After briefly appearing settled a month ago, Martha Harris’s civil suit against the state and the National Guard in the murder of her daughter three years ago, was reopened this morning by a Superior Court judge’s ruling.
At issue is whether the severely ailing 71-year-old Mrs. Harris, recently transferred from her hospital bed to a convalescent home, actually accepted a $400,000 settlement offer in a legally binding way. Her son, Gerald Bennett, emphatically says no. Barely able to speak, Mrs. Harris, lying nearby, nodded in agreement with her son, days after her former attorney, Robert McNeill Jr., had assured the judge he had secured his client’s approval.
Mr. Bennett said the original plan was to have a jury decide the family’s case in the homicide of his sister, JoAnn Crystal Harris at the Culver City National Guard Armory, which still is his intention.
And so the principals found themselves back in downtown court where Judge Kevin C. Brazile granted the state’s ex parte application to unseal records from an Oct. 4 hearing where Mr. McNeill, on behalf of Mrs. Harris, agreed, “on the record,” to accept the state’s offer.
“Because it was sealed, we needed to request the judge to unseal it so that the court reporter can give us a complete and accurate transcript of what happened” in the private dialogue between Mr. McNeill and the judge, said Dep. Atty. Gen. David Adida. “To the best of my recollection, he represented to the court he had the authority to approve the terms.”
Did She or Didn’t She?
According to the family, though, Mr. McNeill had the state’s offer in his pocket at a morning hearing on Oct. 4, when he telephoned family members to meet him in Mrs. Harris’s hospital room, but was there and gone by the appointed hour. At an afternoon court hearing, Mr. McNeill assured Judge Brazile his client approved of the $400,000 deal, which would amount to considerably less by the time a check reached family hands.
For his part, Mr. Adida told the newspaper: “I am not sure what happened between the first and the last hearing because I was not in communication with Mr. McNeill. All I know is that around 12:30 (on Oct. 4) we received emails from several attorneys (from Mr. McNeill’s firm) that the plaintiff had, in fact, agreed to the terms of the settlement agreement we were proposing.”
“Once we get the transcript,” said Mr. Adida, his next step will be “to try to compel the plaintiff to accept the agreement.
“If (Mrs. Harris) has agreed to it, and I have absolutely no reason to doubt Mr. McNeill when he came to the court and said ‘I have the authority from Mrs. Harris to agree to the settlement,’” her concurrence is final, Mr. Adida said.
“If she gave express authorization to her attorney to accept it, the fact she has had a change of mind for any reason whatsoever — whether her son has impressed on her ‘this may not be adequate’ or ‘this is not what we were looking for’ — is of no importance.
“Once she has agreed to it and her attorney has represented in court she has agreed to it, that is it.
“This is not like buying a used car. You don’t have three days to make up your mind.”
A Deal Is a Deal?
Mr. Adida said that after he receives the transcript, around Thanksgiving, he will file a motion for a hearing where he hopes to convince the judge to order enforcement of the settlement terms.
Mario Vega, Mrs. Harris’s new attorney, gave a different perspective.
“This morning was an important first step regarding getting this case back on track,” he said. “My client and I are very eager to have this case tried by a Los Angeles jury.”
Mr. Vega said that “a few weeks ago,” he, too, requested a copy of the transcript of the Oct. 4 hearing.
Putting the day’s event in context, he labeled Judge Brazile’s ruling merely “a procedural step that both sides needed in order to go forward with their respective positions.”
When the parties return to Judge Brazile’s courtroom, perhaps in early January, Mr. Vega will contend there never was an agreement. “Our position will be that under the law, under the California Civil Code procedure, for a settlement to be binding, has to be assented to either verbally in court by the party or in writing.
“Since Ms. Harris was neither present in court nor signed any documents, the settlement cannot be binding.”
Mr. Vega said he does not believe Mrs. Harris told Mr. McNeill she approved of the arrangement.
When they return to court, Mr. Vega is optimistic that he has “a good chance” of winning a trial by jury.
