Civil Rights
Jun. 20, 2002
Settlement in Fatal Domestic Abuse Suit
SAN FRANCISCO - Sonoma County agreed Tuesday to pay $1 million to settle federal civil rights claims by the estate of Maria Teresa Macias. The move brought an abrupt end to a closely watched trial over how police agencies handle domestic violence calls. Macias v. Ihde, C96-3658SI.
The move brought an abrupt end to a closely watched trial over how police agencies handle domestic violence calls. Macias v. Ihde, C96-3658SI.
A lawyer litigating a similar case in federal court in San Francisco over a domestic violence victim's civil rights said the Macias plaintiffs' team of Richard A. Seltzer and Dennis Cunningham advanced the field of domestic violence law.
"Rick did an excellent job for his clients and for domestic violence victims," said Khaldoun A. Baghdadi, of Walkup Melodia Kelly & Echeverria. "He showed that public agencies have to take these claims seriously."
Baghdadi represents relatives of Claire Joyce Tempongko, who was stabbed to death by a boyfriend. The plaintiffs assert that the man's past violent acts should have alerted San Francisco police to put him behind bars long before the killing.
The San Francisco city attorney's office has moved to dismiss the suit.
In Macias, lawyers for Sonoma County put a tentative million-dollar offer on the table during a chambers conference just before opening arguments Monday. The plaintiffs offered conditional agreement.
The uncertainty arose because the offer was subject to approval by the county board of supervisors, which took up the matter in closed session during its regular meeting Tuesday.
News that the supervisors in Santa Rosa had OK'd the sum was telephoned at midmorning Tuesday to U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's San Francisco courtroom.
There, Macias' mother, Sara Hernandez, had just concluded direct testimony about her daughter's despair at sheriffs' deputies' indifferent responses to her repeated pleas for help in dealing with threats and stalking by her estranged husband, Avelino.
The settlement spared Sonoma County's outside counsel, Richard Senneff, the task of cross-examining Hernandez, a Mexican citizen who gave a vivid account through an interpreter of the husband's 1996 shooting rampage that wounded her and left her daughter dead. Avelino then committed suicide.
"I am lost. They won't believe me," Hernandez quoted her daughter crying in frustration weeks before Macias' killing when another futile call to deputies failed to win enforcement of a protective order against her husband.
Despite the testimony, Senneff, of Santa Rosa, said he was prepared to defend the deputies' handling of Macias' calls.
"We felt the conduct of the deputies was appropriate," he said after Illston dismissed the jurors. "We had expert testimony that strongly upheld that position."
But dealing with a "hindsight analysis" of events that led to a tragic death was risky, Senneff conceded.
"We had to take into account how times and attitudes about domestic violence have changed and ask whether jurors could put themselves back into the perspectives prevailing then," said the Senneff Freeman & Bluestone partner.
The settlement also was a business decision. Any jury award to the plaintiffs would have forced Sonoma County to pay the plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs - an amount Senneff estimated at $2 million.
Plaintiffs lead counsel Seltzer, of Oakland, said he wasn't in the case to get rich.
"It's not one I did for money," said the Seltzer & Cody partner. "I had strong feelings for these plaintiffs.
"I'm not a settlement lawyer," he added. "I try tough cases, and I felt we had a good chance of success here. But I represent people who have been waiting six years for a resolution, and Mrs. Hernandez can certainly use some help."
Hernandez is raising the youngest of the three Macias children on her farm in Mexico. The 11-year-old has learning disabilities. Two daughters, 18 and 19, live with relatives in Sonoma County.
Settlement talks ordered by Illston have been under way for weeks. Sonoma County originally offered $750,000. But Hernandez at first declared she was opposed to any settlement because her daughter, anticipating her murder, said, "If I die I want you to tell other people what happened to me."
Hernandez felt a public trial would accomplish that goal, according to her attorney. She may have changed her mind when the offer increased and when it became clear she would have her opportunity to tell her daughter's story on the stand, Senneff said.
The litigation may change the way public protective agencies are held accountable for enforcement of domestic violence statutes, restraining orders and 911 calls.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals added weight to the plaintiffs' case in 2000 by reversing a dismissal and returning the matter to the trial court.
The circuit panel said Macias' estate had a viable cause of action for a 14th Amendment equal protection violation.
Illston then denied Sonoma County's renewed summary judgment motion and, in a lengthy opinion, made numerous favorable rulings for the plaintiffs.
The judge also agreed to allow testimony by expert witnesses on police procedure, the psychology of domestic violence prevention and the state of domestic violence law. The experts were uniformly critical of Sonoma County's handling of Maria Teresa Macias' case.
The plaintiffs' theory held that Macias was denied equal protection under the law because she was a victim of domestic violence and a woman.
Nancy K.D. Lemon, a Boalt Hall expert on domestic violence law who was set to testify Tuesday, said that when police agencies' domestic violence policies go unenforced the result is felt most strongly by women.
"Sonoma County's written policy was good," she said. "But their actual informal policy did not treat domestic violence as a crime.
"Even though the policy is gender neutral as written, the disparate impact of non-enforcement becomes an equal protection issue because the overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims are female - 85 percent, according to Department of Justice statistics."
Despite the lack of a jury verdict, Seltzer said, the outcome will move domestic violence law forward.
"We got it past all obstacles, past all the motions to exclude our evidence, past the court of appeal," he said. "The judge was giving us a fair trial here and there will be other trials to come."
John Roemer
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com