Updated: For killing his wife, Rothschild gets 6 year sentence

A Sonoma Valley man who strangled his wife of 36 years to death last year was sentenced to six years in state prison in Sonoma County Superior Court Tuesday morning.

The sentence handed down by Judge Dana Simonds Oct. 30 means Steven Rothschild, 73, will spend about five years in prison, Deputy District Attorney Javier Vaca confirmed.

Rothschild killed his wife Juanita Rothschild in the couple’s Boyes Hot Springs home Aug. 4, 2017. Deputies arrived at the residence to find her covered with blood, beaten and strangled to death.

Rothschild, wearing a dark institutional short-sleeved top over a grey shirt, showed no emotion when the sentence was announced.

Throughout the hearing, Rothschild stared straight ahead, his back to the 30-40 friends and family members of his victim who filled the courtroom. Many in the audience wore white T-shirts inscribed with “Justice for Nita” in red letters.

Voluntary manslaughter is a felony in California with a statutory sentencing range of three, six or 11 years in state prison. Simonds selected what is known as the “midterm,” or middle, sentence.

“Nita did not deserve to die and she did not deserve to die in the manner in which she died. It is tragic,” Simonds said. “Nothing I can do will bring Nita back, and for that I am sorry.” Friends and family called Juanita Rothschild by the nickname “Nita.”

The judge explained that though she could have sentenced Rothschild to probation, “I do not believe a probation disposition is appropriate due to the serious and violent nature of the offense perpetrated against Mrs. Rothschild.”

Addressing the man who killed Juanita Rothschild, she said, “I will note that you are extremely well-educated, you are intelligent. Mr. Rothschild, you have resources and I believe (you) could have left.”

As mitigating factors, the judge noted that the defendant had no prior record of criminal conduct, is 73 years old, had no history of violence and, the judge said, “It is telling that in the many (therapy) sessions, there was no report of physical violence.” She added, “He turned himself in, he called the police.” The judge then announced the sentence of six years.

Deputy District Attorney Vaca had no comment on the sentencing and Stephen Gallenson, Rothschild’s attorney, did not respond to a request for comment.

After the hearing, friends and family of Juanita Rothschild outside the courtroom deplored the sentence.

Charlotte Ruffner of Sonoma said, “It’s cutting the baby in half,” referring to the Biblical parable about King Solomon offering to cut a baby in half as a tactic to reveal the true mother of the child. She elaborated, “It’s three, six or 11 years, and she gave him six years.”

Ruffner said she would have preferred the maximum sentence.

Amy Flynn, another friend in attendance at the hearing, called the sentence “a travesty of justice.”

Aaron Rappaport, a professor at San Francisco’s UC Hastings College of the Law, said a six-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter is a “typical” sentence. Rappaport focuses on criminal and sentencing law.

“If he used a gun, or if he had a criminal record,” that might prompt a significantly longer sentence, the professor said. This hearkens back to Simonds’ comment that Steven Rothschild had no criminal record.

“At least under current law, six years is the typical sentence,” Rappaport said. “If he had been convicted of second- or first-degree murder, it would be more.”

Prosecutors had sought a first-degree murder conviction, which required the prosecution to show that Rothschild committed a premeditated act of violence against his 67-year-old wife.

However, a six-man, six-woman jury on Sept. 4 found Steven Rothschild guilty of manslaughter after finding the evidence and testimony from mental health professionals supported Rothschild’s contention that he snapped after years of emotional abuse from Juanita.

During the trial, Rothschild testified that he “exploded” the night he killed his wife because “I was afraid of the barrage of criticism” his wife had expressed verbally. “She was going to repeat it for hours,” Rothschild said.

“’She made me do it,’ is one of the most common and flimsy responses in the book,” said Ronit Rubinoff, executive director of Legal Aid of Sonoma County, speaking of domestic violence in general. “The perpetrator says, ‘The victim made me angry. If only she wouldn’t yell so much.’”

In a letter to the judge, “The information that came out in the testimony by Steve was totally out of character,” said Madelyn Lolley, a friend of the victim for more than four decades.

Ruffner, who is president of Sonoma Valley Newcomers, wrote to the judge, “The wonderful things (Nita) did during her lifetime belie the picture Steve painted of her during his trial.” Nita Rothschild volunteered with Big Brother/Big Sister, as well as with Pets Lifeline, Ruffner said.

Another friend, Carolyn Kohler of Mill Valley, said in a letter to the Index-Tribune that “Nita” excelled in math in high school and college at a time when women weren’t supposed to do well in math. She worked her way up from computer programmer to IT team leader and then senior manager in the insurance business, Kohler wrote.

Before the sentencing, Kathleen Gullahorn, whose late husband was Juanita Rothschild’s first cousin, addressed the judge. Near tears, her voice breaking, she said, “Her loss is still so incredibly painful for those of us who loved her, but to also have her character defamed in such a cruel way is unspeakable.”

After the sentencing, Margo Ginsburg of Sonoma said, “There was only one victim, and that wasn’t Steve.”

Rappaport said an “interesting and significant” part of the case was the trial, not so much the sentencing.

“The jury’s decision to convict on voluntary manslaughter is super-duper interesting,” Rappaport said.

“If you intend to kill someone, it’s murder, but if there is reasonable provocation it’s manslaughter,” the professor said.

For decades, California juries were instructed as to specific actions that constituted reasonable provocation, Rappaport said. An example might be a man discovering his wife in bed with another man.

“In most jurisdictions, words alone did not comprise reasonable provocation,” the professor said.

But in the mid-1970s, jury instructions became more open-ended as to what constituted reasonable provocation, leaving it up to the jury to decide.

In the Rothschild case, Rappaport said, “It’s my guess that the defense tried to paint a picture that the alleged verbal abuse of Steven Rothschild was so extreme and caused so much psychic pain that he would snap, and the jury must have found that there was some real provocation.”

The professor said, “If you can convince a jury that words can count as reasonable provocation, the law allows you to get a lower charge. At the same time, you can understand the victim’s family and friends saying, ‘Is that right? Should you get a lower conviction, a lower sentence?’”

Rappaport said, “You can understand the anguish both at the characterization of their friend and family member as an abuser – and also whether that’s a just resolution.”

Contact Janis at janismara@sonomanews.com.