Judge is ‘more inclined to grant delay’
SM COURTHOUSE — Victims of the horrific Farmers Market crash nearly three years ago will most likely have to keep their civil lawsuits against City Hall and others on hold until the man responsible for the accident is tried in a criminal court.
Attorneys representing City Hall argued Monday in a Santa Monica courtroom for a delay in the civil proceedings because they have been unable to prepare an adequate defense. The man at the center of the case, Russell Weller, now 89 years old, has been unwilling to participate in a deposition out of fear that his statements would be used against him in a criminal trial, set to begin July 10, attorneys for City Hall said.
City Hall attorneys are requesting that the civil trials be postponed until 60 days after the criminal trial has concluded so as to give them enough time to prepare.
“Mr. Weller’s physical and mental health at the time of the accident is crucial to our defense in this case, and without an opportunity to interview Mr. Weller at length and to interview his doctors and do a follow up, we would be unable to present the best case possible for our clients,” said Dana Alden Fox, an attorney with Lynberg & Watkins, who was hired by City Hall.
Judge Valerie Baker said she will hold off on a decision of whether to proceed with the civil cases while defense lawyers seek immunity for Weller. If the District Attorney’s Office grants immunity, prosecutors would be barred from using Weller’s statements in the criminal trial.
Weller, who has pleaded not guilty to 10 felony counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, apparently lost control of his car after he rear-ended a Mercedes Benz at the intersection of Fourth Street and Arizona Avenue. Police say he hit the accelerator instead of the brake and traveled 995 feet through the market at speeds of up to 60 mph, hurling pedestrians into the air before stopping, a California Highway Patrol report said.
The 10 people killed ranged in age from 7 months to 78 years old.
The 36 civil lawsuits that have been filed against Weller, City Hall and other agencies believed to be liable, had been put on hold until criminal proceedings were finalized.
But Judge Valerie Baker ruled last fall that six of those cases must go forward because some of the plaintiffs — all of whom are victims of the July 16, 2003 accident — are aging or their health is deteriorating.
On March 29, Baker ordered those cases to go to trial July 10, the same day the criminal trial is scheduled to begin.
In response, attorneys representing City Hall filed a motion requesting that the civil trial be delayed until 60 days after the completion of the criminal trial so they can gather statements from Weller. If granted, the civil trial date would tentatively be set for Sept. 5.
Lawyers for the victims are fighting the motion to delay the trial on grounds that defense attorneys had plenty of time to prepare for the case and still have an option of obtaining a deposition from Weller. That includes asking the District Attorney’s office to grant Weller immunity.
Fox said he and the other members of the defense team will file a request for immunity, but he said the chances of prosecutors granting it are slim to none.
“Even if they did grant us immunity, that would leave us with very little time to conduct the deposition, follow-up interviews and possible a medical exam,” Fox said.
The victims’ attorneys said their clients have a right to a have their cases heard before the court in a timely fashion. There is a concern that Weller may die before the trial begins, denying the victims a chance to learn the truth about the accident, which has left many with permanent physical disabilities and deep emotional scars.
“Justice delayed is justice denied,” attorney Steve Archer told Judge Baker during a status hearing Monday.
Representing 63 plaintiffs, Archer was one of more than a dozen lawyers who filled the courtroom, with some having to take a seat in the jury box because of space issues. Others had to argue from seats in the general audience.
Baker said she will continue to consider arguments for and against a July 10 trial date and should have a final answer by May 22, she said. At that time, lawyers also will discuss the possibilities for mediation and settlement negotiations.
“There are two very strong interests here that I must balance,” Baker said. “On one hand, I do not want the defense to go without a deposition, but on the other, the plaintiffs are entitled to a fair and timely resolution. I’m more inclined to grant the delay … (but) the defense must exhaust all options first.”
One of the plaintiffs has already died while waiting for the civil and criminal cases to proceed, thus making the pain and suffering clam null and void for her estate.
“I know I cam make it (to a later court date),” said attorney Joyce Mendlin, who is representing two clients in the case, one of whom has lung cancer and a pacemaker, and may not be around long enough to testify. “But I’m not sure my client can.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 11, 2006. Read the original PDF.