Brooks gets shot at lower penalty

Judge says Oakland councilwoman lied under oath, but fines were excessive

Oakland City Councilwoman Desley Brooks repeatedly lied under oath and “exhibited no true remorse for her callous behavior” during a trial over whether she assaulted former Black Panther leader Elaine Brown in a restaurant in 2015, an Alameda County Superior Court judge said.

But Judge Paul Herbert, in his ruling Thursday, said the jury that had ordered the city to pay Brown some $3.75 million “allowed their feelings of anger and disbelief towards Ms. Brooks to unduly influence their determination of the damage amounts.” He called the figure “excessive.”

Herbert’s order was in response to a motion from Brooks and the city requesting a new trial. He denied that motion on the condition that Brown accept a substantially smaller award: $1.2 million.

The punitive damages that Brooks herself had been ordered to pay — $550,000 — would also be lowered to $75,000 if Brown accepts the revised judgment rather than take her chances at a second trial.

“I’m happy that he’s reduced the damages,” said Brooks’ attorney, Dan Siegel. “I feel that it’s a step in the right direction. The ball is in Ms. Brown’s court at this point.”

Attorneys for Brown did not immediately comment on whether they would agree to the lower award or seek a new trial. The judge gave them until May 8 to decide.

“Having witnessed Ms. Brooks’ testimony, the court agrees with the jury’s conclusion that Ms. Brooks testified falsely many times under oath about the key events pertinent to determining whether Ms. Brooks had any reasonable basis whatsoever to claim lawful self-defense,” Herbert wrote. “The jury could properly conclude that by testifying falsely about the events under oath, Ms. Brooks was not truly re-

morseful for her disgraceful conduct.”

Herbert said Brooks’ statements from the witness stand were “fundamentally in conflict” with the testimony of all other witnesses to the altercation — including friends of Brooks, the judge noted — who never saw Brown “poke” or touch Brooks leading up to the attack, as Brooks had claimed.

The initial amount in punitive damages was, Herbert wrote, “intended to send a message to Defendant Brooks that the jury disbelieved her version of the events, and that her conduct in escalating the altercation from a heated verbal exchange with Ms. Brown to a physical one, and then lying about the events under oath, was reprehensible and should be punished severely.”

“Unfortunately,” he continued, “the jury allowed their desire to punish Ms. Brooks to overcome their obligation to follow the court’s instruction that any award must be based on the evidence of Ms. Brooks’ financial condition and not exceed Ms. Brooks’ ability to pay the award.”

Despite his contention that the monetary awards should be lowered, Herbert’s finding that Brooks lied under oath is the latest in a series of troubles for the councilwoman, who is up for re-election this November against at least four challengers. The judge did not say in his 23-page ruling whether Brooks would face perjury charges or other consequences.

Siegel said he couldn’t comment on the false statements issue because he wasn’t in court during Brooks’ testimony. He had assisted in some of the pre-trial depositions and has represented Brooks since the trial concluded.

Mayor Libby Schaaf this month said Brooks had engaged in “unethical” and “abusive” behavior, infecting the civility of City Hall and damaging Oakland’s reputation. That denunciation came after Councilwoman Annie Campbell Washington, a friend and ally of Schaaf, announced she was retiring because of what she called an element of toxicity and corruption on the council, though she did not directly name Brooks as the source.

Brooks has yet to publicly respond to the criticism.