Los Angeles — A California jury awarded over $1 million in damages to Stephen Siefke on Tuesday, ruling that Watsonville City Councilman Jimmy Dutra was liable for sexual battery and lewd acts on Siefke when he was a minor. The civil court decision concluded that Dutra caused Siefke considerable emotional and mental distress following the incident, which took place nearly two decades ago.
The case, adjudicated in Los Angeles, centered on allegations from an incident in 2005, when Siefke was 12 years old. According to Siefke, the abuse occurred during a family visit to Los Angeles, where they were staying with Dutra while planning to visit Disneyland. Siefke testified that Dutra molested him one night when he was asleep on the couch.
Following roughly three days of deliberation after a weeklong trial, the jury resolved on the compensatory damages to account for both past and future emotional impact and economic losses incurred by Siefke but did not find sufficient evidence of malice to award punitive damages. The decision was not unanimous, with one juror dissenting.
The awarded damages included $383,000 for future economic losses, $500,000 for past non-economic loss such as emotional and mental suffering, and $250,000 for future non-economic loss, culminating in a total of $1,133,000.
Siefke expressed that the verdict provided him crucial validation and relief, signaling a step forward for survivors of similar incidents. “This victory is a testament to the bravery of all survivors who step forward to share their stories,” Siefke said in a statement, emphasizing the ordeal he endured and the broader implications of his fight for justice.
Although no criminal charges were filed against Dutra, the lawsuit’s timing coincided potentially influentially with Dutra’s political campaign, as he was a candidate in the 2022 primary election for Santa Cruz County Supervisor at the time. Siefke, currently residing in Santa Cruz County, mentioned that seeing Dutra’s campaign material and learning about his roles, including teaching in a middle school, compelled him to initiate the lawsuit to potentially safeguard others.
In response to the verdict, Dutra, who was not present in court for the reading, has steadfastly denied all allegations, attributing them to a malicious intent aimed at tarnishing his reputation and linked to a dispute concerning his late father’s estate. He indicated plans to pursue an appeal, asserting that the claims against him were unfounded and motivated by vengeance and financial gain.
Dutra’s attorney, after the verdict, hinted at exploring grounds for an appeal potentially based on procedural or judicial missteps during the trial, although Siefke’s attorney, Dana Scruggs, sees little merit for an appeal given the jury’s findings.
The case not only underscores the long-lasting impact of alleged abuse on victims but also highlights the complex interplay of personal trauma and public accountability, especially when the accused holds a position of authority or public trust. As the legal proceedings continue, the community and constituents are left to reconcile the jury’s findings with the ongoing political and legal narratives unfolding. With Dutra seeking appellate relief, the final word on this poignant legal battle remains pending.