Jasmine Hartin Fined $75,000 for Death of Henry Jemmott

Exactly three years to the day after she was arraigned in San Pedro for the shooting death of Superintendent Henry Jemmott, Jasmine Hartin was fined seventy-five thousand dollars as her sentence. Presiding Judge, Ricardo O’Neil Sandcroft, in a twenty-five-page ruling, imposed the fine, to be paid within twelve months, or, in default, Hartin would face twelve months in prison. The fine was one of several components of the sentence. Hartin must also spend three hundred hours doing community work at the Young Men’s Christian Association (Y.M.C.A.) on Faber’s Road. She must also make a video on the excesses of alcohol consumption and committing irresponsible actions thereafter, as well as the consequences of making those mistakes. Before the sentence was handed down, Hartin was given time to review a victim’s impact assessment statement, presented by the D.P.P.’s office, and a social inquiry report, prepared by her defense team. The judge ruled that the fine must be used to develop a rehabilitation fund for police officers who are overburdened on the job. Following the sentence, attorney Orson Elrington spoke with reporters in front of the courtroom.

Orson “OJ” Elrington

Orson “OJ” Elrington, Lawyer, Jasmine Hartin

“The fine was $75,000, and secondly is that the case law speaks to what should be the fine. Ultimately, those who study law will tell you that it is probably – it is the biggest fine ever, okay, so the case law clearly shows that significantly more than anything which has ever been handed down for a matter like this.”

Marion Ali

“You had indicated to us that Ms. Hartin had indeed started to compensate the family. Is that so, because we are hearing no.”

Orson “OJ” Elrington

“Well, if their interpretation of monies received by them is not compensation, I know two types of thing in law: either that you get compensation or not.”

Marion Ali

“You and Ms. Hartin, before the sentence was handed down, went in a little room to go over two documents. Can you explain that process?”

Orson “OJ” Elrington

“Well, as a part of the process, there is what is called the agreed facts, and prior to this, there were certain – my client disagreed with certain facts and therefore, both parties, the prosecution and the defense had to agree as to the facts that the court would use to come to its sentence. And so what we did was we met and we made minor adjustments and both parties were able to agree as to what were the facts that we would use for the judge to levy his sentence.”