Defendant Sentences Himself to Death

Last week, three CourtWatchers monitored the three day trial of Pedro Antuna, who was charged with seven counts of Sexual Activity w/Child, one count Lewd/Lascivious Conduct, and five counts of Lewd/Lascivious Battery over the course of 6 years beginning mid-2000.
Mr. Antuna was clean-shaven with a neat haircut and well dressed with a suit and tie, as though to project the message that someone so “put together” could not have committed the heinous acts for which he was on trial.

Our volunteers were impressed with the grace of the eldest victim (who is now an adult) as she testified. In addition to being thoroughly prepared, Assistant State Attorney Ryan Williams was the epitome of a gentleman as he led the victim through the ordeal of telling a room full of strangers about the embarrassing and disgraceful acts she was forced to endure at the hands of the defendant. Defense Counsel Melissa Stockham's cross examination of the victim was nothing short of horrendous in the way she treated this young lady.

Stockham was condescending and repeatedly asked why she didn’t say anything about the abuse even after the defendant was removed from the home and their parents' divorce proceedings were underway. She kept asking questions over and over again in various ways trying to get different answers and/or cause the victim to give conflicting answers - making comments such as “well which is it?” “is it your contention?” “you don’t remember?” Stockham implied that because the victims called the defendant "Dad" even while the abuse was happening, that such abuse not must have occurred if they kept calling him Dad.

The oldest victim maintained her composure under both direct and cross-examination. She testified that throughout the many years she was subjected to the defendant's assaults, she complied because she was attempting to protect her younger sisters from being victimized. As is so often the case, it was only after the defendant was no longer in the home did the victim feel safe to disclose the abuse once she suspected a younger sister had also been assaulted.

She testified that Mr. Antuna had two sides to his personality but was a good Dad to her younger siblings and provided a stable home.  She also believed that she was the only victim in the home. The defense attorney attempted to put blame on a younger sibling for not saying anything when she once witnessed the eldest victim on one occasion run from the bedroom (where all the assaults occurred) holding her pants up - expecting that the younger child should ask the victim what had happened and try to help.

In response to repeated questions from the defense attorney as to why the victim never confided to anyone about the abuse she stated, “It’s hard to walk around with an ‘I’ve been raped sign’ on my forehead,” and “I didn’t expect to be raped my whole childhood.”

One of the things I find most aggravating is that defense attorneys in these cases seem expect children to react to situations in the same manner as an adult would be expected to behave. And they're made to feel guilty for not trying to stop their caretaker - a bigger, stronger, adult who wields incredible power over their lives - from abusing them or another family member.

It is the fear of encountering such treatment that keeps victims from being willing to prosecute in these cases.

On the second day of trial, Antuna attempted to delay the trial by asking to fire his attorney. Judge Lubet told him he was free to do so, but that the trial would continue.
 
That night he attempted suicide by hanging himself while in custody at the jail. He was transported to the hospital.
 
The judge determined that since the defendant voluntarily did not attend court, case law permitted the trial to continue.  The trial concluded on Friday and the jury rendered a verdict of guilty of all thirteen counts. Sentencing was scheduled for January.
 
Mr. Antuna succumbed to his injuries and passed away on Saturday.
 
As someone who was victimized by a loved one who committed suicide, I suspect the victims in this case will feel a combination of sadness, anger, relief and gratitude. Sad that the person they loved came to such a tragic end. Angry that they don't get to see him pay for what he did (though I suspect he is now paying dearly). Relief that the ordeal is over. And gratitude that this abuser can never hurt them again.
 
I hope they learn that forgiving does not mean that they have to agree that what he did was ok. Forgiving is merely letting go of the bitterness, anger, and other negative feelings one has and allowing God to take care of the situation as He sees fit. Forgiving is the best way to quit being a victim and to start being a survivor and to truly thrive.

The Lisa Nowak Media Frenzy

I think the general consensus after today's hearing is that all parties concerned are glad it's over. The victim, the judge, reporters, and most especially, the defendant. The saga that began with Lisa Nowak's arrest on February 5, 2007 ended with a packed courtroom and a sentence of 1 year probation nearly 3 years after the offense.

As we waited outside the courtroom, not even the prosecutors nor the defendant could gain entry until the appointed time. Nowak had to retreat to a private waiting area while the cameras followed her like a cat stalks its prey. I couldn't imagine having that much attention focused on me and I felt a measure of sympathy for her in that moment.

I sat smushed between two reporters and directly behind Colleen Shipman, feeling a bit like a media vulture myself. Originally charged with Burglary of a Dwelling with Assault or Battery, Attempted Kidnapping with Intent to Inflict Harm/Terror with a Weapon, and Battery, the defendant pled to the lesser included offense of Burglary of a Conveyance (5 year maximum penalty) and the misdemeanor Battery (1 year maximum). The State dropped the Attempted Kidnapping charge.

In listening to Ms. Shipman recount Ms. Nowak's behavior - I was perplexed as to why the State did not charge Aggravated Stalking (which carries a possible 5 year penalty). The facts of the case certainly seemed to support such a charge. The victim testified about her fear that Nowak intended to kill her in the parking lot. Nowak had thoroughly researched murder, corpse dismemberment, disguises, and trace evidence prior to the offense. Several weeks before that night at the airport, Nowak entered Astronaut William Oelefein's apartment without his permission, stole Shipman's personal information (address, phone, email) as well as her travel itinerary. She assembled a number of items to be used as weapons in confronting Shipman. Nowak drove to Florida, paid cash along the way, used an assumed name and wore a disguise in order to avoid having a record of her presence here. She followed the victim for several hours while at the airport and subsequently tracked her to her car. The victim, who prior to the incident had never met Nowak, thought she was going to be killed or carjacked.

Sounds like stalking to me.

Defense Counsel Donald Lykkebak asked Judge Marc Lubet to treat his client just like anyone else who pled to the identical offenses (Burglary of Conveyance + Battery). I would have to say the Judge Lubet did exactly that. This was a first offense, and judges routinely withhold adjudication on first offenses. I must state that it's a sad commentary that our system allows one "freebie" in terms of one's record for a felony conviction. A misdemeanor maybe. But if you plead to a felony there ought to be a criminal record.  Nowak was initially charged with Attempted Murder, although the State declined to proceed on that charge - likely because Nowak's pre-Miranda statements and some evidence were suppressed as a result of police misconduct.

Assistant State Attorney Pam Davis emphatically argued that this is not like your usual Burglary of a Conveyance case and recounted Nowak's numerous stalking behaviors. I agree. So why did the State agree to the plea? I ask again, why wasn't she charged with Aggravated Stalking?

In addition to 1 year's probation, the judge sentenced Nowak to 50 hours of community service. She is permitted to "buy out" her hours at the rate of $10/hour. As a side note, CourtWatch believes this practice unfairly benefits defendants who have the financial resources to avoid having to actually do community service and would like to see the practice eliminated.

She was ordered to have no contact with either Shipman or Oelefein, to write a sincere letter of apology, pay restitution, and to complete an 8-hour anger management course. She is permitted to transfer probation to Texas and must obtain the consent of her probation officer prior to traveling.

Judge Lubet commented that he has no sympathy whatsoever about the impact this case has on her Naval career and retirement, stating "You've brought this all on yourself."

To the best of my knowledge, the man at the center of all this, Bill Oelefein, has never been called upon to testify in open court.

In addition to the apology letter to Shipman, Ms. Nowak ought to consider sending a thank you note to the OPD for botching the case.

Both parties have paid a high price for Nowak's assault. Now that they no longer have the spectre of this case hanging over their heads, I hope the media leaves them alone to heal and get on with their lives.

To watch the complete hearing, click here.

Sentinel photo gallery
Case Synopsis

Whatever Happened to . . .?

Sometimes cases show up on the Watchlists that never quite made it into the media. Sometimes they did at time of arrest, but were resolved without fanfare.

Every so often, as we monitor these cases and discover their dispositions, we think the public should know what happened. Here are some recent ones that we think you might find of interest:

State v. Jeffrey Allan Eymann
2009-CF-004477-O
Charged with 1,200 counts of Lewd/Lascivious Molestation of a Child < 12 years old
Victim was the daughter of his ex-girlfriend

Eymann pled on 10/16 to 1 count of Lewd/Lascivious Conduct. All other counts were dropped. Sentenced to 7 years in prison + 5 years sex offender probation; no contact with victim, but may have contact with victim's mother.
 
 

State v. Eric Tomasello
2009-MM-010315-O
Charged with DV Battery & Assault
Defendant is a Casselberry police officer & allegedly slammed his wife's head on a kitchen counter.
The Assault charge was dropped. The defendant was referred to pre-trial diversion. If he successfully completes the requirements of the program, there will be no criminal record.  The requirement to surrender firearms/weapons was also deleted by the judge.
Fox35 coverage

Another Defendant Off the Hook

Once again, Judge Tim Shea let a defendant off the hook for domestic violence - not even letting the jury determine whether or not he was guilty.

Yesterday was Michael Dwayne Manning's day in court. He was charged with Aggravated Battery on a Pregnant Person for assaulting the mother of his unborn child. The victim had signed a declination of prosecution a few days after he was released from jail.

Assistant State's Attorney Eric Trabin, using a 911 tape, photos of injuries sustained, and testimony from law enforcement, demonstrated that the victim's injuries were the result of an assault by Mr. Manning on the date in question. 

The victim, however, testified that her injuries were 3-4 days old and were the result of an altercation with someone else. The victim claimed that she jumped on Mr. Manning first in an effort to prevent him from taking car keys out of her purse and leaving. She took 100% of the blame for his actions.

Testimony elicited by the State showed that, at the time of the assault, the crying victim told the 911 operator that Mr. Manning had jumped on her. The police officer testified that the victim related that Mr. Manning had choked her. The officer also testified that the victim's injuries appeared as though they had been recently inflicted - and were not several days old. The State also demonstrated that the victim is financially dependent upon Mr. Manning. Additionally, her baby is due to be delivered very soon. Mr. Trabin went to great lengths to demonstrate that the victim had made prior inconsistent statements and told the jury that they should take that into consideration when weighing her credibility.

The jury should have been allowed to deliberate on the evidence that had been presented. But they were not. After the State rested, Judge Shea granted the defense motion for Judgment of Aquittal (JOA) on the basis that the State was relying on the victim's prior inconsistent statements. From what CourtWatch saw, however, the State relied upon the victim's excited utterances (a 911 recording in addition to her statements to law enforcement) and demonstrated that the injuries were recent (using photos together with the observations of the police officer).

Judge Shea's decision to toss the case sends the message to Mr. Manning that the system is either unable or unwilling to hold him accountable for his actions in this incident. He has empowered an abuser to thumb his nose at the laws and the judicial system that is supposed to uphold them. Assistant State Attorney Trabin attempted to enforce the law in spite of the fact that the victim had declined to prosecute.

CourtWatch commends Mr. Trabin's efforts in this matter and appreciates the fact that he did what he could to hold Mr. Manning accountable to the law, in spite of the victim's lack of support.

Finally, in spite of feeling frustrated with the victim for not aiding in the prosecution of her batterer, I understand the reasons for her refusal to testify against him. Rather than criticize the victim, I think we need to criticize the System - in this case, Judge Shea - for not upholding the Law. This is the second case that CourtWatch has seen this judge toss a case when the victim refused to testify against her abuser (the first was a case that involved the discharge of a gun in the home).

PS: Mr. Manning, age 34, in spite of being acquitted of this offense, is still in custody for a drug case. In fact, a review of the Orange County Clerk's site shows numerous felony and misdemeanor charges dating back to 1992 (age 17). Most charges (20 total) are drug related or involve resisting arrest, although he has a couple of battery and weapons cases.

Budget Cuts Kill Valuable Program at Courthouse

As I walked through the lobby at the Orange County Courthouse this afternoon, I spotted a sign that told of another budget cut fatality. A Place for Children, providing a safe place for parents to leave their children while they attend court since June 1998, will shut down in two weeks for lack of funding. Per the Ninth Judicial Circut's website:

Children are routinely brought to the Courthouse because their caregivers have no safe place to leave them while they are required to make court appearances. Often children are left in the halls outside the courtrooms because they become too disruptive in the courtrooms. Further they can be exposed to disturbing and inappropriate proceedings. A Place for Children – a licensed drop-in child care center for children whose families have business with the court – lets children be children, instead of spending long sessions listening to adult interactions that could be painful or frightening for them.

A Place for Children’s goal is to provide on-site, safe, high quality child care for families with official court business while ensuring linkage to available social services. A key component of A Place for Children is that it will serve as a link between much needed social services and the high-risk families who could use these services. It is hoped that linking families with needed services may break the cycle of repeated visits to court and that A Place for Children will provide a vehicle for reaching out to individuals with information about the community services to which they and their families are entitled. A Place for Children can be a touchpoint for a family member in a moment of crisis, making a difference in the life of that individual and their family.

Through referrals to needed services and through information, assistance is provided to children and families well beyond their visit to the Courthouse. During their visit to A Place for Children, parents and guardians, can obtain up to date information on important child development and parenting topics or receive referrals that connect their families to the resources they need for future success. Referrals are given to Neighborhood Centers for Families and other helpful community services such as housing assistance, health care, credit and career counseling, long term child care, and educational programs for children.

There is no fee for this service and a morning and afternoon snack are served. Children up to the age of fourteen can spend four hour blocks of time at the Center. The Center is open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The staff members and volunteers are trained in child development, health, safety, and nutrition, recognizing and preventing child abuse and neglect, and appropriate activities and best practices in working with children. All staff members are certified in CPR and First Aid. Caregivers are given a pager that is internal to the Courthouse when they enroll their children. This enables A Place for Children staff to reach them immediately when needed. Caregivers must complete an enrollment and information form before leaving their children and are given the opportunity to give staff members specific individual instructions for the care of their children. Every caregiver must give an emergency contact for their children. Even when a caregiver is remanded in custody the child is spared the experience of their caregiver’s arrest and detention, and has a safe, caring, comfortable place to play while waiting for their emergency contact to come and take care of them.

What a shame to lose this valuable service to the citizens of Orange County! If you think this service is worth providing, please contact Mayor Crotty and the Board of County Commissioners.