Stephanie Lazarus.In February 1986, a young newlywed by the name of Sherri Rasmussen was discovered dead in her apartment in Los Angeles. The case could not be solved during decades. It was not until the 2000s that the investigators started looking inward, to one of their own. The veteran detective of the Los Angeles Police department (LAPD) was later arrested, tried and found guilty, Stephanie Lazarus.
Her journey of being a respected officer to a convicted murderer has captured the attention of the people, legal experts, and fans of true crime stories. This article narrates her story that she was somehow involved in the crime, how the prosecution was able to construct evidence, how the appeals took their course, and her current position.
We also endeavor to give clear and fair facts without disregarding the readers who may not be conversant with legal terminologies or the criminal procedure. In the process, we will examine the intersection of evidence, cold case unit and the justice system in this case.
Who Is Stephanie Lazarus?
Early Life and Police Career
Stephanie Ilene Lazarus entered the world of policing in Los Angeles at the beginning of her career. Over a period, she moved up to the top working in various departments such as homicide, internal affairs and eventually in investigating art theft. She was a by-the-book officer who had a reputation of being a hardworking officer.
>Nevertheless, the criminal case against her would subsequently focus on the account of her previous romantic affair with a man referred to as John Ruetten. Since college (UCLA), Lazarus and Ruetten knew each other.
Rasmussen v. Butcher 1986 Murder.
Sherri Rasmussen was shot and killed on February 24, 1986 in her condominium, Van Nuys section, Los Angeles. She had a couple of months in marriage with her husband John Ruetten. The earliest police theory on the murder was that it had been caused by a breakage gone awry.
At the crime scene, Rasmussen was found blunt instrumented, tied (ligature marks present), and shot 3 times. A bite mark was also found on one of her arms by investigators.
Nevertheless, the case did not take off even after such hints. Many years went by without a criminal suspect being charged. The inquiry was put to the backburner over time over conflicting priorities and absence of pertinent leads.
The way Stephanie Lazarus Was implicated in the murder.
Review of Cold Case and Fresh Leads.
In approximately 2004, the LAPD developed a Cold Case Unit to reopen cold cases. The case of Rasmussen was reconsidered. Evidence investigators concentrated on the bite mark tissue that was taken. They established the saliva in that bite mark belongs to a female.
In 2008, police obtained a secret sample of DNA of Lazarus through covertly collecting an item he discarded (a coffee cup). It was that DNA had been matched to the bite mark saliva on the arm of Rasmussen.
After the said match was discovered, police got a warrant and questioned Lazarus at her place of work. Her interview statements, inconsistencies, and responses were also included in the case of prosecution.
Motive and Scene: The Love Triangle.
An essential fact into the story was the previous relationship between Lazarus and Ruetten. Ruetten had just married Rasmussen by the time the murder occurred and the prosecution thought that Lazarus was unable to accept their marriage. The prosecutors claimed that it was jealousy, obsession, and a motive to revenge on Ruetten.
Investigators had heard Rasmussen accuse Lazarus of interfering in her life because her father had previously told them that Sherri believed that Lazarus was interfering with her life and, furthermore, she (Sherri) had confronted Lazarus about it. However, previous police did not want Lazarus to be treated as a suspect, clinging to the theory of burglary.
In this way, the prosecutors made the murder not look as a random act of violence, but premeditated killing of a person who was familiar with the victim and her husband.
Stephanie Lazarus – Biography Table
| Full Name | Stephanie Ilene Lazarus |
|---|---|
| Date of Birth | 1960 (approximate, Los Angeles, California, USA) |
| Profession (Before Conviction) | Police Detective, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) |
| Known For | Convicted in 2012 for the 1986 murder of Sherri Rasmussen |
| Education | University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) |
| Marital Status | Married (before arrest); husband’s name not publicized after conviction |
| Arrest Date | June 5, 2009 |
| Trial Year | 2012 |
| Conviction | First-Degree Murder |
| Sentence | 27 years to life in prison |
| Prison Facility | California Institution for Women, Corona, California |
| Parole Hearings | Parole granted in 2023 and rescinded in 2024 |
| Current Status (as of 2025) | Incarcerated; parole denied |
| Notable Element in Case | DNA match from bite mark linked her to 1986 murder |
| Victim | Sherri Rasmussen |
| Investigation Reopened | 2004 by LAPD Cold Case Unit |
| Confession | Admitted guilt during parole hearing in 2023 |
| Media Coverage | Featured in major outlets including ABC News, LA Times, and Vanity Fair |
Trial, Conviction, and Appeal
The Trial
She was tried in 2012 having been arrested in 2009, after Lazarus was caught red-handed in 2012. The media coverage around the trial was significant since it was a case of an ironic twist of a police detective killing his own person she was supposed to protect.
The prosecution provided the DNA evidence, statements of her interviews, and her motive theory. The defense legal counsel put into question the validity of the search warrant, the evidence freshness after such a long time, potential breach of due-process, and methodological lapses.
The jury believed and sentenced her to first-degree murder. Upon sentencing, she was given 27 years of life sentence in prison.
Appeals and Legal Arguments
Lazarus was an attractive man who had an appeal. Among her arguments were:
* There was not a fair defense due to the age of the case, as well as the delay (more than twenty years).
* The DNA collection search warrant was invalid.
* Her interview utterances were obtained by force or misadmitted.
* There is certain evidence that was left out or wrongly included.
In 2015, she lost the appeal to the California Court of Appeal and the conviction was upheld. The court also determined that she had not established that she had any mistakes that prejudiced her defense.
The Supreme Court of California refused to listen to further appeal in effect freezing her conviction.
Hearings, Post-Conviction and Parole.
Admission of Guilt
Lazarus intended that she was innocent over many years. However, in 2023, she confessed to the murder of Rasmussen in a parole hearing. Lazarus claimed that she had been angry when she found out that Sherri was in a relationship with Ruetten and tried to confront her. She termed it as an intense argument that grew.
She alleged remorse, and admitted that she felt sick to this day, given that she swore an oath to be a policeman when she killed someone.
Parole Grant, Rescission and Ongoing Denial.
At the end of 2023, a parole board decided she was fit to be released. That ruling was however overturned soon after, by the full Board of Parole Hearings. Governor Gavin Newsom of California had requested a wider investigation because of the severity of the case.
The board voted to revoke parole in October 2024, and decided against her release at that point. The board mentioned issues where her claims during the hearing conflicted with the physical evidence and she had not taken complete responsibility as per credibility.
She will be subject to new suitability hearings after several years, commonly not more than 120 days after the previous ruling.
Where She Serves Time
At present, Lazarus is serving a sentence in the California Institution of Women in Corona, California.
Lessons, Challenges, and Questions: Analysis.
Evidence and Cold Case Work
An example that has frequently been used of the value of preserved forensic evidence (bite mark and DNA in particular) is the Lazarus case, which re-opened long-cold homicides. It was important that the sample of the bite mark was preserved by investigators during decades.
It also demonstrates, though, how prejudice in investigations and tunnel vision may hinder justice. The detectives of the day even ruled out the possibility of one of them being the murderer and concentrated on the burglary theory, even though the family of Rasmussen sounded red flags.
Legal and Ethical Issues
Since such a long time had elapsed the defense claimed that it took away her right to defend herself fairly. However, the court of appeals voted that down claiming that the delay was more harmful to the prosecution than to the opposite.
Covert DNA collection is associated with several ethical concerns regarding privacy, standards of warrants, and due process. Lazarus argued that the warrant was invalid; however, courts argued that the procedures applied were not illegal.
Credibility, Parole and Remorse.
Although she confessed to the killing, her words regarding the character of the occurrence were inconsistent with forensic proofs (e.g. small proofs of an extended wrestle, ballistic and wound design showing planning). The parole boards expressed that they did not believe her story.
Denial of release on multiple occasions illustrates that the bar is pretty high to parole in a case of an ex-police officer whose actions are calculated.
Public and Media Interest
The case has been widely read since it is presented as an international crime novel: a police officer is a murder suspect, the missing love, the cold case being solved several decades later. It has been revisited several times by the media, true-crime podcasters and even authors. ([Vanity Fair][1])
However, there are also dangers when the media lens is involved: sensationalism, reductionism, emotionalism may obscure the legal nuances.
Status Quo and Future Prospects.
At present, Stephanie Lazarus is serving her sentence in the women prison in Corona, California.
The parole consideration still introduces hearings after every some time. Her statements, actions, and compliance with evidence will be evaluated every time.
The case is a warning to the law enforcers: in this case, the same training and office that was supposed to enforce the law was used to hide crime. In the meantime, it reminds families and supporters of victims of the necessity of not letting evidence go to waste and going back to cold cases without prejudice.
Conclusion
The example of **Stephanie Lazarus** gives a tragic collision of loyalty, duty, obsession and justice. She was once a reputable officer in LAPD – the people in charge of law and order – but now a convicted murderer in an incident she had conspired to cover up over the years. By a combination of forensic tenacity, cold case investigation, and prosecutor boldness, the truth was finally discovered. But there are lessons of a wider scope to that fact than this one case:
Time does not necessarily save misdemeanors in case the evidence is stored and treated with care.
Faqs
And what was the crime that Stephanie Lazarus was found guilty of?
In 1986 she was convicted of first-degree murdering Sherri Rasmussen who was the wife of the ex-lover of Lazarus in the crime.
Why did they take so long to prosecute Stephanie Lazarus?
The case was frozen since the initial investigation was all about burglary and not personal motive. The solution was finally arrived at decades later when forensic technology and in particular DNA of a bite mark proved that Lazarus was the cause of the crime.
Is Stephanie Lazarus guilty?
Yes. In 2023, at a parole hearing, Lazarus confessed to murdering Rasmussen and said she was remorseful of her actions.
Has her parole been granted?
Her release was initially granted on parole but it was overturned when the full Board of Parole Hearings made the decision. By the end of 2024, she is still imprisoned and has no parole.