Fast food & fast justice

Approximately one year ago, CourtWatch began a letter writing campaign to specific locations of the above fast food restaurants in our community because Judge Sally Kest was ordering unmonitored exchange of children between parents in domestic violence injunction cases at their locations. We dubbed these "McDonalds Exchanges" because the golden arches was overwhelmingly ordered by the judge as the site for these potentially dangerous encounters.

To understand how risky this practice is, we have only to remember the case of Emmanuella Biziyaremye, age 28, who on May 6, 2007 had a copy of her final injunction in hand when she went to meet her estranged husband to retrieve her children from their visit with him.  This injunction, granted by Judge Janet Thorpe only 17 days earlier, designated the parking lot of the Walgreens store at East Colonial Dr & Bumby Rd as the place where the parents would meet. This site was selected because there were video surveillance cameras that covered the parking lot.

Mrs. Biziyaremye was shot twice in the head by her husband, Anselme, who then fled to Jacksonville where he was killed a few days later in a shootout with law enforcement after threatening suicide.

The couple's children had been left with a friend in Orlando by their father before the shooting of their mother.  Another child, whom the victim was babysitting, was present in her car and was unhurt.

Judge Kest did this so frequently that her injunction paperwork has the instructions pre-printed on it.

How is it that the other two judges in the Injunction division manage to order only monitored exchanges in the cases they hear? The options are:

• via school, daycare or babysitter where one parent drops off in the morning and the other picks up in the afternoon
• via a family member or friend who is agreed upon by the parties (either at that person's home or that person does the transporting of the children)
• via Family Ties at the courthouse during regular business hours or at a downtown location on weekends.

CourtWatch recognizes that the Domestic Violence with Children injunction hearings can be the most difficult ones to conduct. The parties can be acrimonious and unwilling to negotiate with one another.  Their geographical and/or work schedule differences can make it nearly impossible to work out an arrangement that will be satisfactory to both parents. But the other judges seem to have it figured out. They seem to be more willing to take the time needed during these hearings to broker an arrangement between the parties.

A minor victory
Shortly after our first letters landed on the desks of fast-food restaurants around Central Florida, we received a call from McDonalds asking how they could have their restaurant removed from an injunction.  Rather than provide their attorney with the case number (because we wanted to avoid having the parties yanked back into court, thus inconveniencing them and potentially inflaming their situation further), CourtWatch recommended they write to Judge Kest and copy Judge Perry on their request.  I since learned they did exactly that.

A short time thereafter, we watched another hearing where Judge Kest was ordering unmonitored exchange, but this time said "Pick a family-friendly restaurant that's convenient to you both.... anyplace but McDonalds."

It's interesting to note that McDonalds recognizes the potential for danger. Not only does this practice jeopardize the safety of the victim and children involved, but also the restaurant employees and its patrons. Just because a court order spells out how to "safely" conduct the exchange, there is nothing to prevent a violent abuser from arriving early and doing what Mr. Biziyaremye did.

It's also interesting to note that none of the other letter recipients, to our knowledge, acted upon the information we provided to them.

We wonder why Judge Kest doesn't seem to, in spite of the specialized training that is available to judges, understand the danger as well. Nor does she seem to recognize that it is against the law for her to order that a business be mandated to conduct commerce (specifically the unmonitored exchange of children) for which it is not designed.

Last month, Judge Kest transferred to Domestic Relations division where she hears divorce cases. Unfortunately, she is still in a position to order the unmonitored exchange of children while in a courtroom that CourtWatch does not traditionally visit.  We can only hope the practice ceases.

Jurors need our protection

If I had served on the Casey Anthony jury, I would be terrified about having my name released to the public. After giving several weeks of my life to the case, and making a decision that one of my fellow jurors, in a statement to the media, made us "sick to our stomachs," I would want to be protected by Judge Belvin Perry.

Watch his comments at this motion where media outlets were arguing to know who the jurors were.

This case created a maelstrom of publicity and public opinion. There is no doubt in my mind that some members of the public might feel as though they need to seek justice for Caylee and feel entitled to impose their own kind of vigilante justice upon the good citizens who did their job. There are people out there who could conceivably stalk, terrorize, or even assault the people who served our community for nearly 2 months, all in the name of "Justice for Caylee."

In spite of all the arguments for "transparency" and "justice," there is no good reason to divulge the jurors names to anyone. If they choose to step forward and do interviews, that's their choice. Not the choice of some media hounds or psychopathic citizens.

Judge Perry is rightly concerned with what previous case law says on the subject. But this issue is important enough to make new case law. It's tough enough to get people to answer their jury summonses. Why hamper the System's ability to seat a jury in high profile cases, or other less publicized but potentially threatening to juror cases?

With the abundance of personal information that's available to anyone with an internet connection, our Courts need to protect jurors from those who might be unhappy with their verdict - whether it's a high profile case or one that never made the news.

See also this interview with the jury foreman, who wishes to remain anonymous.

Beware . . . You may not be as protected as you think

Two weeks ago I was in Judge Marc Lubet's courtroom when I heard something that left me somewhat stunned. An alleged sex offender, who was released prior to trial with GPS monitoring through a private company, Court Programs, fled to Honduras in March. As I inquired further, I learned that another alleged sex offender who was awaiting trial with GPS monitoring fled to Turkey in July.

Court Programs uses state-of-the-art technology from SecureAlert to track their clients. The units enable the SecureAlert monitoring center to verbally communicate directly with the client and establish a three-way call with the defendant's local officer. An exclusion/inclusion zone can be programmed, and real-time details about an offender's location delivered. The daily cost to the defendant ranges from $8 to $15.

GPS monitoring can be a win-win for all parties involved. The defendant, who is innocent until proven guilty, can maintain his/her job while awaiting trial. The victim is assured that the defendant's movements are being monitored. The taxpayers avoid having to pay approximately $85/day to house them at the jail.

But it's not a win-win if the monitoring company doesn't do its job and notify law enforcement and the Court when a defendant violates their conditions of pretrial release (or probation).

In talking with members of the court system, I received almost overwhelming approval of the job that Court Programs does. With the exception of occasional concerns about slow service in getting inmates set up with their devices on weekends, they do a good job in providing this much needed service.

The following two Orange County sex offenders have fled this country to avoid prosecution:

Lewis Lopez-Moya [Honduras]
2009-CF-016563-A-O
Lewd/Lascivious Battery (2 counts)
Lopez-Moya's victim, whom he admitted to sexually assaulting, was 14 years old when the offenses occurred in November, 2009. He was granted bond in the amount of $10,000 by Judge Marc Lubet on 12/17/09, put on GPS monitoring through Court Programs, ordered to turn in his passport (which he did on 12/18/10), restricted to Orange County, ordered to have no contact with the victim, and had a curfew imposed. His conditions of release were modified in February, 2010 to permit daytime travel to surrounding counties for work purposes only.

On March 15, 2010, Lopez-Moya's defense attorney was permitted to withdraw from the case. "Irreconcilable differences" was cited as the reason.

On or about March 24, 2010, Court Programs lost contact with the defendant.  That same day, an Order to Take Into Custody was entered, citing that the defendant had knowingly or intentionally altered or tampered with the device. The bond was forfeited.

On March 25, 2010, the bondsman filed a motion to have the bond forfeiture rescinded, citing the failure of Court Programs to adequately notify the bondsman and the Court of defendant's having violated the terms of pretrial release as follows:

Pursuant to the CPI FL [Court Programs Inc, Florida] tracking records, for weeks upon weeks, the Defendant did not reside at [address], Orlando and had been breaching his curfew.  CPI never informed the surety [bondsman] of these breaches and never provided notice to this Honorable Court. As such, the Court's directed program in which the surety had to utilize and rely upon was in breach (emphasis mine).

Pursuant to the CPI FL tracking records, for long periods of time the Defendant's GPS tracker showed that the monitoring was "UNAVAILABLE." The signal for "UNAVAILABLE," usually signifies that the Defendant is or has been tampering with the GPS monitor. CPI FL and Court Programs Inc failed to not only inform the surety, but failed to take appropriate action against the Defendant in which they had been secured by this court to secure.

Attached to the motion was dozens of pages of tracking data, together with two maps that showed that the defendant traveled to Brevard County and was last "pinged" suspiciously close to the Melbourne International Airport.

A hearing was held in July and Judge Lubet granted the bondsman's motion to return the money to him.

Selami Duman [Turkey]
2010-CF-008400-A-O
Solicitation of Minor via Computer; Travel to Meet Minor for Unlawful Act; Lewd/Lascivious Exhibition Using Computer (2 counts)
Duman is a Turkish citizen and was granted a $30,000 bond on June 16, 2010 by Judge Jeffrey Arnold. He was released two days later on GPS monitoring through Court Programs after surrendering his passport.

On July 1, 2010 a hearing on the defendant's motion to have his passport returned was denied. He faced deportation because his employment had been terminated as a result of the arrest and he was unable to obtain a new visa in order to seek employment.

On July 4, 2010 the GPS device either malfunctioned or it was disconnected.  It took Court Programs four days to notify the bondsman that they had lost track of the defendant.

On July 8, 2010, an order was drafted to have the defendant taken into custody.

On July 12, 2010 an Order to Take Into Custody was entered, citing that the defendant had allowed his device to power down on June 18th [this must be a typo on the paperwork - other documentation says it was July 4th] and that all attempts to contact him had failed.

The monitoring device was mailed back to Court Programs with a return address in Turkey.


These defendants either traveled on someone else's passport, used a forged a passport, or managed to secure a duplicate from their governments. We are curious to know how they got out of this country.



Conclusion

Chief Judge Belvin Perry issued Administrative Order 2008-27 on 12/31/08 that governs the use of GPS and SCRAM (alcohol) monitoring devices.  It does not specify a provider for these services.

Court Programs is a privately held company that provides the majority of GPS monitoring services in the county for the Ninth Judicial Circuit. A search of Orange County's Contracts & Purchasing Division records turned up no formal contract. CourtWatch has also been unable to locate a formal Memorandum of Understanding between them and the County, the Court or the Corrections Department.

We are concerned that there is little to no oversight of this company as it is tasked with monitoring some dangerous offenders in our community. While Court Programs has been very successful with nearly all of their clients, even being accused at times of being too aggressive in reporting infractions, two individuals accused of sex crimes against children will most likely never be held accountable for those crimes.

More attention to this matter is needed. Some believe that the Ninth Circuit is responsible for overseeing this matter. Others believe that the County Corrections should handle it. There is a gap somewhere that needs to be plugged. The citizens need to have more leverage and the ability to impose sanctions upon GPS providers when things go awry and our defendants go astray.

Every Day is a Gift

Even though this case doesn't fall into the usual category of cases we follow, CourtWatch was sufficiently appalled after John Hill Hawthorne, age 19, (pictured here) was released on home confinement by Judge John Adams soon after his arrest. Hawthorne is accused in the July murder that involved over a dozen pocket-knife stab wounds in the back of Joel Boner, a homeless man who allegedly flirted with the defendant. Hawthorne had reportedly been drinking all night before coming upon Boner's camp near his parents' 20-acre property in Ocoee.

Click here to see the earlier post.

Mr. Hawthorne was in court Friday before Chief Judge Belvin Perry, who took the case after Judge Adam's earlier ruling. Hawthorne was requesting the opportunity to go outside his parents' home in order to "get some sun" and help cultivate the acreage into a hay farm.

When Hawthorne's father, Milton Claude Hawthorne testified, he couldn't seem to remember whether or not the family was going to clear the old, overgrown orange grove in order to plant hay or sod. When he finally seemed to recollect that they were growing hay, he was sketchy about what that entailed. He mentioned that they had been trying to get it established since last December. He testified that having John do the work would give him the opportunity to earn some money as well. The elder Hawthorne was also evasive when Judge Perry asked who had mowed the grass around the home prior to the incident, claiming that he, John, and his wife took turns doing it. His son was a much better witness on the stand than he was.

Assistant State Attorney Ken Lewis presented Detective Inizzuzi, who testified that there was no visible evidence of any cultivation work being done. She also testified that Cameron Milner, eyewitness to the murder, had lived with the Hawthorne family earlier in the year, and had no knowledge of his friend having responsibility for chores of any kind.

Mr. Lewis effectively painted a picture of a young defendant who has accomplished nothing of value in his life - having been expelled from school, was unemployed, and was drinking alcohol while driving an ATV on his family's property that fateful night. The victim's family was represented by his uncle, Lon Boner, who found it extremely objectionable that Hawthorne might be permitted to come within a few yards of the murder site. He also testified that the family did not know about the bond hearing earlier, or else he would have attended (he is the closest family member and lives in Georgia).

In his final argument, Defense Counsel Charles Willetts asserted that even inmates at the jail get to go outside for sun. He claimed that his client was merely defending himself (something I find hard to believe given the fact that Mr. Boner had over a dozen stab wounds in his back), and that Hawthorne's request is a reasonable one.

In his final argument, Assistant State Attorney Ken Lewis must have read my mind when he offered that the State would have no problem with Mr. Hawthorne serving the rest of his pretrial release at the jail. He emphatically reminded the defendant that every day of the past 3+ months that he's been on home confinement have been a gift. After all, the victim can't have any modification of his situation.

The ruling?

Judge Perry ruled that Hawthorne could have 1 hour a day (the same as inmates at the jail) outdoors. He is to be limited to a radius of 50 yards from the home and must schedule his hour with the home confinement officer. 

We can only hope the defendant's parents give him some chores to do.

Misdemeanor DV Court Gets "It"

In 2007, Orange County implemented at specialized misdemeanor domestic violence division. Court personnel received training about the dynamics of DV as well as knowing what the Statute requires. Judge Jerry Brewer presided over this division until Dec 2008 (except for 4 months in 2008 when budget cuts caused it to shut down). He did a phenomenal job of running this division and CourtWatch was disappointed when he was reassigned to traffic court in January.


Because of their specialized training, the prosecutors and judge in this division routinely include BIP (the 26 week Batterer's Intervention Program) in their plea agreements and sentencings. I spent a lot of time in Judge Brewer's courtroom in the early months of my courtwatching career and learned a great deal from him.

Once I began to monitor the felony courts more often, I was astonished to see the prosecutors and judges rarely, if ever, order BIP for domestic violence offenders - either in their plea agreements or when they'd been adjudicated by a jury. I can only assume that because their divisions handle a wide variety of offenses, that they didn't know that the Statute says:

• if a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to a crime of domestic violence, even if adjudication is withheld, Florida Statute requires they be receive 1 year's probation and be ordered into BIP - if the Court finds BIP is not appropriate (which would be the case in non-intimate partner violence), it must state on the record why it is not


• if a defendant is adjudicated guilty of a crime of domestic violence and they've intentionally caused bodily harm to the victim, they must be sentenced to a minimum of 5 days in jail

Last fall we presented our concerns to Chief Judge Belvin Perry about our findings that sentencings in felony divisions were not in accordance with statutory requirements. After researching the Statute, he agreed and issued a memorandum to the judges to make them aware of what the law requires. This memorandum was sent by CourtWatch to Lawson Lamar, the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit (Orange/Osceola) in February.

In State v. Steven Piantieri 2008CF16896 (about which we previously blogged), the defendant was charged with felony battery and pled to misdemeanor battery on 3/31/09. He was ordered to complete 1 year of probation; have no contact with the victim (yet he was ordered to write her an apology letter!); 1 day jail with credit for time served (where is our 5-day jail term?); complete 35 hours of community service; continue with anger management counseling on a weekly basis with his existing counselor and provide proof to his attorney.

Orange County Probation's specialized DV unit asked for a hearing this week to clarify the sentence because there is no such program as Domestic Violence Anger Management. You can order either Anger Management or BIP (which is geared toward counseling batterers about issues of power and control - not anger). The victim definately wanted BIP ordered. The judge was inclined to agree. HOWEVER, the Assistant State Attorney handling the case, Diane Murphy, said that anger management was acceptable. BIP was not ordered for Mr. Piantieri.

For CourtWatch, and for the victim, this is unacceptable! We need the State Attorney and his Assistants to do their best to enforce the law. That is what we as citizens should expect from our prosecutors.