WASHINGTON, D.C. - On February 4, 1999, the National Association of
Police Organizations (NAPO), submitted an amicus curiae (or friend-of-the court)
legal brief with the California Court of Appeal in support of a Los Angeles police officer
in the case of Richard Womack v. Susanne Greene, No. 116-412 (Division 2). In
California, NAPO represents the Los Angeles Police Protective League (to which the
plaintiff belongs), approximately 660 police officer associations through their membership
in the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)--a member of NAPO, as
well as six other law enforcement officer associations, altogether for a total of
approximately 45,400 individual active and retired officers, in addition to over 4,000
police unions and associations elsewhere in the Nation.
This brief was filed in support of Detective Richard Womack, to uphold the Los Angeles
Superior Court's jury verdict and decision that defendant and defense counsel Susanne
Greene's false accusations in a courthouse hallway, accusing Detective Womack of
"sexually molesting" and "doing drugs" with Cassandra Olsen, a witness
in the drug trial of Gary Dale Steward, were defamatory and harmed the plaintiff's
reputation and career and not protected by California's litigation privilege.
Robert T. Scully, NAPO's executive director said, "As a result of unfounded
accusations of criminal conduct, officers who once enjoyed the respect, confidence and
esteem of the community and the police department, are subjected to public contempt and
ridicule and suffer humiliation, shame, embarrassment and mental pain. It is crucial that
the courts provide a forum so that wrongfully-accused police officers can clear their
names and obtain damages for injury to their reputation and careers."
Scully continued, "In this case, a Los Angeles narcotics detective was seriously
harmed by these accusations. His career went into a tailspin, since he both had to defend
against the charges and could not investigate narcotics cases, for fear of having defense
counsel attack him, resulting in damage to the prosecution of other cases. His health also
suffered. Consequently, the City of Los Angeles effectively lost the experience and
expertise of a police officer who can no longer conduct major investigations, at a cost to
criminal enforcement and to the budget of the city. Harm done to this officer fully
justifies both general and punitive damages that the jury rightly imposed in this
case."
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Richard Womack is a police detective with the Los Angeles Police Department. On January
31, 1995, he was present in the Criminal Courts Building, to testify as a witness in a
pretrial hearing in connection with a motion to suppress in the case of People v. Gary
Dale Steward, resulting from Womack's arrest of Gary Dale Steward for the sale of
methamphetamine. Present with Womack were Deputy District Attorney Mary Ganahl, Cassandra
Olsen, Detective Windham, and Detective Willis. Defendant Susanne Greene acted as
Steward's attorney.
Just before the noon recess in the hearing, a conversation occurred between attorney
Greene and the California Superior Court judge, in which Greene indicated that Cassandra
Olsen, a witness for the prosecution, might exculpate Steward if defense counsel were
afforded an opportunity to interview her. The judge suggested that he would not or could
not order Ms. Olsen back into the courtroom, but if Greene was able to contact her and
persuade her to return, Olsen could be put back on the stand.
Defendant Greene attempted to contact Ms. Olsen and found her in the hallway, leaving with
the prosecutor and Womack. Womack was standing near the elevators in the public hallway on
the thirteenth floor. The area around the elevators was packed with people because of the
noon hour, including numerous persons wearing juror identification tags. Detective Womack,
Deputy District Attorney Ganahl, Detective Windham, and Detective Willis were escorting
Ms. Olsen to the District Attorney's office on the eighteenth floor, where she was to be
placed into the witness protection program. Greene engaged Ganahl in conversation in an
attempt to obtain Ganahl's consent to speak to Olsen. Defense attorney Greene's effort was
unsuccessful, and Olsen stepped into the courthouse elevator along with the prosecutor and
Womack. As Olsen stepped into the elevator, Greene, in apparent frustration over not being
permitted to speak to Ms. Olsen, shouted in the general direction of the elevator,
"You, Womack, sexually molested her and did drugs with her." This statement had
no connection to the conversation that the prosecutor had just completed with Greene.
Greene hurled the accusations at Womack loudly enough for everyone in the area of the
elevators to hear. Greene's statements were heard not only by Womack's supervisors and the
two detectives accompanying him, but also by numerous members of the general public
(estimated, during the trial in this case to have been between 10 to 50 persons). Many of
those present stared at Womack upon hearing Greene's accusation.
These two accusations were false, and Greene knew that they were false, because only
several weeks before Ms. Olsen told Greene that there was no truth to the statement that
Womack had molested or used drugs with Olsen. Greene had never even mentioned this claim
in court, on or off the record. The deputy district attorney had never heard of such an
accusation from Greene or from anyone else.
Womack's supervisors, like all LAPD officers, are under a nondiscretionary duty to
initiate a "personnel complaint" investigation upon becoming aware of
allegations of misconduct from any source. Accordingly, after Greene accused Womack of
sexual molestation and participation in drug use, an LAPD investigation was initiated.
As a result of these accusations, Detective Womack was publicly embarrassed, and his
position within the Los Angeles Police Department was compromised by the internal affairs
investigation that followed. It took well over a year for Womack to be completely
vindicated of the charge. And, even with total vindication, the permanent record of the
personnel complaint has permanently impaired Womack's effectiveness in his career and his
health.
There is some question as to whether Womack will ever be able to fully overcome the
reference to this investigation in his personnel record. This impairs his effectiveness as
a witness in court proceedings, and creates a drawback to any criminal prosecutions in
which he would need to serve as a law enforcement witness. As a result and with great
frustration, Womack confines himself to doing essentially clerical work, although he is
technically assigned as a narcotics detective. In addition, as a result of Defendant
Greene's false accusations, Womack suffered a protracted period of emotional distress,
consisting of among other things, anguish, shame, shock, bitterness, anger and worry.
Womack sued Greene for defamation. On July, 1, 1997, after a nearly two week trial in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, the jury returned an eleven-to-one verdict in favor of
Womack and awarded him $300,000 in damages, including $50,000 in punitive damages, against
attorney Greene. The judge rejected the Defendant's effort to overturn that verdict, but
did reduce the compensatory damages by $100,000. Susanne Greene has appealed that verdict.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT IN NAPO'S AMICUS BRIEF
Amicus curiae National Association of Police Organizations urged the California Court of
Appeal to uphold the Superior Court of California's jury verdict and court decision,
rejecting Defendant Greene's attempt to invoke the litigation privilege to bar Womack's
defamation suit, all for the following reasons:
First, law enforcement officers must be able to recover damages for
defamatory statements which seriously injure their reputations for honesty and integrity
and, thus, harm their ability to effectively perform their duties as officers, with
serious ramifications for effective law enforcement.
Second, the public policy behind California's litigation privilege,
namely ensuring that attorneys have the freedom to secure justice for their clients, is
not served by denying Womack judicial relief for Greene's slanderous statements made in a
public hallway. The privilege is not and should never be a license for extra-judicial
defamation.
Third, Defendant Greene's defamatory statement is not privileged because
it (1) occurred outside of the courtroom and, thus, outside the supervisory power and
control of the presiding judge; (2) was not uttered in connection with, nor was an
integral part of, the Steward case; (3) was irrelevant and immaterial to the subject
matter of the case, Gary Dale Steward's guilt or innocence on drug charges; and (4) was an
unnecessary communication to numerous persons wholly unconnected with the Steward case.
Fourth, even if the litigation privilege were to apply in the present
case, which we believe it does not, Greene's false accusations fall with California's
Civil Code § 47.5's exception to the litigation privilege and, thus, are not
protected. (Section §47.5 states: "[Notwithstanding the litigation privilege], a
peace officer may bring an action for defamation against an individual who has filed a
complaint with that officer's employing agency alleging misconduct or criminal conduct,
... if that complaint is false, the complaint was made with knowledge that it was false
and that it was made with spite, hatred, or ill will…")
The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) is a coalition of police
unions and associations from across the United States that serves in Washington, DC to
advance the interests of America's law enforcement officers through legislative and legal
advocacy, political action and education. Founded in 1978, NAPO now represents more than
4,000 police unions and associations, 250,000 sworn law enforcement officers, 3,000
retired officers and more than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to fair and
effective crime control and law enforcement.
NOTE TO READER: FOR A COPY OF THE BRIEF, CALL JODY COUSER AT THE NAPO OFFICE (202)
842-3560.
|
