Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Shull vs. the County of Sacramento update
Closing arguments will be on April 18th, 2007 at 9am in dept. 45 of the Sac Superior court.
The civil trial of JulieAnne Shull vs. the County of Sacramento goes into its final stages tomorrow (Wednesday, April 18) as both sides present their closing arguments and the jury begins its deliberations.
The suit revolves around an incident that occured Feburary 4, 2004, when JulieAnne was illegally arrested for videotaping a demonstration that was occuring on the Capitol lawn. She was taken to the Sacramento County Jail, where whe was stripped to nearly naked, thrown against a wall by two Sheriff's deputies, and had her arm wrenched behind her back causing permanent injury. Sacramento County Sheriff's deputies then held her in jail for four days, approximately 102 hours. All charges were eventually dropped. JulieAnne is suing the Sacramento County Jail and Sheriff's deputies Rebecca Purdy and Jennifer Page for Excessive Use of Force, interfering with her First Ammendment right to Freedom of Expression, and for Unnecessary Delay in releasing her from custody.
The jail staff and deputies continue to suffer from collective amnesia, and their case relies on a falsified incident report created by one of the deputies that assaulted JulieAnne. Their best excuse is that JulieAnne "had a bad attitude." Though JulieAnne denies having a "bad attitude," she contends that her first ammendment rights didn't end when she was arrested. The most telling testimony of the trial came when Deputy Rebecca Purdy (who was wearing spike heals and blue eyeshadow) said as an explanation of her actions "People think they're better than me."
Please come to the Sacramento County Courthouse, department 45 on the sixth floor, to hear closing arguments and to show your opposition for the use of force on nonviolent demonstrators and to show your support for our Constitutional Rights.
The suit revolves around an incident that occured Feburary 4, 2004, when JulieAnne was illegally arrested for videotaping a demonstration that was occuring on the Capitol lawn. She was taken to the Sacramento County Jail, where whe was stripped to nearly naked, thrown against a wall by two Sheriff's deputies, and had her arm wrenched behind her back causing permanent injury. Sacramento County Sheriff's deputies then held her in jail for four days, approximately 102 hours. All charges were eventually dropped. JulieAnne is suing the Sacramento County Jail and Sheriff's deputies Rebecca Purdy and Jennifer Page for Excessive Use of Force, interfering with her First Ammendment right to Freedom of Expression, and for Unnecessary Delay in releasing her from custody.
The jail staff and deputies continue to suffer from collective amnesia, and their case relies on a falsified incident report created by one of the deputies that assaulted JulieAnne. Their best excuse is that JulieAnne "had a bad attitude." Though JulieAnne denies having a "bad attitude," she contends that her first ammendment rights didn't end when she was arrested. The most telling testimony of the trial came when Deputy Rebecca Purdy (who was wearing spike heals and blue eyeshadow) said as an explanation of her actions "People think they're better than me."
Please come to the Sacramento County Courthouse, department 45 on the sixth floor, to hear closing arguments and to show your opposition for the use of force on nonviolent demonstrators and to show your support for our Constitutional Rights.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The closing arguments in the Shull v. Sacramento County et. al. case have been tentatively postponed until 1:30 Wednesday, April 18. In an unexpected act of good faith and cooperativeness, the judge has reversed herself and allowed testmony as to whether JulieAnne was held for an unnecessarily long time before being taken before a judge. This could be a ground-breaking decision by the court.
The 1:30 start time of closing arguments is contingent on the culmination of the testimony of a witness being recalled by the defense in light of the judge's new rulings. Please attend the closing arguments and help to send a message to the defense as well as to the jury that these civil rights violations will not be tolerated by the community.
The 1:30 start time of closing arguments is contingent on the culmination of the testimony of a witness being recalled by the defense in light of the judge's new rulings. Please attend the closing arguments and help to send a message to the defense as well as to the jury that these civil rights violations will not be tolerated by the community.
Details are scarce, but the jury awarded Ms. Shull a bit over $20,000 in damages for negligence and assault/battery in her case against the county of Sacramento and the deputies.
Willie - might want to check your facts first. Your post is false. County not liable for anything. Page not liable for anything. Do your homework.
ok, so maybe the county wasn't liable, but the details are scarce and if willie wrong is correct, then ms. purdy is the one who was liable and she is in the employ of the county, guess respondeat superior wouldn't apply? but what i'll do is get a copy of the jury verdict form and post it. that way there's clarification on what the jury found for on ms. shull's behalf. might take a day or two, but check back and that will clarify it for you
Ok, so correction, thanks for making the clarification willie wrong. here's the verdict form filled out based on what was spoken by the jury at trial. it's not the official court recorded document, but it is accurate. i'll let the document speak for itself.
So is that lots of money or not lots of money?
The County was not found directly liable under the claims against the County (false imprisonment based on delay in processing/releasing, and negligent failure to train), but scarce evidence was developed at trial concerning those claims. The jury nevertheless found the delay claim interesting and concerning. (Shull was arrested on a misdemeanor on Thursday; CHP failed to cite and release her, as required by law; she was then processed in, not arraigned until Monday afternoon, and not released until late Monday evening). The County is nonetheless responsible, under Government Code § 825(a), for paying the compensatory damages awarded against Deputy Purdy. Individual police officers in California are not liable for compensatory damages awarded against them. And as a practical matter, they almost never pay punitive damages either, which, if they aren't picked up by the municipality, are usually covered by the union. Jurors are not told this during trials. Spread the word.
It is illegal for a public entity to pay punitives; you're wrong there. Unions don't pick it up either; wrong there too. I am lawyer, and though I don't do this kind of stuff (not exactly, I am in criminal law), I do know those two facts. So Shull's lawyer, are you happy with the result?
I stand by what I said. First, juries almost never award punitive damages against police officers. When they do, the police officers almost never pay them. Among the mechanisms which come into play, a County can still settle a case post verdict, where the punitive damges, attorney's fees, etc, are subsumed within the settlement amount.
I don't know where Soriano got the idea that it is illegal for municipalities to pay punitive damages awards. See Gov't Code sec. 825(b):
b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other provision of law,
a public entity is authorized to pay that part of a judgment that is
for punitive or exemplary damages if the governing body of that
public entity, acting in its sole discretion except in cases
involving an entity of the state government, finds all of the
following:
(1) The judgment is based on an act or omission of an employee or
former employee acting within the course and scope of his or her
employment as an employee of the public entity.
(2) At the time of the act giving rise to the liability, the
employee or former employee acted, or failed to act, in good faith,
without actual malice and in the apparent best interests of the
public entity.
(3) Payment of the claim or judgment would be in the best
interests of the public entity.
b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other provision of law,
a public entity is authorized to pay that part of a judgment that is
for punitive or exemplary damages if the governing body of that
public entity, acting in its sole discretion except in cases
involving an entity of the state government, finds all of the
following:
(1) The judgment is based on an act or omission of an employee or
former employee acting within the course and scope of his or her
employment as an employee of the public entity.
(2) At the time of the act giving rise to the liability, the
employee or former employee acted, or failed to act, in good faith,
without actual malice and in the apparent best interests of the
public entity.
(3) Payment of the claim or judgment would be in the best
interests of the public entity.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$215.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network