Madrid Law Firm:
A Professional Law Corporation
Office Ph: 909.628.0068 | Fax: 909.628.0067
El Central Real Plaza
12612 Central Avenue
Chino, CA 91710
» Our Law Firm
» Our Lawyers
» Our Practice Areas
» Selected Results
» Published Articles
» Resource Link
» Contact Us
Over 35 years of professional experience!
The Madrid Law Firm, A Professional Law Corporation, is dedicated and committed to offering and providing quality and effective legal representation to our clients. Most of our clients are referred to our firm by family, friends, former clients, lawyers and judges. Our client base extends to all four contiguous counties in Southern California, including, but not limited to, San Bernardino County, Riverside County , Los Angeles County & Orange County. We also handle cases outside of this area and out-of-state cases. In the past, we have represented clients in San Jose, Auburn, Santa Barbara, Stockton, San Francisco, and San Diego. We have also handled cases in the States of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Ohio, Indiana, and Washington D.C.
As experienced trial lawyers, we evaluate and commence to prepare each case for trial from day one. Even if the case never reaches the trial stage, our strategy enables us to negotiate effectively and get equitable results. If the case proceeds to trial, we are then prepared to communicate to a jury our side of the case passionately, persuasively, and effectively.
Our firm has a full support staff, access to top experts in their respective fields and state-of-the-art technology to handle any case, complex or otherwise, in the most effective manner.
In addition, the firm offers the following:
Dedication and commitment to your case ;
Vigorous and aggressive representation;
Experienced Trial Lawyers;
Proven Results;
Any State & Federal Court.
Contact our firm by telephone (909)628-0068 or Ed@MadridLawFirm.com with your legal questions, problems or case.
» Our Law Firm
» Our Lawyers
» Our Practice Areas
» Selected Results
» Published Articles
» Resource Link
» Contact Us
Experienced trial lawyers!
EDUARDO M. MADRID,ESQ. ERICA L. MADRID, ESQ.
State Bar No: 82395 State Bar No: 229327
» Read Profile » Read Profile
EDUARDO M. MADRID, ESQ.  top  next profile
State Bar No: 82395
Ed@MadridLawFirm.com
Ed was born and raised in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Ed planned to attend college and law school in California and return to New Mexico to practice law. However, along the way, Ed met his wife, Cindy, got married and made their home in Southern California.
Ed and Cindy have two daughters, one of which is an attorney and practices law with him. His other daughter is a compensation analyst for a national payroll company and her husband is an officer for a national bank. Ed and Cindy were blessed with their first grandchild soon to be a team roper.
Being a self-motivated individual, Ed worked his way through college and law school. Ed attended Cal-State University Dominguez Hills while working full time until he graduated in 1973. Upon graduation from college, Ed enrolled at American College of Law and attended part-time while clerking full time for the law firm of Simon, Kesner & Simon. Ed received his Juris Doctor degree in 1978, successfully passed the California bar exam that same year and hung up his shingle. So was the genesis of the MADRID LAW FIRM.
Early on in his career, Ed was faced with his most difficult and challenging criminal case, which had a profound effect on his view of the criminal justice system. His client was caught up in a wave of child molestation hysteria that was prevalent in the early eighties. His client and three other individuals arrested were innocent victims of a vicious and calculating witch hunt. The witch hunt was precipitated by a neighbor and her disturbed kids who alleged that the kids had been kidnapped from their homes and school and forced to participate in human and animal sacrifices and satanic rituals. The kids were allegedly forced to microwave and eat babies. The kids further alleged that they were forced to a church basement wherein dancing knives would come out of the floor, and then they were forced to kill and eat babies. The kids further alleged that they were sexually molested during these satanic rituals.
As a result of these allegations, Ed’s client and the other three individuals were falsely and wrongfully arrested, removed from their homes in handcuffs in front of a hostile neighborhood, subjected to humiliating cavity searches, not allowed to bathe or change clothes for days and branded as child molesters. The four individuals were charged with a (19) nineteen felony count criminal complaint and bail was set at $100,000.00 for each client. The media had a field day. The witch hunt precipitated the arrest and prosecution of these four innocent people, which in turn demonstrated that the arrest was not based on investigation or fact, and the ensuing prosecution was not based on any credible evidence or reasonable suspicion that in fact a crime had occurred. The arrest and prosecution of these four innocent people was a travesty of justice. The life of each client was turned upside down and life as they knew it was no longer going to be the same-ever.
During the course of a six-week preliminary hearing, Ed and his colleagues put on an affirmative defense challenging the credibility and veracity of each and every prosecution witness. The end result was a dismissal of all charges. The dismissal of the criminal charges became the beginning of the civil rights case of Valentin v. County of Los Angeles, which was tried three times, appealed twice to the California Court of Appeal and once to the California Supreme Court over a span of 17 years. The case ultimately settled before the start of the third trial.
Ed has dedicated his career in defending his clients against social, civil and legal injustices in both the criminal and civil arenas. Ed is known as being an aggressive and effective advocate in the courtroom. Ed has tried over 150 criminal, civil and civil rights jury trials to verdicts.
Ed is licensed to practice before the State Bar of California. He has also been admitted to the following federal courts:
› U.S. District Court, Central District of California
› U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
› U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
› U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
› U.S. Court of Appeal, 9 th Circuit
› U.S. Court of Appeal, 10 th Circuit
While the firm is dedicated primarily to criminal defense and civil litigation, Ed has been involved in several writ proceedings and appeals, three of which resulted in published opinions; County of Los Angeles v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County [Valentin] (2000) 78 Cal.App.4 th 212, Hidalgo v. Fagen, Inc. 206 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2000) and Juan R. Flores v. Autozone West, Inc. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 373.
Ed is a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and the Eastern Bar Association.
Ed completed his judge’s training to become a Judge Pro Tem. Ed served as a Judge Pro Tem in the Municipal Court of California, County of Los Angeles hearing civil and small claims cases part-time and voluntarily over a span of 5 years.
Ed served and presided as a judge voluntarily in mock criminal trials of the Trial Advocacy Honors Board of Whittier Law School.
Being from New Mexico, Ed is a cowboy at heart and a team roper. When Ed is not in Court or in his office, Ed is on his horse, Johnny Ringo, team roping. Ed is a big supporter of the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association and attends many of their rodeos throughout California, Nevada and Texas, including the National Finals Rodeo, which is held in Las Vegas, Nevada at the end of the year. At the local level, Ed is a big supporter of the San Dimas Rodeo. Ed has the highest regard, respect and admiration for the professional rodeo cowboy because unlike other sports, the rodeo cowboy is the only professional athlete that has to pay his way to compete.
Ed has been trained and mentored by his very good friend and 2 time World Champion, Walt Woodard.
Ed is a member of the R4R team roping association (ropingsforropers.com)and ACTRA (American Cowboy Team Roping Association). Ed competes in the Businessman’s Team Roping event of the annual San Dimas Rodeo. Ed also participates in the Buckaroo Rodeo of the San Dimas Rodeo, which provides a mock rodeo for physically and mentally challenged children prior to the main performance.
For more information about sponsoring the San Dimas Rodeo or the Buckaroo Rodeo, please contact Ed or the San Dimas Rodeo.
JOHNNY RINGO, the deadliest pistolero since Wild Bill.
FEATURED VIDEO
Courtroom Cowboy Watch Video - By day, Ed Madrid is a criminal attorney and has been for 30 years. But while he fights for justice during his day job, the other side to this hard working, no nonsense lawyer is a cowboy who loves to team rope!
ERICA L. MADRID, ESQ. top prev profile
State Bar No: 82395
Erica@MadridLawFirm.com
During her last semester at UCLA, Erica attended one of her dad’s civil rights jury trials. At that time, Erica was a volunteer intern with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Scientific Sciences Bureau in an effort to reach her career goal which, at the time, was to become a criminalist. After observing the entire trial and speaking to the jurors, attorneys and court personnel, Erica realized that her calling was not to work in a crime lab analyzing forensic evidence, but to follow in her dad’s footsteps, attend law school and become a trial lawyer.
Erica received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physiological Science from UCLA in 2000. She then attended Whittier Law School. While in law school, Erica was a Lead Articles Editor for the Whittier Law Review, an executive board member of the Moot Court Honors Board, and a member of the Trial Advocacy Honors Board. Erica also was a judicial intern for the Honorable Justice Richard M. Aronson of the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division Three. Erica graduated Magna Cum Laude and received her Juris Doctor degree from Whittier Law School in 2003. Erica successfully passed the California bar exam that same year and was sworn in as an attorney in a private ceremony administered by Justice Aronson. Erica joined the MADRID LAW FIRM in January 2004.
In February 2008, Erica took and passed the Arizona State Bar Exam and is in the process of being admitted to practice law in the State of Arizona.
Erica’s areas of expertise include civil litigation, criminal defense, DUI Defense, probate, and landlord/tenant cases. Erica has represented clients in mediations, arbitrations, administrative hearings before the City of Chino and administrative hearings before the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles] with regard to DUI (Driving Under the Influence) cases. Erica also prepares and responds to all Law and Motion matters with regard to all criminal and civil cases in the firm, including appeals. Recently, Erica took the lead in a case, which resulted in a successful partial reversal of a summary judgment order. After oral argument before the Court of Appeal, Justice Bedsworth complimented Erica on her briefing of the case as being “excellent”. The case was certified for publication. See Juan R. Flores v. Autozone West, Inc. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 373.
After serving as co-counsel in numerous criminal and civil jury trials with her dad, Erica delved into her career as a trial lawyer by trying a DUI case for a client who was facing his 3rd DUI conviction. After the trial, the judge was very complimentary on Erica’s preparation, command of the courtroom and effective representation of her client, which resulted in a partial victory. Since then, Erica has continued to aggressively represent and defend those clients accused of DUI.
Most recently, Erica filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, which was granted and the case was dismissed. Erica’s client was pulled over on the evening of the 4th of July for “allegedly” weaving, “almost causing an accident”, and driving on the wrong side of the road. The client was subsequently arrested for DUI. Unbeknownst to the arresting officer, Erica secured a copy of the officer’s videotape from the officer’s patrol vehicle, which established that the client was driving in a law-abiding manner – no weaving, no near-accidents, and no driving on the wrong side of the road. The court ruled that the stop was unlawful and dismissed all charges.
Erica is a member of the State Bar of California and is admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court, Central District of California and the U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit.
Erica is a member of the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ).
On her free time, Erica enjoys mountain biking, hiking, skiing, and learning to play her guitar.
top
» Our Law Firm
» Our Lawyers
» Our Practice Areas
» Selected Results
» Published Articles
» Resource Link
» Contact Us
Civil Rights, DUI cases to Business Litigation ... We're your legal firm!
CIVIL RIGHTS / POLICE MISCONDUCT: Our firm represents clients who have been victims or have suffered physical or emotional injury as a result of police dog bites, false arrests, incarcerations, malicious prosecutions, physical abuse or excessive force at the hands of law enforcement officers.
CRIMINAL DEFENSE: Over 30 years, we have represented clients in criminal cases both in state and federal courts. We handle serious felony and misdemeanor cases and indictments, including, but not limited to, homicide, three-strikes cases, manslaughter, robbery, assault & battery, white collar crimes, conspiracies, domestic violence, rape or other sexual assault cases, and much more.
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: We handle DUI [driving under the influence] cases and defend clients before the DMV. We evaluate the initial stop, the PAS tests, field sobriety tests and chemical test. We have access to the top experts in the field. We further evaluate maintenance records, transmissions between the officers and dispatch and request splits, if necessary.
PERSONAL INJURY / WRONGFUL DEATH: We have extensive experience in handling serious personal injury and wrongful death cases. We have successfully represented clients or their heirs who were victims of auto accidents, slip or trip and falls, defective products, and constructions accidents. We handle cases that involve any activity or event that causes severe bodily injury or death.
LANDLORD / TENANT CASES: We represent both landlord and tenants with regard to eviction proceedings. We also represent commercial landlords in matters against business tenants. We have also represent clients in mobile home park litigation whether the dispute is in court or before any rent stabilization commission of a municipality.
PROBATE PROCEEDINGS: We represent clients in probate proceedings whether the deceased left a Will or died intestate [without a will]. We represent the administrators, executors or heirs.
BUSINESS LITIGATION: Our firm represents clients with regard to all phases of business matters whether negotiating contracts, site inspections, disputes or litigation. We also handle collection accounts for our business and corporate clients.
REAL ESTATE LITIGATION: Our firm represents clients involved in real estate disputes, whether the client is the seller or the buyer. We represent clients who are seeking to enforce their rights under a contract or defend clients who wish to cancel or rescind a real estate contract.
» Our Law Firm
» Our Lawyers
» Our Practice Areas
» Selected Results
» Published Articles
» Resource Link
» Contact Us
EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION IN THESE AREAS! CALL US NOW!
CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
Los Angeles County : Valentin v. County of Los Angeles. Team Madrid represented client in the criminal case and put on an affirmative defense at the preliminary hearing. The case was dismissed at the preliminary hearing. A lawsuit was filed alleging violation of civil rights. The case was tried three times, appealed twice, remanded and retried over a span of 17 years. Team Madrid settled their portion of the case on the eve of the third trial. The co-plaintiffs proceeded to trial.
Los Angeles County : Client was arrested by local law enforcement while he was hospitalized at a county hospital. Client was transferred to a jail ward and during the course of his arrest, he was issued two booking numbers. Client went to court on one number and the case was dismissed. Client was then returned to jail and remained in jail for an additional 30 days until his criminal defense attorney learned that he was still in custody and made the appropriate motion for his release. Client kept telling the deputies that he had been released but to no avail. Team Madrid filed a lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 and other state causes of action. During jury selection, the case settled for 6 figures.
Orange County . Team Madrid handled a police abuse case where the officers beat up a client who had been pulled over for a DUI. The client was arrested and taken to jail. During the course of his booking, the client was taken and struck with a baton on his back and lower extremities several times. The officers denied that they had struck the plaintiff. Liability was disputed. The case settled successfully before trial.
Los Angeles County : A disabled client and her service dog were removed from a local mall. Client was told that because she was not blind and her dog was not an “eye seeing dog”, she had to leave the mall and if she did not leave, she would be arrested and her minor child taken away by social services. The security personnel attempted to interrogate the client about the nature and extent of her disability, which is unlawful. Team Madrid filed a federal lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case settled. As part of the settlement, the defendants, a nationwide security company, agreed to train all their personnel with regard to the guidelines set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
San Bernardino County : A dispute had arisen between two neighbors, which prompted the presence of law enforcement. Law enforcement officers without a warrant wrongfully entered and removed the children of the household from the residence and detained them in their police cars. Team Madrid filed a lawsuit under 42 USC 1998 for violation of their civil rights. The case settled before trial.
San Bernardino County : Law enforcement officers pulled over driver and passengers. Client passenger was pulled out, detained and arrested on a warrant belonging to another person. Team Madrid filed a lawsuit alleging violation of 42 USC 1983. The case was tried in state court. The jury could not reach a verdict and was 8 to 4 in plaintiff's favor. A mistrial was declared and the case settled shortly thereafter with the assistance of a mediator.
top
PERSONAL INJURY CASES
Riverside County : [Products Liability Case] Client sustained third degree burns to both hands and arms as a result of his upper extremities being caught in a plastic molding machine. The machine was manufactured in Canada . Team Madrid filed a products liability action against the manufacturer, supplier and employer. Team Madrid traveled to Toronto , Canada and took a series of depositions, which lead to establishing liability. The case settled in the 7 figures shortly thereafter.
Los Angeles County : [Premises Liability] Client sustained very serious back injuries while climbing a ladder attached to a building. As client reached the top of a one story building, the ladder became detached from the building and client fell backwards until he struck the ground sustaining serious injuries to his back. Liability was disputed. During the trial and before the jury was instructed, the case settled in the 6 figures.
Orange County : [Auto Accident] Client a minor [7 years old] was a passenger in a school bus. The bus was broadsided by a car. The minor child was ejected from the bus. The bus made an illegal left hand turn. Liability was initially disputed. The case settled in the 6 figures with the assistance of a mediator.
Imperial County : [Auto Accident] Client a minor [5 years old] was a passenger in a school bus. The bus driver failed to yield her right of way and drove onto oncoming traffic. The other driver broadsided the bus and the minor child was ejected from the vehicle. Initially, the child was believed to have suffered a subdural hemotoma. After the accident, the mother reported that the child was having cognitive difficulties. The defense disputed the nature and extent of the injuries claiming that the child's cognitive difficulties were attributed to the child being bilingual and having to translate from one language to another. Team Madrid argued that this contention was bigoted, nonsense and not supported medically, or otherwise and therefore had no merit. The case settled.
Los Angeles County : [Wrongful Death] Client and friends hired a local nude dancer to a private party at their residence. All parties got into the spa nude. A dispute arose as to what services the dancer had agreed to perform. An argument ensued and the dancer and her friend left the party. As Client and friend tried to stop the dancer by standing on the running boards of her pick up truck, the dancer sped away causing the client to fall underneath the rear tire to his death. The dancer fled the scene but was later arrested and found to be under the influence. No criminal charges were filed against her. Liability was vigorously disputed by all parties. Team Madrid filed a wrongful death action against the dancer and other parties. The case settled.
top
CRIMINAL CASES
Los Angeles County : [Murder] Client was wrongfully accused of a drive-by shooting. Team Madrid conducted an independent investigation with regard to all of the forensic evidence collected by law enforcement. Team Madrid put on an aggressive defense at the preliminary hearing. Team Madrid filed a Motion to Dismiss [P.C. § 995]. Motion was granted and case dismissed. Client was released forthwith.
Los Angeles County : [Burglary] Client had been drinking at a local bar all night. Upon leaving, he was assaulted and robbed. Client after having been beaten and intoxicated started walking home from the bar. As he made his way home, he walked into the wrong house assuming it was his own home. The resident wrestled him down and called the police. The police arrested him for burglary. Client was being held in custody due to inability to make bail. Team Madrid negotiated a misdemeanor plea and secured forthwith release of the client.
Los Angeles County : [ Car Jacking/Attempted Murder] Client and friends [alleged gangbangers] were arrested for car jacking, attempted murder and host of other felonies. Team Madrid 's investigation revealed that the alleged victims falsified their reports to the police. According to the police reports, the defendants stopped a truck at gun point, removed the three occupants, duct-taped them, and left them on the side of the road. The defendants were found later stripping the truck, and were positively identified during a field show-up. One of the defendants was alleged to have wielded the firearm, and was found with stolen property in his pockets.
Team Madrid spearheaded the investigation and found a juvenile witness who revealed that there was no carjacking, but a hotel drug deal gone awry. The defendants obtained possession of the truck not by carjacking, but as a result of the drug deal. One of the alleged victims had checked into a local motel, a fact which would've been unknown to the defendants unless they were at the drug deal, not carjacking. This was verified by the driver's license and signature card the alleged victim provided when he checked into the motel. Team Madrid issued a subpoena duces tecum on the motel and shared this evidence with with co-counsel and the D.A.
As a result of this exculpatory evidence, the case was dismissed and all parties released forthwith.
Riverside County : [Domestic Violence] Wife suspected client of having an affair. As client was taking a shower, wife sprinkled hot chili pepper powder in his underwear. As client came out of the shower, dried himself and put on his underwear, he proceeded to jump up and down in pain. The chili pepper blistered his genatalia. Wife found it amusing and proceeded to laugh and make fun of client. Client then allegedly pulled wife's pants and panties down and bit her in the buttocks. Wife had Client arrested for domestic violence. Team Madrid made a motion to reduce bail, which was granted. Team Madrid then negotiated an infraction plea.
Los Angeles County : [Vandalism] Client was a picket participating in a union strike. Client was wrongfully accused of damaging a company vehicle. The strike had turned violent and the company brought in an out-of-state security force. There was a lot of animosity between the rank and file and management. The case was tried. The jury returned a not guilty verdict within 5 minutes after they were instructed.
San Bernardino County : [Attempted Kidnapping] Client allegedly tried to pick up two teenage boys near a school. The boys claimed that client had told them that their respective mothers had sent him to pick up the boys to take them home. The boys ran away and called the police. In the meantime, client was involved in an auto accident a block away. Team Madrid was able to convince the D.A. that there is no way Client could have communicated anything to the boys since client only spoke Spanish and the boys only spoke English. The kidnapping charges were dismissed and plaintiff plead to the traffic violations. Upon completion of the sentence for traffic offenses, client was released.
top
OTHER SELECTED CASES
San Bernardino County : (Rent Stabilization Commission) In two separate cases, the clients had purchased mobile homes from their respective sellers. The mobile home park filed an Application for a premium claiming that the purchase price of the mobile homes exceeded market value because the respective spaces of the homes were subject to rent control. In one instance, the mobile home park owner was seeking $35,000.00 premium on a $75,000.00 purchase and on the other $26,500 on a $62,500 purchase. The hearing was set before the Chino Rent Stabilization Commission. Team Madrid defended both of these cases and provided an aggressive and vigorous defense. The result was a denial of the premium.
San Bernardino County : Team Madrid has ventured into handling business, landlord/tenant, real estate and probate cases. Team Madrid has negotiated and drafted contracts for clients in business as well as represented clients in business litigation. Team Madrid has represented commercial clients in landlord/tenant proceedings primarily representing the landlords. Team Madrid has also handled real estate transactions involving both commercial and residential disputes. Team Madrid has also handled equine matters and represented horse owners, riders, buyers & sellers.
top
» Our Law Firm
» Our Lawyers
» Our Practice Areas
» Selected Results
» Published Articles
» Resource Link
» Contact Us
RECOGNITION BY THE LEADING CALIFORNIA LEGAL PUBLICATION-CALIFORNIA LAWYER MAGAZINE!
Preface
Mr. Madrid and his colleagues were published in the California Lawyer Magazine in September 1990 issue under Law & Motion - Legal News and Trends. Mr. Madrid and his colleagues handled a civil rights case involving 4 plaintiffs who were wrongfully charged and prosecuted on 19 felony counts of child molestation. After successfully defending and having the criminal case dismissed, Mr. Madrid and his colleagues filed a civil rights lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles. The case caption was Valentin v. County of Los Angeles L.A.S.C. No. C 529 739.
After a bifurcated bench trial in 1990, the Court awarded the plaintiffs 3.7 Million dollars in damages plus 2.0 Million dollars in attorneys' fees. The case was appealed and reversed by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the trial court did not exercise its discretion in relieving the County from their jury waiver.
In 1995, the case was tried to a jury. The jury awarded the plaintiffs, 7.4 Million dollars plus 3.7 Million dollars in attorneys' fees for a total of 11.1 Million dollars. The County appealed. The case was affirmed on liability and reversed for a retrial on damages.
In 1999 at the start of the third trial, both Mr. Madrid and attorneys for the county filed Writs of Mandate with the Court of Appeals challenging certain pretrial rulings. The trial was stayed. The Court of Appeal ordered issuance of a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its orders and to enter a certain new and different orders. The opinion was published. County of Los Angeles v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Valentin) (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 212, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 668.
In June of 2000 on the eve of the restart of the third trial, the case was settled as to Mr. Madrid & Mr. Roman's clients. From the date of the arrest to the date of the settlement, the case ran its course for 16 years and 2 months.
AND NOW THE REVENGE:
A Los Angeles court awards millions to former defendants accused of child molestation
Article by Mary A. Fisher
The first wave of child sex abuse prosecutions appears to have run its course with Raymond Buckey's second mistrial in the McMartin Preschool case. Now come the revenge. In suing the county, the former district attorney and even a news reporter, Buckey is following the lead of other exonerated accused seeking compensation for having their lives destroyed by unproven charges.
Most of the suits like Buckey's have been thrown out before trial. But earlier this year, in apparently the first case of its kind, a Los Angeles judge awarded more than $3 million to four people who had been arrested for allegedly molesting neighborhood children. The charges were dismissed after a preliminary hearing. Valentin v. County of Los Angeles, LA Super Ct, No. C529739.
The judgment holding the county liable for false arrest, false imprisonment and civil rights violations seems to have surprised everyone except the plaintiff's lawyers, who were also the defense lawyers in the criminal action. "Everyone told us we didn't have a case," says Eduardo M. Madrid of the City of Industry, who represented one of the plaintiffs. Madrid says one lawyer for the county told him when he first filed the suit, "We're bulletproof, we have immunity, you have no case, go home."
"It's the first inroad that is likely to have a psychological impact on other cases," says Jim Quinn, one of the lawyers representing former McMartin Preschool defendants Peggy Buckey, Virginia McMartin and Peggy Ann Buckey. "Its significance is in signaling police departments to be more careful in not jumping the gun and ruining the lives of people unmercifully."
The Valentin judgment is being appealed, and recent rulings indicate that the courts give great leeway to prosecutors and witnesses in child sex abuse cases. But the lawyers for the Valentin plaintiffs have overcome the odds before. "It was such a long haul," says Madrid.
The long haul began in 1984 when 11 children living on Planter Street in Pico Rivera told their parents they had been sexually molested by some neighbors. The children, ages three to nine, said they were tied down, photographed nude, sodomized and orally copulated. They said all this took place in the home of Jose Valentin, a sanitation worker at Oroweat Bakery, and his wife, Myrna Malave, a nurse; and in the home of law student Tim O'Keefe and his wife, Helen, a real estate appraiser.
Scared and outraged parents called authorities, who came out to Planter Street to investigate. "There was a lot of hot talk," Lieutenant Jim Moss of the sheriff's department told a reporter at the time. At least one of the parents had threatened to go after the suspects with a shotgun. "Once people realized law enforcement was taking over," said Moss, "they calmed down a lot."
The investigation began on a Tuesday; by Friday, after hearing the children's stories, sheriff's deputies had obtained search warrants. While waiting for the warrants to arrive, the deputies called Deputy District Attorney Robert Z. Corrado, who came to the street to advise them. The O'Keefes later testified that Corrado told them, "If you don't start talking I'm going to fuck up your lives without mercy."
The suspects were arrested solely on the basis of the children's statements.
While testifying at the preliminary hearing two months later, the prosecution's key witness, an eight-year-old boy, started crying and admitted he "had made it all up" about Jose Valentin. "That often happens to young children on the stand," says Kevin C. Brazile, the deputy county counsel who represented Los Angeles County in the civil suit. "These kids still stand by their stories today that they were molested."
With the children's testimony discredited, Municipal Court Judge Patricia J. Hofstetter said she was "left with the choice only of dismissing the case."
At a lunch following the dismissal, the defense lawyers and their clients toasted a bittersweet victory. Both couples had sold their homes and borrowed money to pay bail. Collectively the defendants had spent more than three months in jail.
Helen O'Keefe was fired from her job, although she got it back after the preliminary hearing. All four former defendants continue to suffer psychologically. Myrna Malave is on psychiatric disability, says her attorney, Robert Roman of Norwalk. "She doesn't drive the streets because she's afraid of the police," Roman says. "She's afraid this could happen again."
"To say they were humiliated is an understatement," adds Peter M. Gwosdof of Anaheim, Helen O'Keefe's attorney. "Most of them had never even had a traffic ticket, let alone seen the inside of a jail."
Although none of the attorneys had any experience in civil rights litigation and all were sole practitioners, they decided to sue. Their complaint named 60 defendants, including the county, sheriff's deputies, the alleged victims and their parents, Corrado and Deputy DA Brain Wooldrige, who prosecuted the case. The parents' insurers settled before trial for their policy limits, but the government defendants were confident they were immune.
"The county kept telling us that they were going to beat us on a summary judgment and that we didn't have a case," says Madrid.
The lawyers, who were awarded about $2 million in attorneys fees, credit tactical decisions for their success. The first was waiving a jury. In child molestation cases, jurors "might think where there's smoke, there's fire," said Morton Minikes of Los Angeles, who represented Tim O'Keefe. Minikes says a judge is less likely to be swayed by the emotional nature of the charges.
Although Judge J. Kimball Walker quickly dismissed the claims for malicious prosecution, citing the nearly absolute immunity afforded prosecutors, he was open to many of the plaintiff's novel arguments. For example, he did not recognize Corrado's claim of immunity for the civil rights and false arrest causes of action. The plaintiffs argued that Corrado's conduct was outside his normal prosecutorial duties. "He acted more as a police officer than an advocate for the state by going out to the houses, interviewing the kids and directing traffic for the officers," says Minikes. "Therefore he was no longer protected by absolute immunity."
The U. S. Supreme Court during the upcoming term will consider the scope of prosecutorial immunity. One issue before the court is whether a prosecutor is immune for legal advice given to police officers during an investigation. Burns v. Reed, No. 89-1715.
Corrado, now in private practice in Fullerton, insists he never ordered the arrests of the suspects and denies threatening to destroy the O'Keefs' lives. "I'm not a bad guy. I never said that," he maintains. "They have it confused with another time when Pete Gwosdof and I yelled at each other." In his 1985 deposition, however, Corrado admitted, "I might have uttered it under my breath." Judge Walker called the threat "oppressive conduct" and ordered Corrado to pay $60,000 in punitive damages.
To impose liability for the arresting officers conduct the plaintiffs needed to show the arrests and been made without probable cause. Rather than discuss the statements of the children or the legal advice provided by Corrado, the plaintiffs' attorneys say they decided to stick with the criteria established by the leading case in the area. According to People v. Ramey (1976) 16 C3d 263, an officer can enter a home to make a warrantless arrest only under exigent circumstances. The plaintiff's case was based on proving there were no exigent circumstances.
They called all the sheriff's deputy defendants as adverse witnesses. "We took the teeth out of the lion's mouth by examining their witnesses first," says Madrid. "That's one thing they weren't expecting."
Each deputy was asked if he or she was familiar with Ramey, explains Madrid, and all said yes. "Since each deputy admitted no one was trying to flee and no evidence or property was in danger of being destroyed, we established that these guys knew the law but still didn't follow it," Madrid says. "That's how we got them on illegal entry."
Despite the verdict, county counsel Brazile says, "The judge doesn't know the law on probable cause, which is why I think we have a very good shot on the appeal." He is relying in part on the citizen-victim informant doctrine, which says that statements from an alleged victim that a crime has occurred provide probable cause for an arrest. "It may not be enough for a conviction, but it sure is sufficient for an arrest," Brazile says. In a recent molestation case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal said the uncorroborated testimony of a four-year-old is enough for a conviction. People v. Harlan, 90 Daily Journal DAR 8359.
Other cases indicate that the California judiciary is sympathetic to the prosecution in child molestation cases. The state Supreme Court recently upheld some child sex abuse convictions even though no specific dates were given for the offenses. People v. Jones, 90 Daily Journal DAR 7663. And the Second District Court of Appeal applied a prosecutor's absolute immunity to a social worker investigating alleged child molestation. Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles, 90 Daily Journal DAR 8303.
But Madrid, who has met with the lawyers handling the McMartin civil suits and others, remains optimistic. "Sure, immunity isn't easy to get around, but I see it as a hurdle that can be overcome," he says. "It's like the unpopular guy who wants to take out the prom queen and everybody says, 'Forget it'. He'll never find out if he doesn't ask."
|