Men Need to Speak Out Against Sexual Violence

State v. Edwin Antonio-Rafael Cintron Bond Motion (held Friday, 6/26/09)

Initially the defense was asking for a bond of $5000 and for Mr. Cintron to stay at his grandmother’s house.

Assistant State Attorney Natalie Stratis asked for “a bond of more substance” (when asked for a specific amount, she left that up to Judge Wallis to determine), electronic monitoring and/or home confinement, and relinquishing of his passport.

What the judge granted

• Bond in the amount of $15,000.
• Electronic monitoring - he may not leave Orange County.
• Must relinquish his passport to the court.
• No direct or indirect contact order with any/all of the victims and there families.

CourtWatch's observations

• None of the child victims were in court today.
• Unlike the news reported on Channel 9, Ms. Stratis made it clear that the State understood that Mr. Cintron's charges were eligible for bond, she was not debating that, it was the amount of bond that was in question.
• The mothers of the victims felt confident that money wasn’t as scarce as it was being made out to be.
• The mothers of the victims believed that he was a flight risk.
• The mothers of the victims expressed that the victims fear retaliation.
• The mothers of the victims were concerned about the close proximity of where he lives verses some of the victims.

CourtWatch believes that Judge Wallis heard their concerns and met their needs for this particular case at this particular time. It was clear that this case was just for one person, one victim, there are still more cases to come, more bond hearings to be held, this is just the beginning.

It was powerful to see the mothers bonding together, wanting to protect their children, to keep them safe from harm.

What was painful was to watch the mother and grandmother of Mr. Cintron. Before the hearing started, they sat behind the cameraman, then they literally hid crouched down on the floor behind the benches to hide from the camera, the deputy quickly confronted them and they said they didn’t want to be on camera because they own a business and they didn’t want to be filmed. The officer informed them that the courtroom is a public area, and they can’t be hiding on the floor behind the bench. So, her concern is her business? She is concerned about what he son does and how it affects her business? She hides he face in shame? Mr. Cintron has thus far admitted to what he has been accused of doing. He told the truth… that is a good thing. There is so much pain and suffering that the victims will not have to endure because he is telling the truth. The victims do not have to convince anyone. The truth is being told. Healing can begin for the victims and justice can be reached. Yet she hides her face because she is ashamed. Her son did something bad, but he has told the truth.

Still one must wonder who is most important, is it the 18 year old son who has admitted to the truth (note - he has previously been arrested two times before, one time being domestic violence), or his mother who covered her face because she was ashamed and didn’t want her business associates to see her on the news, or a grandmother who hid on the floor because she was ashamed, yet has volunteered to take in her grandson, or the 13 year old sister who is being, well, who knows…?

I think what concerns me the most (at least as it relates to the defendant's family) is the thirteen year old sister of Mr. Cintron. Does she feel responsible or guilty for allowing this to happen to her friends? Are others blaming her for her brother's actions, or does she seem to think this in her mind? Has she been a victim of incest? And if so, does she understand that the effects of incest are different for her from what her brother has done to her friends? If her mother is so ashamed of the entire situation, she might not understand that her daughter did nothing wrong. She should be able talk about it if she wants too. The Victim Service Center in Orange County offers counseling support to victims of sexual assualt. CourtWatch hopes that all the victims seek assistance as a step in their healing process.

Finally, I wonder, where are the fathers of these girls? There were two men there, but they stayed away from the women, they remained quiet. Sexual assault is a big deal. If these men were the victims' fathers, they missed an opportunity to speak to other men about stopping this type of crime. The TV camera was there. I hope next time the opportunity presents itself one or more of the men affected by this crime will step forward to speak.

For WFTV's report on this case, go to http://tinyurl.com/qhqhr5

Defendant Ignored by His Attorney

CourtWatch's goal is to be impartial in our assessment of the justice system. Today, we want to call attention to a case where a defendant's attorney, Octavio Andrade, left his client hanging outside a courtroom without notifying him that his court hearing, a Motion to Modify Conditions of Bond, had been cancelled.

In the words of one of our volunteers:

I went to Judge Rand Wallis' courtroom today (6/26) to watch the Edwin Cintron case (scheduled for 2:00pm). I arrived at the courtroom at 1:20pm, and the door was locked. I noticed that a young man was sitting with his friend (or relative) near the courtroom door. When it was 1:35 the young man asked if I had a list for the courtroom. I informed him that on my list I was showing a 1:30 hearing for an Abraham Zamora. He took a deep breath, and said, “That’s me, I was worried that I was in the wrong place” he explained that his attorney hadn’t showed up and of course, the door was still locked. I told him that there was also another case scheduled for 2:00, and it would probably include the media and news crews. He looked a little puzzled, said "oh, okay,” checked his cell phone and quietly waited.

At 1:40 someone for the 2:00 hearing showed up and asked if that was the correct courtroom. I confirmed that it was. At 1:45 a cameraman from channel 9 arrived. Abraham stared almost in disbelief. The judge’s trial clerk walked up to the courtroom, used a key on the door, and walked in. The cameraman then tried to enter the room but the door was locked, so he knocked. A deputy answered, and the cameraman asked if he could come in and set up. Abraham walked up to the officer, with a look of fear on his face, and simply couldn’t talk. I could feel his fear at that moment. So I asked, “He is here for the 1:30 bond hearing, is that still happening?" The officer said, “Oh, no that was cancelled… well, let me double check on it, wait here.” The young man believed that this meant he would have to go to jail because he missed a court date. The deputy came back about a minute later and informed him that it was cancelled, there weren’t any other notes, he then asked him what his relationship was to the case. Abraham identified himself and asked what he should do next. He was informed that he should contact his attorney and ask him. He did thank me for telling him about the media and news crew showing up.

I made a point to be there to watch this case because it was still “active” and on my print out from this morning. Mr. Zamora made it a point to be there. He knew about this court date. He arrived early. He was well groomed and appropriately dressed. At no time did he show any anger or frustration.

When did this change? Why was defendant not informed? He had a cell phone. He checked it at least twice. When we sit in the courtroom and listen to people being told over and over again that they are to stay in constant contact with their attorneys, and then their attorney seem to be unreachable, what message is really getting across? Further, in this particular case, this young man had hired a private attorney, which is what makes this all the more frustrating - he is paying for someone to ignore him.

The rest of the story:
In researching this case on the Clerk's website, CourtWatch discovered that there was a notation of "No Information Filed" on this date. In other words, the case was dismissed.


CourtWatch's suggestion:
If there's something scheduled on the docket, the door to the courtroom ought to be unlocked so that anyone showing up for a hearing can get inside. The deputies do an excellent job of providing information when needed, but if they don't know someone is waiting outside for a hearing, how can they inform them when there's been a change in schedule?

Crisis: Economics and Domestic Violence

The Allstate Foundation just released a national poll that found Americans link the term "economic abuse" to negative Wall Street forecasts or irresponsible spending, rather than domestic violence. The aim of the poll was to underscore the need for education around economic abuse and foster a greater understanding of the challenges facing domestic violence survivors.

The Allstate Foundation 2009 National Poll, "Crisis: Economics and Domestic Violence," serves as a resource in our efforts to help assist survivors and combat domestic violence. The full survey findings are available at www.ClickToEmpower.org.

Additional key poll findings include:

• More than three-quarters of Americans (76 percent) believe the poor economy has made it more difficult for victims of domestic violence, and two-thirds (66 percent) believe it has caused an increase in domestic violence.
• 44 percent say the most difficult barrier to leaving an abusive relationship is financial security.
• Almost 60 percent of Americans don't see a connection between harassing a partner at work and economic abuse, even if it may cost the victim their job and ultimately limiting income.

While the poll's statistics are disheartening, The Allstate Foundation is working on helping those directly impacted by economic abuse. The Allstate Foundation, in partnership with the National Network to End Domestic Violence, recently launched a redesigned Economic Empowerment Curriculum.

The curriculum includes financial tools and information designed to enable survivors of domestic abuse to fully understand their financial circumstances, as well as engage in short-term and long-term planning (e.g., budgeting tools, step-by-step planners, tips, etc.) to accomplish their personal goals. The curriculum is available by request on ClickToEmpower.org, and will soon be available for electronic download along with e-learning modules.

Custody Case Resources for Protective Parents

I receive a number of heartbreaking calls from parents who are trying to protect their children from an abusive ex-spouse or partner in divorce/custody cases. Sometimes there are allegations of sexual assault or physical assault. Most of the time I hear stories of the non-custodial parent verbally and emotionally abusing the child. Occasionally the judge completely disregards psych evaluations or the recommendations of the Guardian Ad Litem and orders unsupervised visitation. Sometimes they order visitation even when the parent is known to be an abuser of alcohol and/or drugs.

To top it all off, sometimes the judge verbally abuses the protective parent for trying to keep the child safe.

A Seminole County judge allowed an abusive father to pick up his child from school in spite of a previous court order that granted the mother sole custody. This was done without the mother's knowledge. The father managed to take the child out of the country using a foreign passport. In spite of the fact that the child is an American citizen, the judge abdicated his jurisdiction to a court order from a foreign country. The judge, after the fact, never admitted his error and said there was nothing he could do. Given the increasing immigrant nature of our community, all domestic relations judges need some training to know what to do when presented with court orders from another country.

One judge in Orange County routinely tells mothers who plead for their child to have supervised visits with an unsuitable father "you should have thought about that before you chose him to be the father of your child."

Somewhere along the way, in the overwhelming caseloads they handle, I think some judges have lost some of their humanity. I understand the need to maintain a level of detachment when hearing a case. But does being detached equate with lacking compassion? I wish they could see things from this side of the bench and realize that the decisions they make will have an impact on the lives of real people and their children for the rest of their lives.

I've had several people tell me that they sometimes see a change in the judge's demeanor when they retain a new attorney. They've felt that their previous attorney was more worried about not getting on a judge's "bad side" than vigorously advocating for their client. I want to encourage anyone who finds themselves in this predicament to candidly discuss your concerns with your attorney. Put them on notice that you will take your business elsewhere if they're unable or unwilling to stand up for you in court. Remember, they work for you! You are not obligated to stick with the same attorney until your child becomes an adult and their services are no longer needed. Sadly, too many protective parents don't have the financial resources to hire an attorney.

At this time, CourtWatch does not have the resources to monitor these cases. But Lundy Bancroft, author of several books, offers some strategies (including establishing an informal courtwatch program with other protective parents) that may be of assistance. Please check out his website and blog for more information.

DC Sniper, cont.

One point that Ms. Muhammad drove home several times was that victims (male or female) often have no physical scars, and that law enforcement and the courts need to understand that fact. She also emphasized the need for victims, particularly those who don't experience a physical injury, to document everything (especially threats to kill, threats of suicide). Victims often need to file police reports and help law enforcement build a case that is sufficient to take to court. If someone else witnesses an assault (physical or verbal), or the abuser's behavior (e.g., banging on the victim's door at 3:00am, damaging property, etc.), the victim needs to provide that information to the LEO (law enforcement officer) and ask them to have the witness provide a written statement.

She also stressed the importance of being supportive when a victim discloses abuse. This applies to everyone, not just law enforcement officers. Ms. Muhammad shared that prior to their separation, she sought her brother's help after John threatened to kill her. Her brother minimized her concerns ("He didn't really say that, did he?") and she never went to him again for assistance. For law enforcement officers and front-line members of the System that deal with victims, their demeanor is crucial at these moments. Victims assess the level of concern shown by those they come into contact with, and their level of cooperation with prosecuting the offender is closely tied to the response that receive - particularly that first response. They are sizing you up, determining whether or not you're trustworthy.

A victim's demeanor after an assault doesn't fit into a nice, clean category. Some victims are terrified and shaking like a leaf. Some are hysterical and crying. Some are resigned and don't seem to care what happens. Some are belligerent with the person that's trying to help them. Anyone working with victims needs to toss out their preconceived notions of how the victim ought to behave, either in the immediate aftermath of an assault or in court. Because if they don't act the way we think they should act, we doubt the veracity of their allegations. If the perpetrator is calm, cool, and collected, they're considered more "believable" than the victim. Additionally, too many strangulation victims who fight back are arrested because they may have scratched their abuser and there are no marks on the victim.

Ultimately, Ms. Muhammad likened the situation for victims to fighting a war. She encourages them to not allow anyone to make them feel like it's their fault that they're a victim. Nobody volunteers to be a victim!

As a side note, one Orange County judge recently told a mother that "well, you married him!" when trying to convince the judge to protect her child from unsupervised visits with the father. This sort of remark, not to mention this sort of attitude, is unconscionable coming from a judge.