1998.

Holly Boyer passionately argues the Rasmussen case, and against the court's tentative ruling.

Boyer argued there was no way for the Rasmussens to know the police conduct was intentional until the arrest.  They only learned in 2009 that the LAPD knew all along Lazarus was Sherri's killer.  Boyer argues the statute of limitations should not begin running until 2009.

Boyer states, "It doesn't become actionable until the motive behind it becomes known to the Rasmusssen family."

Then the Bane Act is discussed.  The Rasmussens allege they were intimidated by the LAPD to give up their pursuit of Sherri's killer, whom they suspected all along to be Stephanie Lazarus.

Not long after the Bane Act is discussed, Justice Bigelow reminds Ms. Boyer that these are only tentative rulings, and that's the purpose of oral arguments.  Justice Bigelow then expresses her condolences to the Rasmussen family, "I'm sorry for the loss that they have suffered."

There is some more argument about whether the operative date is when the plaintiff's knew. Boyer points out a section of the Bane Act regarding intimidation.  How can the statute of limitations begin when the LAPD was successful in intimidating the Rasmussens to give up their pursuit of justice for Sherri.  "These plaintiff's did not know the true facts," Boyer argues.

Boyer also mentioned to the Justices, something to the effect of, what would the family have sued the LAPD for back in 2000? They didn't know why the LAPD was intimidating them until 2009.

Then a slender, petite woman, Blithe S. Block, the attorney for the City of Los Angeles, addressed the court.  Probably because the Justice's tentative ruling was in the city's favor, her argument was brief.  Boyer had a few more minutes for rebuttal argument.  And that was it.  We left the courtroom and regrouped back in the second floor cafeteria for drinks.  Boyer was hopeful that her arguments were heard.

The California Courts of Appeal has ninety days from the end of this month to publish their ruling.  However, I believe Holly states they can request more time.

It's still amazing to me that Nels and Loretta, who just celebrated their 59th wedding anniversary, have not missed a single court hearing involving Sherri's case.  After the hearing, I walked the Rasmussens to their car, for their long drive back to Tucson.

Once I obtain copies of all the arguments, I'll put them up on T&T.

Rasmussen appeal filing on California Courts of Appeal web site.

Stephanie Lazarus Case: Sherri Rasmussen Family Civil Suit

Several of T&T readers have asked me about the Rasmussen family civil suit against Stephanie Lazarus and the LAPD.

Here is what I know so far:

The original suit was filed in July 2010 by the law firm of Taylor & Ring and is two-fold.  Stephanie Lazarus is being sued for the wrongful death of Sherri Rasmussen and the LAPD is being sued for violation of Sherri Rasmussen's civil rights.  The LAPD made a filing, basically saying that they are immune from these types of claims.  The court granted the motion to strike the complaint against the LAPD on the immunity argument.  The Rasmussen family appealed that ruling in January 2011.

Later today, oral arguments will be heard in the California Courts of Appeal on the immunity ruling. Sherri's parents, Nels and Lorretta Rasmussen are expected to attend.  I will be attending the hearing and will have a full update on T&T tonight or tomorrow.  The last time I was in this stately courtroom was at Phil Spector's appeal for his second degree murder conviction.

If I am able to obtain the briefs for both sides without too much cost, I will post them on my SCRIBD account.

Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Curious Vanity Fair Article on Stephanie Lazarus, Part III

Editorial cartoon © 2012 by Thomas Broersma (thomasbroersma@yahoo.com). All rights reserved by the artist. Full disclosure: This drawing is satire, not investigative journalism. It is unknown if CA inmate # WE4479 is a Vanity Fair subscriber.

Complete Series on Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Article HERE.

Continued from Part II...

I am not a famous writer. I don't have an editor, a fact-checker, or an unlimited budget.

I'm just a semi-retired housewife with a blog. However, I attended every hearing in the Lazarus case since February 2011. Watching the trial and getting to know many of the people impacted by Sherri Rasmussen's murder was an extremely intense and heart wrenching experience. I have such respect for the Rasmussen family, the attorneys, and all the LAPD detectives who worked on this case.

Since I published Part I and Part 2 of my review of Mark Bowden's article on the Lazarus case in the current issue of Vanity Fair, several T&T readers have asked if Mark Bowden attended the trial. As far as I know, Bowden did not attend a single court hearing between Stephanie's arrest in June 2009 and her sentencing in May 2012.

Robbery-Homicide Division Detectives Gregory Stearns and Dan Jaramillo are the stars of Bowden's article.  As anyone who's watched the video knows, their interrogation of Stephanie Lazarus was masterful and truly one for the textbooks. Reading the article, I found it strange that Bowden repeatedly got inside Stephanie's head, but not Stearns or Jaramillo. Bowden does not quote either RHD detective, except off the video tape which Judge Perry released to the public in November 2010.

Given the curious absence of Stearns and Jaramillo's personal perspectives, I had to wonder: Did Bowden interview them about their experience that day? So I made a few calls.

I began with Detective Stearns. I can confirm that he was not interviewed for the Vanity Fair article.

I then decided to dig a little deeper, and can report to my readers that none of the following people were interviewed by Bowden:

• Robbery-Homicide Detective Dan Jaramillo.

• Detectives Rob Bub, James Nuttall, Marc Martinez or Pete Barba (the Van Nuys Homicide Unit that solved the case).

• Retired LAPD Detective Phil Morritt (who apparently checked out physical evidence in 1993).

• Anyone in the Rasmussen family: Nels, Loretta, or Sherri's sisters, Teresa and Connie.

• John Ruetten, Sherri Rasmussen's widower.

• Jayne Goldberg, Sherri's closest friend.  

• Deputy District Attorneys Shannon Presby or Paul Nunez.

• John Taylor, the Rasmussen family attorney.

• Stephanie Lazarus' defense attorney Mark Overland.

• Stephanie Lazarus.

Since Bowden didn’t attend the trial, and didn’t interview any of the principals above, it begs the question: What did Mark Bowden base his article on?  The article doesn't say, and this Vanity Fair reader would love to know.

....Continued in Part IV....

Stephanie Lazarus Sentenced, Part II

Judge Robert J. Perry, during the trial

© Thomas Broersma thomasbroersma@yahoo.com

Continued from Part I.....

UPDATED May 17th, 2012 1:20 PM
I've received by E-mail, the full text of John Ruetten's statement to the court. Many thanks to John Ruetten, and those who forwarded it to me. Here it is below. Sprocket.

Your Honor,
Thank you for the opportunity to speak during this hearing. There are no words that can describe the loss of Sherri and whole of this experience, so it makes no sense to talk very long. It suffices to say that the Rasmussen family, my family, and Stephanie’s family have been thrust into a bizarre world of disbelief, and indescribable sadness. Sherri Rasmussen had a profound impact on so many people, and I was proud that she agreed to be my wife. It was impossible not to notice Sherri when she entered a room. To me, her physical presence was startling. I can clearly remember the first moment I laid eyes on her. I had just arrived at a party and she was standing in a covered patio area talking to several other people. She was 6 feet 1 inches tall in her high heels, wearing blue jeans, a white blouse, and dangly earrings. I was stunned, but somehow managed to approach her and avoid acting like a complete idiot. She said yes when I called later to ask for a date. When I arrived at Sherri’s house for that first date, she was waiting on the balcony so she could guide me toward her front door. I came to understand that this was just like Sherri. She knew how to make a person feel welcome and at ease. Sherri Rasmussen was a physical presence, and my heart still races when I look at pictures of her. But Sherri was extraordinary more for who she was than the way she looked. She was a hard worker, a consummate professional, a leader, a diplomat, forgiving, tough, and a kid at heart. I was constantly surprised by this amazing combination of traits. Like the rest of us, Sherri was not perfect, but she still deserved to live a long and full life.

For those of us who are directly involved, or those who sat through the trial, we can just begin to imagine the terror and disbelief Sherri must have felt in her last moments of life. I am sure that I am not alone when I say that I just can’t bare thinking about these moments. But Sherri’s loss, the way she died, and the trial 25 years after her death has had a profound impact on many, many others. The effects span a generation, creating pain for those whose lives should have never been touched by this tragic event. Again, words are feeble tools for describing these impacts, but there are so many moments and so very many tears. What I can say is that I have spent, and will continue to spend, many hours praying for everyone involved in this tragedy.

Your honor, I am compelled to end with my feelings for the Rasmussen's. After meeting Sherri, I could not help but notice the central role she played in this fun-loving and down-to-earth family. Nels and Loretta Rasmussen lost much more than a daughter when they lost Sherri. Only they fully appreciate what I am talking about. Despite my own tremendous grief, I must still apologize to them for my inability to coexist with the pain they were enduring. I just did not have the strength. The Rasmussen's have treated me like a son and a brother. Contemplating their profound grief, and the fact that Sherri’s death occurred because she met and married me, brings me to my knees. I do not know, and fear I will never know, how to cope with this appalling fact. I have resigned myself to praying for some measure of peace, and trying to avoid the daydreams about a world where Sherri is still with us, and this pointless tragedy never occurred.

Your Honor, thank you again for this opportunity to speak.
~~~
UPDATED May 17th, 2012 for spelling, clarity.

May 11th, 2012 ~ Sentencing Day
As I was waiting in the hallway, just taking in the people who were here.... John Ruetten's friend David Neuman, a male friend with John's sister, Gail, the extended Rasmussen family, I realize that I better take some notes before I'm called to step in line and enter the courtroom.  I open my laptop and get a few quick notes written before those of us with media badges are told to line up against the wall for entry into Dept. 104.

From memory, I believe it's Jayne Goldberg's husband who approaches me first to tell me that Judge Perry will not let Jayne read a victim impact statement.  Only immediate family.  I tell him that I absolutely will publish her statement for her, so her voice can be heard.

When I walk inside Dept. 104,  I get a smile on my face when I see head-cowboy, Detective Rob Bub (sitting in one of the plastic chairs against the back wall near the door) and say hello to him.  I'm glad that someone from the Van Nuys Homicide Unit was able to attend the sentencing.

As the press enters, we fan out in the first row and take our favorite positions.  My friend Matthew McGough motions to me not to sit in my favorite spot, but to sit more towards the center of the aisle, and closer to where the podium is set up in the well.

Familiar faces from the press are Thomas Broersma, Steven Mikulan, the LA Times' Andrew Blankstein, Pat LaLama, Local ABC 7's Miriam Hernandez, and Terri Keith of City News to name a few.  The Associated Press reporter is someone I've never seen before. I saw the same Dateline camera crew that was on verdict watch with me back in March.  They would be the pool camera.
 
The media camera is set up at the end of the jury box closest to the gallery.  This is probably where either Judge Perry or the Superior Court's Public Information Office has told them where to place it.  It's my opinion it's the only location where they can aim their camera at Perry, then Lazarus and also at the podium and try not to film those sitting in the gallery.  I've never heard of a Judge in the downtown criminal court letting the media film the jury or members of the public.  They control where the media is allowed to set up their cameras.

In the well of the court, there is only one row of chairs set up against the low dividing wall next to the gallery.  In those seats are Assistant DA Pat Dixon (who oversees all special prosecution divisions), Robbery-Homicide Detective Greg Stearns (who I later learn came in to court on his day off...that's dedication), and DDA Rosa Alarcon (who worked on the case).  In the end chair farthest from me and near the aisle is District Attorney Steve Cooley.

Sherri's family is in the second row behind me along with their attorney, John Taylor.  Extended members of Sherri's family who could not attend the trial are here.  Her sister Teresa's husband, Brian, sister Connie, Connie's daughter Rachel (who we saw in the Christmas photos as an infant), Rachel's daughter Hannah (4 years-old and adorable; dressed in a pink and white dress with a pink ribbon in her hair), as well as John, Gail, Jayne Goldberg and Jayne's husband Michael. I believe her cousin Robin is in the back row.  Jayne gives me a copy of her statement and I tell her that I will be happy to post it for her.

On the defense side, I see Lazarus' mother, Carol.  In the front row are her brother Steven, Steven's female companion, and her sister Judi.  I see a few other familiar faces whose names and relationships I don't know.  At first, I don't see Scott Young, Lazarus' husband.  I ask Matthew if he's seen him.  Then it comes down the line, I think from Pat LaLama that Young is here, he's in the second row on the defense side near the door.  I look again and I still can't see him.  And then I realize he must be sitting way back in his chair, hidden from view by the person next to him on his left.

 As I turn around and make note of everyone here, I see that Ruetten is holding a typed paper in his hand and reading over it.  My prediction was he would give a victim impact statement.  I think John is the most misunderstood person in this tragedy.  Some have called Ruetten a cad for sleeping with Lazarus while engaged to Sherri.  My personal opinion is, he was truthful on the stand, when he testified he was young, he made a mistake and in over his head when it came to seeing Lazarus and agreeing to sleep with her that night.  I think the death of his wife completely devastated him.  I think it took him years to recover from discovering her murdered in their home.  What ever poor judgements he made back then, he's paid for it many times over.

8:35 AM
Steven Mikulan, Matthew and I chat about the first Spector trial, getting to know Dominick Dunne, the jury site visit, the LA Times reporter Peter Hong, and how Hong, at the time was trying to cultivate this "boys club" among the press covering the case.

People are still getting seated.  Looking back I see DDA James Garrison (who I originally reported looked like he just walked off a beach from surfing) who channeled the "ghost/spirit of Lloyd Mahaney" for the jurors.  There are two suited investigator/sheriff types sitting in the gallery along with the press.

8:40 AM
The court clerk, Melody Ramarez addresses the room.  "Ladies and gentlemen, we're about to start the sentencing."  Judge Perry enters the courtroom.  He's wearing a bright red tie with his robes and white shirt.  The door to the holding cell area opens and Lazarus walks out in an orange jumpsuit.  (I didn't think Judge Perry would let her wear civilian clothes like Judge Fidler did for Phil Spector at his sentencing.  Spector got to wear his long coat-tails and his page-boy wig. Sprocket)  Because of where the deputies surrounding her are standing I am not able to see her give any glances to her family, although I've read in a few press reports that she did.  Her hair is not in a ponytail and it does not appear to have been combed.

Judge Perry calls the case to order.  Lazarus chats with Courtney Overland to her right.  She keeps her head down and away from the cameras.  Judge Perry informs counsel he has read a defense motion to correct the probation report. He's provided a corrected report to counsel.

Judge Perry inquires with Overland if there is anything else from the defense and can they proceed with sentencing.

JP: The law allows for certain person(s) to address the court.... (snip) ...allows victim impact statements.  (The law?) allows them to express their views.  (snip) I require .... statements be made to me and not the defendant.

DDA Presby stands and calls for Loretta Rasmussen, Sherri's mother.

Loretta Rasmussen © Thomas Broersma

"Thank you your Honor.  Because of a selfish brutal-act of violence Sherri's family, extended family and friends have endured extreme heart ache and pain.  A pain for which there is no cure.  Everyday we miss her laughter and love.  Our hearts and prayers go out to Stephanie's family and especially to her mother."

Loretta quickly sits back down and Teresa Lane, Sherri's younger sister is called.  My eyes are already starting to tear up and I don't have a tissue, a paper napkin, anything.

Teresa Lane © Thomas Broersma

"November 23, 1985 was one of the happiest days of my sister's life, her wedding day.  It was also my fifth wedding anniversary.  Jokingly, I told Sherri it was a good thing she was getting married that day because I could barely fit into my dress, due to the fact I was three months pregnant.  I felt so privileged that Sherri and I would be sharing the same anniversary for the rest of our lives.  Little did I know three short months later while dealing with my grief and trying to stay calm to not jeopardize my pregnancy, I would be writing this letter to Sherri for her memorial.

Sherri,
I know that you are gone, there are no words to express the pain, but your spirit is still with me.  You have left me with the challenge to keep your spirit alive.  By meeting this challenge I am giving in return the gift of knowing you, to others, which enables me to never lose the Sherri I love.  As always you'll be there to lend a listening ear, share my joys and dream my dreams.  This is not too much to ask for all that you have given.
I Love You

Even after writing this letter so long ago I have learned over the years before and during the trial that Sherri still inspires. The prosecuting attorneys, detectives, neighbors, co-workers and the press have been affected by what a great person Sherri was, even though some did not know her personally.  Both of my sons know Sherri to be a great and loving person, but I wish they would have had the chance to know her personally.  What a gift that would have been.  After the trial I have learned about more and more people my sister affected, past and present, and how they were inspired by what a kind and loving person she was.  Can you imagine what she would have done if she was still with us?

My husband has told me over the years that I would never be able to understand why someone would take my sister's life and he was right.  I do not understand how someone could be so callous and have such a lack of respect for life.  What a waste it was to take Sherri's life because she still lives on in all of us.

Lastly I wanted to thank everyone involved on the prosecution team, Shannon, Paul, Daniel and Greg for what they have done for me, my family and Sherri.  I want to give a special thanks to Jim Nuttall and his team and the DNA specialist for their unwavering work to bring justice to this case."

Next is Connie Rasmussen, Sherri's older sister.

Connie Rasmussen © Thomas Broersma

"Your Honor, thank you for this opportunity to address the court regarding the impact of losing Sherri.

First I would like to thank Presby and Nunez for portraying Sherri as the vibrant, caring person she was!  She is not the contracted victim on the floor.

Sherri was my best friend; we shared problems and secrets, joys and sorrows.  She was always there....ready to listen, willing to help, telling you just what you needed to hear.

She was full of warmth, love and caring.  She became a Registered Nurse at the age of nineteen.  As I reflect back I see her working the 12-8 shift, her long hair pulled back in a ponytail working the Surgical Intensive Care Unit.  We often met on our breaks to share our work experiences.  She at only nineteen, yet balanced life and death decisions with ease.

Her sense of humor I always admired. She brought happiness, harmony and peace to all those that she came in contact.

She had a special intellectual gift, which she tried to keep a secret, but all that worked with her or knew her, knew she had a special gift, which she choose to use to help others.  During our senior year at Loma Linda University she was asked to join Sigma Theta Tau Nursing Professional Honor Society.  Because I was not asked as well, she refused to join.  We both were inducted after finishing our graduate studies.  She always considered others before herself.

We were taught that we should stand up for ourselves and be independent but always knew that our family and the Lord were by our sides for support at all times.

Throughout the closing statements I felt Sherri was present in this courtroom standing up for herself.  (In) Sherri's effort to survive, she captured the scientific evidence needed to identify her murderer.  It is fitting that science was the key in the prosecution.  I can hear Sherri saying with gusto "YES!" because scientific advances had made it possible to bring justice in this case.  How fitting that science the field of study Sherri loved, has brought her closure.

Sherri was my sister, colleague and best friend all in one which is rare.  I was lucky to have Sherri as my sister, best friend and colleague because she always brought out the best in me.  Not a day goes by that she is not sorely missed.  I look forward to the day when I can once again, put my arms around her and catch her up on the life events that she has missed.  What a joyous reunion that is going to be."

Sherri's widower, John Ruetten is called.

John Ruetten, Sherri's husband © Thomas Broersma

"Thank you for the opportunity to speak. There are no words to describe the loss of Sherri.  (snip) Suffice to say the loss of the Rasmussen family, my family and Stephanie's family, have been thrust into a bizarre world of disbelief ... (snip)... (and? indescibable?) sadness.  Sherri Rasmussen had a profound impact on so many people.  (Ruetten starts to cry and it makes me cry. I try to control myself but I cannot. His grief has a profound effect on me. Sprocket) I was proud that she (snip) ... be my wife.  (snip) I can clearly remember the first moment I laid eyes on her. (snip) It was at a party... (Ruetten describes what she was wearing, and that she was six feet, one inches tall in her high heels...) I was stunned."

Ruetten recalls their first date, how he remembers her waiting on the balcony, so she could guide him to the front door.  Ruetten's voice cracks again. It's heartbreaking.  "Sherri knew how to make someone feel at ease."  Ruetten states he's asked to relay a story, about how his father had the opportunity to dance with Sherri at a friend's wedding.  Ruetten's voice is barely keeping it together.  He rubs his nose several times during his statement.  His father was smitten and said something to the effect that Sherri really has got it together.

"Sherri Rasmussen was a physical presence in my life and my heart still races when I look at (photos of?) her. (snip) Ruetten talks about her character.  "I was constantly surprised by this amazing combination of traits."  (snip) "For those of us in this trial ... (snip) ... we can ...(snip) ...to imagine the terror and disbelief Sherri must have felt.. (snip) .. last moments of life.  (snip) We know what Sherri was ...(snip) to do... (snip) She was trying to get away. (snip) All she wanted was to be in her own loving relationship ... (snip) with her own loving family and with me. (snip) Her death (snip) the trial (snip) had had a profound impact on many others.  (snip) But there are so many moments and so many tears. (snip) I will spend many hours praying for everyone... (snip)

Your Honor, I'm compelled to end with my feelings towards the Rasmussen family. (She) ...played the central role; she played ...(snip) family. Nels and Loretta Rasmussen lost much more than a daughter... (snip) ...lost Sherri. Only they fully appreciate... (snip) Despite my own tremendous grief, I must still apologize for my ability to coexist with the pain they were enduring.  I just did not have the strength. (snip) ...contemplating their profound grief and the fact that Sherri's death occurred because she met and married me brings me to my knees.  I do not know, and fear I will ever (never?) know, how to cope with this appalling fact. (snip)   ...daydreams where Sherri is still with us... (snip) pointless tragedy never occurs."

Ruetten's voice breaks in his last words to the court.

JP: Thank you Mr. Ruetten.

DDA Presby informs the court that Nels Rasmussen has asked him to read a statement.

SP: How can one (?) the grief and agony of (loss?) a child. (snip) ... by such a brutal and selfish act of violence.  Sherri was a (snip) gifted, loving, daughter. (snip) The pain cause to (snip) will never heal.
(snip) Sherri will forever be missed by her (?), family (snip) and society as a whole.

Presby talks about her nursing goals.

SP: We can only guess what great good she might have done (snip) life (snip) had not been so callously taken from her. (snip)

I was not surprised that Lazarus did not speak. I expected that. I am surprised that no one from Lazarus' family spoke, but it may be that Judge Perry did not allow statements from her family. I don't know.  (I do know that at the sentencing for Tyquan Knox last November 2011, the defendant's mother addressed Judge Pastor. Sprocket)

I think it's a testament to the Rasmussen family and John Ruetten as well as to the character of these individuals. I'm impressed and amazed that they did not take this opportunity to direct any negative, derogatory words about Lazarus, or express anger or outrage to her specifically. Judge Perry asks Overland if there is any legal cause why sentence should not be pronounced.

JP The sentence (snip) is set by law. I will now pronounce sentence.

I couldn't keep myself from crying during the impact statements.  My nose is completely stuffed up.  I still have a long way to go to stay emotionally detached during victim impact statements.  Years ago Dominick Dunne told me he had the same difficulty; he often ended up identifying with the victim's family.

On count one, first degree murder sentenced to state penitentiary for a term of 25 years to life.  For the special allegation of a firearm ... an additional two years. The total sentence is 27 years to life.  Defendant arrested on June 5th, 2009. Court has calculated that she has been in custody 1,072 days. She is entitled to good time credits of 536 days; total credits is 1,608.  She is to pay a restitution fine of $100.00.  She has the right to appeal.

Presby states there is nothing more from the people.  The defense gives notice that they are filing an appeal.

JP: This concludes the matter.

Its' about 9:05 AM.

The sentencing took less than 20 minutes, and then it was over.  Many people in the gallery, including myself appear lost as we slowly make our way out into the hallway.   Matthew wants to make sure he checks in with several people before we make our way to the DA's press conference up on the 18th floor of the Criminal Court Building.

At the press conference, DA Steve Cooley spoke, DDA Presby spoke and DDA Nunez spoke. They fielded a few disappointing questions from the press, mainly from people who did not attend the trial or only attended it sporadically and were not aware of the facts of the case.  After that press conference, the Rasmussen family attorney, John Taylor holds a presser in the Temple Street plaza in front of the building.  Matthew and I were late to that but did arrive in time to hear John Taylor tell the media that the LAPD should be concerned, and should have questions about three areas in time. The initial 1986 investigation, the early 90's when evidence went missing, and in 2005 when the DNA came back as a female perpetrator.

I believe it was on the plaza when I spoke to Teresa and Jayne about why Sherri didn't tell her husband about the suspected stalking, or her problems with Lazarus.  They both said that Sherri was an independent person.  She would have wanted to solve her own problems.  Sherri would not have wanted her family to "think less of John" which is why she probably did not tell her close friend and family about all of this, or about John sleeping with Lazarus.  I believe Jayne told me that Sherri was going to give herself a few weeks to deal with Lazarus on her own, and if she couldn't then she might have asked for help.  It was just who she was; her confidence in her ability to handle this herself.

Matthew and I made our way back into the building where DDA Nunez agreed to give Matthew a few moments of his time to answer some questions and I got to tag along. We ended up getting invited to lunch...but lunch and that ensuing discussion was off the record.

Before I left the court building, Teresa and Connie were kind enough to give me copies of their victim impact statements as well as Loretta's.  For a long time I contemplated approaching John Ruetten, to ask him if I could get a copy of his impact statement but I never drew up the courage. As promised, below is Jayne Goldberg's victim impact statement, which she gave me.

My name is Jayne Goldberg and I want to thank you for this opportunity to address the court and to talk about Sherri, to speak for all of those friends and colleagues who knew her and loved her… who love her still.

At various times Sherri was my coworker, my boss, my roommate and always my friend. As a compassionate bedside caregiver and a competent and benevolent manager she was well respected by her nursing colleagues. To this day, all of the care I give as a nurse has to pass the Sherri test. Is my care competent? Is it compassionate? As a friend she was generous with her time, fun to be with and so easy to know. To paraphrase Roy Croft, I loved her “Not only for what she was, 
But for what I was when I was with her”. Sherri was special in so many ways. I wish all of you could have had the opportunity to know her.

Most of all, Sherri was a gentle person who would never, could never have hurt anyone the way she was hurt on that terrible day.

Back in 1982, I took a self defense class at school and Sherri and I would discuss what I was learning. One day she asked me to ask the instructor what to do in a situation where you are confronted by someone with a gun. The instructor said you should either talk your way out or try to get away. I know that’s what Sherri was trying to do. She was trying to get away. She wasn’t trying to hurt anyone. She was just trying to save her own life. A life she had worked for, had dreamed of, a life she had a right to, a life that was stolen from her. She was very accomplished for her age but all she really wanted was to be of service to others and to be in a loving relationship like her own loving family. She had found that loving relationship with John.

The last time I saw Sherri was Sunday February 16th. I had just become engaged on Valentine’s Day and had gone out to Sherri’s to show her my ring. She had been saving her Bridal magazines for me as we both waited anxiously for Michael to pop the question. I remember we were standing facing each other in the living room. When she handed them to me she said, “Jayne, enjoy this time …my wedding day was the happiest day of my life”. The truth is I might not have even started dating my husband if not for Sherri. She was the one who insisted in June of ’84 that I go to the party where that cute Pharmacist was going to be. She had already met John and was incredibly happy with the promise of their new relationship. But it wasn’t enough that she was happy. Sherri was the kind of person who wanted her friends to be as happy as she was.

Before Sherri was murdered, I thought I knew what grief was. As a critical care nurse I had often helped families deal with grief. I will never forget the moment I heard about Sherri’s murder. Until then I hadn’t really appreciated how gut wrenching grief can be. Words can’t describe the shock and pain I felt, how distraught I became as the world suddenly turned upside down. On some level that shock and disbelief never goes away. For weeks afterward it took all the courage I had just to stand upright. I didn’t understand how the rest of the world could go on as if nothing had happened. I wanted to grab people on the street and say. “Don’t you understand? My friend is dead.”

I did eventually go shopping for a wedding dress because, as Loretta said, Sherri would have wanted me to, but I went dressed in black and with tears streaming down my face. Finally one curious consultant asked me if I wanted to get married. When I looked at my wedding photos I saw a blank space where Sherri should have been. To this day I start to weep, even in the grocery store, if I hear a song from the 80’s that reminds me of Sherri. I can’t go to a wedding or a funeral without sobbing uncontrollably. It always comes back to me that one minute we were all so happy at Sherri’s wedding and then just 3 months later all the same people were there, grief stricken at Sherri’s funeral. The sadness will stay with me forever, like a stone in my heart. I will never get over this. There will never be closure.

I never saw Sherri again. We were advised not to see her in the casket, not to have that as our last memory of her. I’ve always regretted not seeing her one last time. Not having a chance to talk to her, to tell her how much she meant to me, what a good and loyal friend she had been, to tell her “I love you”. As a matter of fact until I saw Sherri’s morgue photo during the preliminary hearing I truly believed she was in a witness protection program. Surely she couldn’t be dead. Not Sherri! And then she died again when the cold case was opened, and again at the preliminary hearing and again at the trial and again today…

Anne Marie McDonald, a Canadian writer, says this about grief: “Grief is a fulcrum …The joint in time between the vanishing of hope and the beginning of loss. The missing link…Allows the living to move forward and the dead finally to return, smile, and open their arms to us in memory”. After 26 years of grief, hopefully this verdict, this tiny measure of justice for Sherri will be that missing link that will allow us, the living, to move forward and Sherri finally to return, smile and open her arms to us in memory.

I love you, Sherri. I’ll see you in my dreams.

I know many of you have asked about "when" Lazarus will be eligible for parole.  From several LE sources, I've been told somewhere between 14 and 15 years.  Although she will be eligible, that doesn't mean she will be granted parole on her first appearance in front of the parole board.  That's pretty much an "unheard of" situation. It's my guess that she will probably serve her complete sentence before the board will consider a release.  It's my opinion that Laarus would have to admit to the murder and express remorse before ever being granted parole.  Matthew found out that the Rasmussen's had their impact statements video recorded for any and all future parole hearings that might happen when they are no longer alive.

As soon as Matthew can get the copy of the courtroom video he received from the NBC camera guy converted to a viewable format, I'll have the complete video of the sentencing up on the web.  Also coming will be an audio recording of the DA's press conference and possibly an audio recording of John Taylor's presser.  Sprocket


PROSECUTION'S SENTENCING GUIDELINES


PROSECUTION'S STATEMENT OF VIEWS