Jury rules against Jimmy Dutra in civil sex-abuse lawsuit

A jury ruled against Watsonville City Councilmember Jimmy Dutra in a civil sex-abuse lawsuit on Tuesday that alleged he molested now-31-year-old Stephen Siefke during the summer of 2005 when he was 12 and Dutra was 30. He is ordered to pay $1,133,000 to Siefke to cover economic and non-economic costs associated with the incident.

Siefke initially sought over $10 million to cover “past and future economic and non-economic damages.” The jury deliberated for about three hours on Friday and another seven on Monday before returning its verdict just before noon on Tuesday.

DUTRA TRIAL: Find Lookout’s previous coverage here

Jurors found that Dutra did “commit sexual battery,” “did annoy or molest a child,” “did engage in lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under 14,” and that his conduct was “a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff Stephen Siefke.” However, they also found that he “did not commit the crime with malice or oppression.”

Dutra is in the middle of a reelection campaign for Watsonville City Council, and testimony throughout the week touched on Watsonville politics and city government officials. The son of a former Watsonville city manager, Damacio Montoya, testified that Dutra groped him at a city event in 2018, an incident witnessed by the daughter of Dutra’s opponent this November. And a fellow member of the city council, Casey Clark, testified that he and Dutra were previously in a brief romantic relationship in which Dutra was “mentally and psychologically” abusive. He also said Dutra’s behavior worsened when he drank.

Following the verdict, a tearful Siefke, along with his friends and family, embraced his attorney, Dana Scruggs. 

Dutra did not appear in court, but his attorney, Christopher Panetta, said that they were “disappointed” in the verdict, and will look into options for appealing it. “Jimmy Dutra did not do this,” he said.

Scruggs said that while Dutra has the right, he does not think there would be grounds for a successful appeal.

“I’m really relieved for Stephen Siekfe that the jury heard his story and found that it was the truth,” he said. “For Stephen, it’s been a tough two years. I think you’ve gathered from the trial that he’s not somebody who’s seeking this kind of attention.”

Dutra did not immediately respond to Lookout’s request for comment on whether he is going to continue his reelection campaign in the wake of the verdict or resign from the Watsonville City Council. However, in a statement following the verdict, he again denied the incident ever happened, and reiterated that he believes the case is about “revenge and money.” He said the entire case goes back to a bitter dispute over his father’s estate.

“Reaching the threshold in a civil suit is extremely low. In this case, an allegation and hearsay was enough,” he said, stating that the jury did rule in his favor regarding the malice and oppression part of the verdict. “However, when the jury had to address the cause requiring more scrutiny and actual evidence, it was 12-0 in my favor.”

Dutra confirmed that he and his legal team plan to file an appeal, before thanking the lawyers, his supporters, his family and his mother.

“While sexual assault is heinous, all allegations do not constitute the truth. Legally the burden of  proof is not on the defense,” he said, claiming that the burden of proof was not met in this case. “We provided ample amounts of evidence that the allegations were untrue.”

In a statement sent to Lookout, Siefke called the verdict a “momentous occasion” and said that it serves as long-awaited validation.

“The victory in this case is not just mine, but a testament to the bravery of all survivors who have faced the daunting task of coming forward,” he said.

Siefke said that he has lived with the trauma and fear of not being believed for years, but now thinks his story will make a difference: “Knowing that my story has played a role in protecting future generations from such harm brings me a profound sense of relief and justice.”

Siefke also said he is grateful to those who stood by him and supported him throughout the legal process, while also expressing disappointment in those who did not support or believe him: “I hope that those who were indifferent will reflect on their actions and understand the profound impact of their support, or lack thereof.”

Last, Siefke said he hopes the case can provide hope to abuse victims and convince them that their “voice deserves to be heard.”

“This victory is not just about finding justice for myself, but about ensuring that no child will have to endure what I did. It is about creating a safer world where children can thrive without fear,” he said. “To anyone who has faced similar struggles, I urge you to find the courage to speak out. There are allies ready to support you, and together, we can work towards a future where every child is protected and every survivor finds the justice they deserve.”

In his closing argument on Friday, Scruggs explained that in a civil case, the plaintiff must be proven by evidence that is only “more likely true than not true.” He said that all the case requires is the jury to agree on this point, saying that “a feather is enough” to tip the scales.

In a criminal case, a jury must make a unanimous decision regarding whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. In a civil case, just nine out of the 12 jurors had to rule in favor of Siefke for him to win the case.

Scruggs went through the evidence in closing arguments Friday and pointed to things that he said favor Siefke. Testimony showed that many people knew about the alleged incident for years before Siefke filed the lawsuit — a time when he would have no reason to lie about it, Scruggs said. He then addressed conflicting testimony by respective plaintiff and defense witnesses, Dr. Anthony Urquiza and Dr. Jessica Foley, and how they disagreed about Siefke’s diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. Scruggs said Foley used raw data instead of a scaled score in analyzing the other doctor’s testing, despite a scaled score being a common way of evaluating patients.

Scruggs also talked about a letter that Damacio Montoya appeared to have written to Siefke, detailing the alleged groping incident. Scruggs admitted that Dutra’s fellow city council member and former romantic partner, Casey Clark, may have written the letter on Montoya’s behalf, but that the important part is that Montoya reviewed the letter and approved of it, stating that what was written was true. 

Dutra’s attorney, Christopher Panetta, reiterated discrepancies he’d previously pointed out among last week’s testimony on behalf of Siefke, including the presence of an air mattress at the site of the alleged abuse 19 years ago, whether anyone slept on the couch in Dutra’s house that night in Los Angeles, and claims that learning of the alleged molestation tore the two extended families apart. He reminded jurors of Clark’s testimony that Susie McBride — the former partner of Dutra’s late father, who for several years had urged Siefke to come forward — was thrilled when the allegations went public.

“As I told you at the beginning of this case, you have to use your common sense when evaluating the evidence,” he said. “If things don’t add up and make sense, you cannot find for the plaintiff.”

Panetta addressed the alleged groping that Montoya said he experienced in 2018, and said that Dutra does not recall touching him. He said that Dutra might have “hit on” Montoya, but that does not give credence to Siefke’s allegations.

“Mr. Dutra has made passes at adult men in bars before. But a man who hits on another adult male in a bar is not by that act transformed into a pedophile,” said Panetta.

This is a developing story; please check back for updates, and you can sign up here for breaking news alerts via text and email.

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.