2nd Mistrial Is Declared in City Council Financial Liability Case : Court: Trial is delayed in suit that alleges the members should personally pay damages for actions of police who shot four robbers after a holdup in Sunland.

In a surprise development, a Los Angeles federal judge Wednesday declared a second mistrial in a case that could lead to a ruling holding Los Angeles City Council members financially liable, as individuals, for police brutality.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge J. Spencer Letts does not end the case, but in effect delays the trial until Dec. 6.

A mistrial had previously been declared in the case last December because Stephen Yagman, an attorney for the plaintiff, described the killing of a robber by officers from the LAPD’s Special Investigations Section as “murder” during his closing arguments.

The suit brought by Yagman alleges, among other things, that council members should be forced to pay damages out of their own pockets for the actions of special investigations officers who shot four robbers after a holdup at a McDonald’s restaurant in Sunland on Feb. 12, 1990. Three were killed and one wounded.

The trial, which was to be split into two phases, began Tuesday in U.S. District Court. In the first phase, a jury was to determine whether to award compensatory damages to 4-year-old Johanna Trevino, whose father was one of the slain robbers. Johanna was born seven days after her father, Javier Trevino, was killed.

After that, the same jury was to hear a second phase of the trial, roughly a month later, to determine whether council members can be held personally liable for damages. Yagman has argued that when the council members voted to have the city pay punitive damages assessed against the police officers in a previous trial, they condoned the officers’ conduct.

The jury was also supposed to decide whether LAPD officers habitually use excessive force and whether the city and council members should share the blame, on the grounds that the council has routinely voted to pay damages assessed against police officers by juries in brutality trials. Yagman said city records show that council members voted to pay the damages in 37 of 39 such cases.

But Wednesday’s proceedings headed toward a mistrial after Letts ruled that Yagman could not present testimony from several witnesses about the economic loss the girl may have suffered as a result of her father’s death. The judge ruled that Yagman lacked concrete proof of how much the girl’s father would have made if he had lived.

Yagman said the psychiatrist he wanted to call to testify on the emotional distress the child has suffered as the result of her father’s death was out of town until Monday, which would not have meshed with the jury’s schedule.

As a result, Letts subsequently declared a mistrial because of Yagman’s inability to proceed with his case, despite protests by the Los Angeles city attorney’s office, which is defending the city. Don Vincent, supervising deputy city attorney, asked Letts to decide the case himself, but the judge declined.

“Whenever you come out of a case without a loss it has to be a good day,” Vincent said in an interview. “But in this case it’s not a particularly warm feeling.”

Yagman described the decision as fair and said the only effect it will have is that a new jury will be selected to hear the entire case at once, dealing with the issues in what had been phase one and phase two, unless a settlement is reached in the meantime.

In effect, “nothing happened here,” he said.

*

Yagman has offered to drop the suit if the city agrees to set up an annuity for the child, an offer which city officials say would cost $1 million.

Los Angeles City Atty. James Hahn told reporters at City Hall Wednesday that although he believes the case should have been dismissed, “we will never close the door on settlement.”

The Los Angeles city attorney’s office has tried to get the suit dismissed, citing the common legal doctrine that lawmakers cannot be sued personally for votes they cast as part of their official duties.

Letts rejected the city’s position, a decision that was upheld by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled unanimously that the decision to pay the damages assessed against the police officers was an administrative, not a legislative, act.

The city appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused this month to hear the case, setting the stage for this week’s trial.

In the incident that resulted in the lawsuits, 19 special investigations members followed the four men suspected in a string of restaurant robberies from Venice to Sunland and watched as they broke into the closed McDonald’s about 1 a.m., and robbed a lone employee inside.

After the robbers got into their car, the officers moved in and later testified they fired 35 rounds from shotguns and handguns when the robbers pointed weapons at them, which were later determined to be unloaded pellet guns.

Relatives of the robbers sued former Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates and nine officers shortly after the shooting, contending that the police shot the men without provocation and that Gates was responsible for the way the department was run.

A jury found in favor of the families in March, 1992, and assessed more than $44,000 in punitive damages against Gates and the officers. Yagman, who had represented the families, subsequently filed an identical lawsuit on behalf of Trevino asking for unspecified damages against the city, the council members and police.

*

The girl, who Yagman said had traveled from Vera Cruz, Mexico, for the trial, was not present in court Wednesday.

The attorney said he believes it is in the public’s best interest that the case go to trial and he hopes it will make council members think twice before they vote to pay punitive damages for police officers.

“You’ve got a bunch of politicians,” Yagman said. “No one has ever gotten close to them and all of a sudden the madman from Venice--that’s me--shows up at the door.”