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?

Arrest Warrant for Victim Issued Today

In monitoring Judge Marc Lubet's courtroom today, I saw the State request a material witness warrant for their case against Charles Allen Ford (2008CF16142), a defendant who has battered numerous women over the past 10 years, all of whom have declined to prosecute him. Defense Counsel Sherlene Cruz from the Public Defender's Office represented that the victim signed a Declination of Prosecution in February and as of last Friday told her office that she does not want to proceed. Assistant State Attorney Pam Davis called their investigator and Victim Advocate testify, both of whom advised the Court that the victim is cooperative and does want to proceed. She was, however, not in court this morning.

Judge Lubet wisely granted the State's motion for the warrant in order to hear from Ford's victim himself. Generally speaking, CourtWatch opposes re-victimizing victims in this manner. She is now subject to being arrested and brought before the judge. But the conflicting versions of what the victim wants to happen, coupled with the facts of the attack (alleged strangulation together with a gruesome photo of the back of her head where the defendant allegedly struck her with a hammer) and his lengthy history of several victims not prosecuting, indicate that extraordinary measures are needed to hold Mr. Ford accountable for his crimes.

Defense Counsel requested that Mr. Ford, who was in a downstairs holding cell, be brought before the judge so that he could explain the ruling and the fact that Ms. Cruz had vigorously opposed the State's motion. It wouldn't surprise me if he was attempting to intimidate his attorney too. Judge Lubet graciously agreed to do so.

If only the State had the resources to protect Mr. Ford's victim adequately, then she might feel safe enough to proceed. Until we can protect victims from retribution by their batterers, we stand little chance of making significant strides in holding perpetrators accountable, thereby reducing the prevalence of these assaults.