Today's SWAT Standoff & Another "Injunction Dysfunction" Are Related

Last month, Judge Sally Kest presided over an injunction hearing that ended in the SWAT shooting of one of the parties, Palin Perez, today.

In her Petition for Injunction, the mother of his two children (ages 2 and 3), alleged Perez (Facebook photo below) had been abusive throughout their 4-yr relationship.

She wrote:

Mr. Perez has been violent, mentally, emotionally, verbally, and sexually abusive throughout our relationship. He has raped me . . . at least 4 times, laughing and calling me a whore. Also asking if I liked it. I cried the whole time. He has called me a slut, [expletive], whore, n . . .loving whore and bitch. He has threatened to take my life and even told me he would "cut my throat."

He has given me multiple black eyes and punched me in my head so hard and so many times I have migraine headaches. He has choked me and hit me during my pregnancy of my 3-year old.

I am in fear of my life scared that Mr. Perez will find me. I am afraid to go anywhere especially alone. I have a 911 phone, but I do not feel safe.

He was my boyfriend for the last 4 years and we have 2 children together. During the course of our relationship I wasn't allowed (per order of Mr. Perez) to leave the house at all! I wasn't allowed to have any communication with anyone. I wasn't allowed to have a phone or seek therapy. I could not look at any men, even on TV that made Mr. Perez feel [indecipherable] about himself.

Soon (2 months) after Mr. Perez and I began our relationship I found out that Mr. Perez had Domestic Violence issues (pending) with his ex-wife. I then found police reports and other papers explain what he did to her and realized he was doing the same to me. He was arrested and charged with Attempted Murder and Assault on his ex-wife, but it appears that it was continued without a finding.

CourtWatch monitored the first hearing over which Judge Kest presided on Wednesday, October 7, 2009. The Respondent (Perez) failed to appear when the case was called at 10:09 AM (it was on the docket for 9:30 AM). After the Petitioner briefly testified about the situation, Judge Kest granted a 6 month injunction, ordered $362/mo in temporary child support, and supervised visitation through Family Ties. The hearing concluded at 10:17 AM and the Petitioner left soon thereafter, with her injunction paperwork in hand.

At that point, the only fault we could possibly find was that the injunction was only granted for 6 months.

Fast forward to later that morning.

Mr. Perez arrived about an hour later and claimed he had been present but had not been called for his hearing. As one who has spent many hours on the 16th floor of the courthouse, I find his claim to lack credibility. If he had reported to the room he was instructed to, and at the time he was instructed to arrive, court personnel would have made certain he was in the hearing.

Here's where Judge Kest blew it.

Instead of telling Mr. Perez to file a motion to request a re-hearing, she cancelled the injunction she had just granted to the Petitioner and told him to return the following afternoon at 1:00 PM for a hearing.

When the parties returned the next afternoon, they had to wait for all the other cases to be heard first (Thursday afternoon is devoted to hearings that require Spanish interpreters). When the case was finally heard at 4:21 PM, the Petitioner's attorney attempted to introduce testimony about Perez's attempted murder case from another jurisdiction, but Judge Kest refused to consider it. Perez allegedly got those teardrop tattoos on his face while serving time in prison for that assault.

In addition to the above petition  against him, Mr. Perez (6'1" and 280 lbs) had filed an injunction a few days earlier on behalf of his two children, claiming that Ms. S (5'2" and 130 lbs) had been behaving erratically, had physically assaulted him, broken things, and threatened to kill him and to commit suicide with a knife. Police were called and she was Baker Acted. Her petition was filed after her release from Lakeside.

At the hearing on October 8th, Judge Kest granted a 1-year injunction, but no longer required supervised visits through Family Ties. In fact, Judge Kest also granted custody of the children to Mr. Perez  and only weekend visits for the mother.
 
Three weeks later, Perez filed an affadavit stating that Ms. S had violated the injunction by driving by his home, making harrassing phone calls, and alleged that his 3-year old daughter had been exposed to improper sexual behavior by her mother and her new boyfriend.
 
At the hearing for the alleged violations on November 20, 2009 Judge Theotis Bronson dismissed the charges.
 
Mr. Perez apparently realized he was not able to control the situation further, the Court system having thrown gasoline on the fire, and he took Ms. S and the children hostage shortly thereafter - holding them for 4 days until she was able to escape this morning.


The act of a desperate man? Undoubtedly.

Suicide by Cop? Maybe.
 
Whether or not this situation could have been averted will be the subject of a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking by law enforcement, court personnel, DCF, and domestic violence advocates. I'm just relieved that the children and their mother were not injured or killed.

Now for our two cents about Judge Kest's performance on the injunction court bench:

CourtWatch has sent our concerns about Judge Kest to her and to those above her in the past. Our concerns, thus far, do not seem to have been addressed. So we'll share them with you.

CourtWatch volunteers have consistently noted that Judge Kest is often disrespectful to the parties in her courtroom, speaks condescendingly to them, and seems to expect them to know the legal procedures for presenting their case (in spite of the fact they rarely have an attorney to represent them).  She conducts hearings in a manner that suggests that getting it done fast is more important that getting it done thoroughly - often failing to to elicit additional testimony that would be pertinent to the case and failing to cover all the issues (child support/visitation, property retrieval) that need resolution.

After 11 months hearing injunction cases, she should be doing a better job for the citizens of Orange County.

12/11/09: More information in the Sentinel about this case.

Protecting or Re-Victimizing a Victim?

Judge Marc Lubet heard a request last Friday from the victim of Charles Allen Ford (pictured here), convicted in July of Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm). Ford was also initially charged with Burglary of Dwelling with Assault/Battery and Battery after a particularly gruesome assault on his victim with a hammer, but those charges were dropped in exchange for the plea.

In monitoring this case, CourtWatch saw how truly difficult a judge's job can be - trying to balance the requirements of the Law against the often opposing wishes of the victim. Ford's victim repeatedly told the State that she wanted to prosecute and told Defense Counsel that she wanted to drop charges. Ultimately, because both sides were convinced of what she had told them, Judge Lubet issued a Material Witness Warrant in June to have her picked up and to testify in court as to what her real position was. Click here for more info.

When she first appeared before the judge, she affirmed her desire to testify on behalf of the State and the judge released her. She then failed to appear for trial, and a second warrant was issued. This time Judge Lubet had her held at the jail. Only after Mr. Ford knew that his victim was in custody and was prepared to testify, did he accept the State's plea offer of 4 years in the Department of Corrections.

It is important to note that this was not Ford's first assault on an intimate partner. He has had several other women (5 or 6 I believe) whom have been victimized by him but who have been intimidated into dropping charges.

Is this re-victimizing the victim by incarcerating her and charging her for costs of investigation? Yes.

Is it also doing what was necessary to uphold the Law and make a batterer be accountable for his actions? Yes.

Is it the judge's responsibility to protect the victim against making bad choices that could lead to her being in a position to be assaulted or even killed? You tell me.

The result of Friday's hearing? Judge Lubet denied the victim's request to visit Mr. Ford while he is incarcerated for the next four years. He told her that he would not be party to permitting Ford to continue to victimize her.

CourtWatch likes to see perpetrators held accountable for their crimes, particularly as it relates to repeat offenders and we commend the judge for doing precisely that. But we don't like seeing victims re-victimized by the justice system.

In spite of the expenses incurred in tracking her down, CourtWatch thinks the Court should waive the costs of investigation in this matter. If Ford is/was financially supporting her, having this added financial burden continues to make her feel dependent upon him and his family, thereby making it more difficult for her to make a break from them.

Was this justice? How would you have handled the case?

One Down, One to Go - The Shannon Burke Saga

Shannon Burke's plea deal in Seminole County on November 20th doesn't surprise me in the least. In the nearly three years I've been courtwatching, I've seen hundreds of cases either dropped or have minimal sentences when the victim does not want to help prosecutors hold their batterers accountable for breaking the law.

Believe it or not, his sentence is more severe than most. And it focuses on his assault to the dog (breed is pictured here), not on his treatment of his wife. Click here to review the evidence photos.

Catherine Burke was initially gung-ho about prosecuting her husband. But as is often the case, he is working very hard to redeem himself in her (as well as the public's) eyes, and she has decided to give him a second chance. It is a terribly difficult thing for those who've never walked in the shoes of a victim of domestic violence to comprehend - particularly when she almost lost her life. But as a survivor myself, I understand the numerous factors that go into influencing victims to give their partner another chance.

To recap, Burke pled to one count of Using a Firearm While Under the Influence of Alcohol and one count of Animal Cruelty. The charge of violating the conditions of pretrial release on the domestic violence case was dropped. He will be required to serve 6 months in jail (he must turn himself in by December 31st to begin serving), 3 years probation, and 100 hours of community service at an animal shelter. In addition to continuing his current counseling, Burke must attend one AA meeting each week and complete a firearm safety class.

All in all, it's a good sentence for a first-time offense (though there was another similar offense of discharging a firearm with a different woman for which he was never arrested). It's much tougher than most I see (which is a sad testament about our criminal justice system). Most first-timers have adjudication withheld, which means that if they successfully complete their probation, they are not considered a convicted felon.

I am disappointed, however, that the State did not require him to complete the 26 week Batterer's Intervention Program. The counseling he is currently doing will hopefully deal with the issues of power & control.

I am also disappointed that Judge Marlene Alva will permit Burke to participate in the Work Release Program if he qualifies. I hope his new radio gig, where he has bought his own air time, does not qualify as a "job" for Work Release purposes.

One down.

One to go.

Burke is scheduled for his Violation of Probation hearing on a 2007 DUI charge in Orange County next month. There are two hearing dates set - 12/4 and 12/14 - and we're not certain yet exactly when it'll happen. But we'll be keeping a watchful eye on it.

By the way, once it was all over in court on Friday, did anyone notice the Sentinel mention that Shannon asked his wife to fix him meatloaf for dinner Friday night? Seems to me he's the one that ought to be fixing dinner for her after all that he put her through.

Whatever Happened to . . . ? (#3)

Wade Edwards
2009-CF-015215-O Bond Motion held 11/5/09 Judge Tim Shea
Charged with Attempted 2nd degree murder
Defendant allegedly shot his 16-yr old daughter's 18-yr old boyfriend in the rear when he caught them having sex.
$50,000 bond was set; no trial date yet

Jose L Torres
2009-CF-008384-O Judge Jenifer Davis
Charged with Causing Bodily Injury During Felony; Possess Firearm by Convicted Felon; Shooting from Vehicle w/in 1000' of a person; Leave Scene of Accident w/Injuries
Defendant allegedly struck 2 children with his car and attempted to shoot their father after he confronted defendant for hitting the children
11/19/09: Affidavit of Violation of Conditions of Release (GPS) was filed, now being held on NO BOND status

Loc Buu Tran
2006-CF-014820-O In custody since 10/19/06 ~ Trial now scheduled for 11/16/09 with Judge John Adams
1st Degree Murder. Allegedly stabbed a UCF student to death 10/06 when she tried to break up with him. Also was convicted 8 years ago in Clearwater for rape. Mistrial was declared 8/12/09 after Judge Jenifer Davis realized during the first witness' testimony that she had worked on the case when in the PD's office.
Why can't we seem to get this guy tried?

What's your verdict?

Posted by WESH News on 3/1/09:

Man Shoots Girlfriend In Back At Least 5 Times, Police Say
Mother Of 4 Shot, Killed In Orange Co. Condominium

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Police said a man told them he shot his girlfriend in the back because he was mad at her on Sunday.

Dwayne Grant, 29, was charged with first-degree murder.
Family members said Grant shot his girlfriend five or six times in the back at unit 2355 in the Huntington on the Green condominiums.

Randy Bowles said his niece, 28-year-old Rahmisha Oliver, had a 3-month-old child. Bowles said he was only feet away from Oliver when she was shot.

"He stood right here, and I was standing right here by the dryer," he said.

Bowles said Grant and Oliver were arguing, and then Grant snapped.

"When she got shot the first time, she was trying to come this way," he said. "He was coming this way. When she tried to turn around, he was still shooting. That's when she fell right here and he kept shooting at her."

There are five spots on the tile floor where bullets ricocheted and then hit a wall.

Crime scene investigators removed part of the wall so that they could get to the bullets.

Bowles said he grabbed a knife from the kitchen and chased Grant outside.

Police found Grant hiding behind a bush 30 feet away from Oliver's apartment.

"She was a very friendly, nice person," said neighbor Sue Walden.

Neighbors said Oliver was a good mother to her four children, but her relationship with Grant was violent. He has a criminal history including a charge for abusing her when she was pregnant.

Bowles said Oliver's mother is going to adopt her four children and they are moving to South Carolina.

Grant was in court today, before Judge Jenifer Davis, on trial for First Degree Murder with a firearm. Evidence presented during trial showed that the defendant discharged his gun 8 times - emptying all rounds from the magazine - during the incident. His attorney, Tanya Terry, conceded that he pulled the trigger and argued that they went to trial because there was no premeditation involved. Something happened to make him "snap" during his argument with Oliver over the paternity of her 3-month old daughter.

Testimony at trial showed that Grant went upstairs, retrieved his gun, went downstairs, chambered a round, and aimed it at Oliver before firing it at her, all within a matter of moments. Assistant State Attorney Ken Lewis argued that his actions showed conscious intent and were not a spur of the moment act. Oliver's uncle, Randy Bowles, was on the line with 911 during the shooting and the jury listened to multiple gunshots as they were fired and his niece's life ended.

Ms. Terry attempted to convince the jury that her client suddenly "snapped" and that his actions were not premeditated. Mr. Lewis argued that they were indeed premeditated.

What's your verdict?

Jury deliberations will continue Wednesday. I'll keep you posted.

11/18/09: The defendant was sentenced to LIFE in the Department of Corrections.