Two former Fullerton police officers were found bot guilty in the beating death of Kelly Thomas, but Thomas's family is pushing for federal charges against the men. Then, two decades after the Northridge earthquake, what's the best way to retrofit our homes? Next, is concierge medicine pushing the nation's doctor shortage over the brink? Later, the latest on Affordable Care Act enrollment numbers and the Congressional budget.
DA Tony Rackauckas reacts to not guilty verdict in Kelly Thomas case
Two former Fullerton police officers were found not guilty of beating to death a mentally ill, homeless man, a jury found on Monday in Orange County Superior Court.
The verdicts were read as people on both sides of the courtroom reacted with gasps and sobs. Jurors found Manuel Ramos, 39, and Jay Cicinelli, 41, not guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Kelly Thomas, who died unconscious in a hospital five days after he was involved in a violent altercation with officers outside a Fullerton transit station on July 5, 2011.
Jurors also found Ramos not guilty of second-degree murder and acquitted Cicinelli of an additional count of using excessive force. The jury deliberated for eight hours after a lengthy trial.
While excessive-force charges against police rarely result in guilty verdicts, some analysts are dismayed at the short span of jury deliberations. There are also questions about District Attorney Rackaukas' handling of the case and why a more experienced litigator — or one who does not have a close working relationship with police — didn't prosecute the case.
With files from Ed Joyce and the Associated Press.
Interview Highlights:
Do you think you got an especially tough jury or was this by nature a tough case to win?
"I think that we always knew that it would be a tough case. So it was one where there was never any question about that particular aspect of it. But I thought that these two police officers crossed the line to the extent that they should be prosecuted and convicted, but I never had any illusions about the difficulty in trying the case and convincing a jury."
When the jury came back yesterday did you know at that point that you lost?
"You never know until you get a result, but I did think that it was a little bit early for a conviction."
Would it have been better to assign the strongest Deputy DA to prosecute the case?
"I think it was the right decision that I made. First of all I don't admit that I was unable to handle the case, I think we put the case on pretty well. I had a lot of support and I think overall the evidence that we needed to have come in front of the jury did and I think all of the considerations were properly presented to them and they made their decision. Certainly we have people in the office with a lot of experience and that are very good trial attorneys, so I guess somebody else can second guess that, since it was my decision and it was a hard case and one where we were asking for the jury to convict two officers who were on-duty at the time, that I had to be the one asking for that verdict."
Have you or anyone in your office interviewed jurors to ask about the decision?
"No we haven't done that at this point. Somewhere down the road we'll look into trying to ferret out those issues a bit better. I think that overall, it's a hard matter. You have the basic questions of whether or not these police officers abused their authority and to what extent was Kelly Thomas's behavior something that the jurors would think was inappropriate. The basic questions I think were the telling questions."
Was it a mistake to take the case to a jury?
"First, I certainly don't think that it was a mistake to bring the case. I reviewed the case and it was clear to me that there were violations of law and that these police officers should be held accountable, and that this matter had to be decided by a jury. We did that and it was decided by a jury. Whether or not another jury would do something different, I can't speculate about that. I think that we put our case on, I think we did a good job and the jurors got the facts and the evidence and the law all very clearly and made their decision, so we had our day in court. If I had it to do over again I would not hesitate to do it again."
Were you able to refute the defense's argument that Thomas had a weakened heart?
"We could and we did. I don't think that the case was determined on the basis of the cause of death. You can watch the video and you can see what the cause of death was, so to say that he had a weakened heart and died too easily, that's just not the case. That violates common sense to begin with, but we also had a very expert and world renowned cardiologist testify that he looked at the heart on a CAT scan and that there was nothing weak about it, I don't think that issue carried the day. I think that the more important aspect of bringing those defense witnesses to testify about Kelly's heart condition was to have the jury consider evidence of his prior use of methamphetamine."
Why didn't the video evidence of the beating convince jurors of your defense argument?
"I think that was the important point, when he put those gloves on and said those things. I think that at that point there was still some back and forth between Officer Ramos and Kelly Thomas, and I can only speculate...I don't think there's any way to look at that and say well, this is lawful police conduct. I think they had to believe that even with that unlawful conduct that officer Ramos was still within his authority to continue to give orders and make demands on Kelly Thomas."
How did you attempt to refute the idea that Thomas posed a risk to the officers?
"He never did pose any risk to the officers at the scene and I think that's very clear. You can see from the behavior of Kelly Thomas and the officers that he did not in any way pose a risk to the officers. They didn't treat him as a risk, Officer Ramos even turned his back on him one time or another, and was very casual about the whole thing. So it was not that Kelly Thomas presented a risk to the officers."
How do you think the jury determined the officers were working within policy?
"I just don't think that the jury was willing to send these two officers to prison for the conduct that resulted in the death of Kelly Thomas. I think we showed them the officer's conduct very clearly, and I think that we showed them the law very clearly, and that they spoke and they weren't convinced and they acquitted the defendants."
Do you think there's a potential federal civil rights case here?
"I would leave that entirely up to them. They are privy to the case in the sense that we've provided them with files originally and we've kept them up on that. Certainly we will continue to cooperate in every way possible. Their considerations are different than ours, in other words they don't have to show murder or involuntary manslaughter, they have a different standard...It's a possibility, they'll have to look at all of the evidence and see what they think."
Will this experience make you reluctant to take on future excessive force cases?
"I look at each case independently and individually, if we see a case that is an excessive force, I will look at the case and if it merits prosecution, we'll prosecute it."
Guests:
Tony Rackauckas, Orange County District Attorney
Ed Joyce, KPCC Orange County Reporter
Jerod Gunsberg, Criminal Defense Attorney, The Law Offices of Jerod Gunsberg in Beverly Hills
Northridge Earthquake Anniversary: What you need to know about retrofitting your home
This is one in a weeklong series of stories on KPCC leading up to Friday's 20th anniversary of the devastating 1994 Northridge Earthquake. The series will take a look at the quake's history, its effects and its legacy on the people of Southern California. You can view more stories on our Northridge Anniversary page. Let us know what you think on our Facebook page, on and in the comments below.
The Northridge earthquake 20 years ago has taught us that buildings that have been seismically retrofitted save lives.
The quake caused $20 billion in destruction, much of it to buildings, and 125,000 people were rendered at least temporarily homeless in part because of damaged homes. It was immediately apparent that buildings that were retrofitted withstood the quake much better than those that weren't.
RELATED: The Northridge Earthquake 20 years later
Since the quake, cities including Los Angeles have encouraged homeowners to voluntarily retrofit their residences, and it's been estimated that one in 10 homes in Los Angeles county need the procedure.
How could homeowners find a trustworthy retrofitting contractor? What are the costs? Should all homeowners have their homes inspected?
Guests:
Sanden Totten, KPCC’s Science Reporter
Dave Tourjé, President of Alpha Structural, Inc., an earthquake retrofitting and foundation repair contractor based in Eagle Rock
‘Check before you burn' initiative warns against wood-fires on smoggy Southland days
At this time of year, air pollution can rise to unhealthy levels, especially when there are stagnant weather conditions.
To help keep pollution down, the South Coast Air Quality agency has started mandatory no-burn alerts. “Wood smoke from fireplaces contributes to regional particulate pollution, which is a serious public health threat,” said the agency’s lead Barry Wallerstein.
They’ve created a map to make clear which regions have “no burn” alerts from day to day.
Anyone with asthma or other respiratory illnesses knows already that high particulate levels can make breathing painful and difficult. How much of a problem are wood fires? How will this message reach everyone with a wood-burning fireplace?
Guest:
Philip Fine, Ph.D., Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District
Doctor 'subscriptions' on the rise as more turn to concierge medicine
Paying extra money to a doctor in exchange for better care and more access is a growing trend in healthcare. This method of care, often called 'concierge medicine', means patients typically pay an annual subscription fee of hundreds or thousands of dollars to the doctor of their choice. That buys them regular direct access to their doctor without having to deal with insurance companies.
The method is appealing to doctors who often complain about spending more time doing paperwork than seeing patients. It allows them to limit the number of patients that come through their office and don't have to deal with the hassles that come with insurance billing. Patients report having longer appointment times and direct contact with their doctors by phone and email.
It may have benefits to both patient and doctor but the practice is not cheap. And people often have to carry insurance anyway in case of a catastrophic illness or an accident that lands them in the hospital.
Critics argue that if more doctors flock to concierge medicine there will be even fewer primary care doctors left to handle the millions of patients who can't afford this type of treatment. Is concierge medicine pushing the nation's doctor shortage over the brink? As the practice gets more affordable, is this a way for the uninsured to still get care? Is direct a la carte pricing a better way to bill patients for medical care?
Guests:
Dylan Roby, Assistant professor of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA School of Public Health
Dr. Pam Brar, internist with a concierge private practice in La Jolla
Are enough ‘Young Invincibles’ signing up for health coverage?
Young healthy Americans are not flocking to enroll in the Affordable Care Act in numbers that the White House had hoped to see.
New enrollment figures out this week show that 24 percent of those buying coverage are young adults in the prime age group between 18 and 34. That's the age range that the White House says needs to enroll in large numbers in order to balance the cost of coverage among older, sicker Americans.
The figure are a big improvement over the last two enrollment announcements but it's still short of the roughly 2 in 5 Americans that analysts have said are required to prevent health plans' premiums from going up.
One-third of the 2.2 million people who have enrolled so far are 55 to 64 years old. Members of this group are important for keeping insurance costs down, since they are typically healthier.
Why aren’t younger Americans enrolling in masses? Does allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plan until 26 affect enrollment? How can the marketplace become more attractive to the young enrollees? What effect will the lack of young enrollees have in the long term?
Guests:
Dylan Roby, Assistant professor of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA School of Public Health
Yevgeniy Feyman, fellow at the Manhattan Institute
$1.1 trillion bipartisan spending bill unveiled
Congressional negotiators released a bipartisan $1.1 trillion spending bill on Monday night that would keep the government running until October and finally bury last year’s budget battles that spurred a 16-day government shutdown.
The 1,582-page bill details the budget deal passed by Congress in December and is full of trade-offs between Republicans and Democrats.
It would increase funding for the Head Start program by $1 billion, largely meet the Pentagon’s request for funds to be used in the construction of air craft carriers and Joint Strike Fighters and slash budgets for both the Internal Revenue Service and Environmental Protection Agency.
Under the measure, the Obama administration would get most of the money it wanted to pay for implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It also offers relief to many of the federal workers impacted by sequestration cuts.
The Republican-led House will vote on the spending bill Wednesday--and despite some pushback from Tea Partiers, it's expected to pass. What do you think of the measure? Are you pleased to see Congress forging compromise?
Guest:
Seung Min Kim, Congressional Reporter for POLITICO