Man who nearly killed his daughter showed not one iota of remorse

Sometimes you just have to shake your head in bewilderment as you come out of the courthouse.

Today was one of those days.

I often hear comments from members of the public that make me think they'd like to nearly crucify a judge or the State Attorney for lenient sentences and plea agreements. Today I wished the jurors who heard this case had been in the courtroom. Because it was their verdict that is responsible for this lenient sentence (though the judge imposed the maximum allowable by law).

Hopefully they'll find this blog.

Chris K Stevens, age 26, was sentenced today for one count of misdemeanor Battery and one count of Neglect of a Child. CourtWatch was the only person in the gallery.

Mr. Stevens was originally charged with Aggravated Child Abuse (maximum penalty 30 years), Attempted Felony Murder (maximum penalty LIFE), and Neglect of a Child (maximum 5 years) relating to an assault on his 8-year old daughter on 10/22/08.

Stevens allegedly beat his daughter so severely that she sustained a fractured vertebra and a bruised liver. He then decided to ship her off to grandma's house in Washington State, contacted his sister to accompany her on the plane, dressed her in a Halloween witch's costume with a veil over her face for the flight, and told her that if anybody asked about her injuries, to tell them she had been in a car wreck. He did not seek professional medical attention for her injuries before the trip.

His sister, while on the flight, asked her to remove the veil and was appalled at her condition (I'd still like to know how TSA and airline personnel in our post-9/11 world didn't think it was suspicious that her face was covered, even though it was Halloween). When they arrived in Washington, the child's aunt and grandmother sought medical attention for her.

The child told her grandmother that her father had done this to her.

A pediatric doctor testified at the trial in April that her injuries were life threatening. A pediatric nurse testified that after she counted 50 individual blows to the child's body, she stopped counting.  Understandably, the child did not come to testify at the trial. Her statements, considered hearsay, could not be heard by the jury. Nor could information about the defendant's arrest in March, 2007 for child abuse, child neglect, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor be heard because he was acquitted by a different jury. 

In that older case, Stevens allegedly ran out the back door of his home, threw his daughter (the same victim) over a fence, jumped over himself, and held her up as a human shield to prevent law enforcement officers from shooting him in a drug bust.

After several minutes of discussion about the sentencing scoresheet, the hearing centered on the defendant's contention that he was the victim of a home invasion wherein two perpetrators (who have never been identified) beat his daughter because he didn't tell them where his drugs were hidden. He asserted that he had been punched in the stomach (having the wind knocked out of him) and couldn't respond to their demands fast enough to prevent the attack on his daughter. He also testified that he did not call law enforcement at the time because he did not want to get in trouble for having drugs in the house.

There was no evidence presented at trial that he sustained any injuries on the date in question. His sister testified at trial that she never saw any injuries on him.

Judge Marc Lubet, with a hint of sarcasm in his voice, noted "so they beat the child in the face, but not him in the face?" Stevens claimed he went in hiding after the invasion so nobody saw him, to which the judge replied, "That's not true, you went and met your sister." Stevens quickly backpedaled and said that was the only time he came out.

Apparently, there was enough reasonable doubt in the minds of the trial jury for them to convict Stevens only of misdemeanor Battery and felony Child Neglect.

I guess they left their common sense at home when they came for jury duty.

Defense Counsel Beth Bourdon provided a vigorous defense for her client today and spoke eloquently on his behalf. Stevens, who has no convictions on his criminal record (but several cases on http://www.myorangeclerk.com/)  addressed the Court and told the judge about his church involvement, mentoring the troubled youth in his church, his desire to be a productive member of society, to get back to work (the minister's wife is apparently willing to hire him as a barber) and support his family, to do his charity work, and to have a relationship with his father who has cancer. He promised the judge that he could and would successfully complete any and all requirements imposed by probation if it was granted. He promised several times that he would be a law-abiding citizen and would never be back in this position again.

There were no defense witnesses (church members or family members) present to corroborate his promises or the representations he made about his church involvement and their support of him.

Assistant State's Attorney Deborah Barra reminded the Court that the defendant was responsible, either directly or indirectly (if one is to believe the home invasion story), for the child's injuries. Adding to that the fact that he did not seek medical attention for her, Barra asked for the maximum penalty available (1 + 5 years).

Ms. Bourdon requested the minimum sentence per the sentencing guidelines (19.65 months), 3 years probation, community service and a parenting class for her client.

Judge Lubet imposed the maximum penalties (with credit for 342 days time served), to be served consecutively, plus fines of $1,000 and $5,000 respectively, court costs, costs of prosecution, a $1,500 lien for the public defender, and ordered restitution.

The defendant, after hearing the sentence, reminded the judge that he had no criminal history and asked if he might do Community Control instead of prison. He spoke about the financial hardship of the sentence and his desire to support his family and pay the costs. He promised that he would never be in this position again and asked for the opportunity to prove himself, asserting that being a father and a member of the community was the most important thing to him. He spoke again of his church involvement (1 year before being arrested) and his spiritual growth. He promised to be an upstanding citizen. He claimed he doesn't do drugs (although he admitted that he had been around them slightly) and he teaches the kids to stay away from them. He promised this. He promised that.

He exhibited not one iota of remorse for what he did.

He claimed he's been a great father for all his kids (I'm not sure how many there are), except he made a bad decision with having become associated with drugs and the drug culture. He talked again about his work with the youth - teaching them to avoid drugs.

Judge Lubet replied that once he gets out of prison he'll really have something to tell them about and encouraged him to keep up the good work.

This is a young man that has been able to tap dance his way out of trouble for his entire life. He was long on promises today. Only time (and what he does after his 5 years in prison) will tell if he was sincere.
__________________________
At the outset of today's sentencing hearing, the State made a motion to find the defendant in contempt of court for violating the no contact order that had been imposed. Ms. Barra was prepared to play the CD of his phone call from the jail to his daughter on Christmas Day. More calls are being reviewed for possible prosecution. Each count would potentially be worth an additional 6 months on his sentence.

Trooper Gilbert's sentencing "post-mortem"

After FHP Trooper James Gilbert's sentencing on April 22, 2010 before Judge Marc Lubet, CourtWatch spent considerable time going through our records and developing a comparison of similar cases for analysis.

Having monitored hundreds, if not thousands, of pleas & sentencing hearings, we were surprised at the severity of the sentence for this defendant who never physically touched his victim, even though he scored over 10 years in prison.

When evaluating cases, there are numerous factors that must be taken into consideration. They typically include severity of the offense, its impact upon the victim, whether or not the victim is cooperative with the prosecution (if the State can't make its case without victim testimony, and the victim refuses to testify, the charge is often reduced or dropped), the availability of other evidence, the defendant's age, history of substance abuse, mental issues and previous crimes committed.
Each case is unique in its circumstances, thus making comparisons an exercise in trying to equate apples to oranges.

In this particular case, Gilbert pled to the bench, which means there was no prior agreement with the State Attorney as to what the sentence would be. The initial offer of no jail time + 18 months sex offender probation was rejected by the defendant in the early stages of this case. As it progressed through several defense motions, the prosecution's offer got tougher and was ultimately withdrawn.

It appeared as though both sides dug in their heels and could find no common ground for an agreement.

Of the 45 cases we examined, only 4 went to a jury trial. Two were pleas to the Bench (including Gilbert's) and the rest were agreed upon sentences between the State and defendant. It's important to realize that only when there's a plea to the bench or a trial, does the judge determine a sentence. When there is an agreed upon resolution, it's because the State Attorney and Counsel for the defendant have negotiated one.

It's always difficult to be a Monday morning quarterback when watching what transpires in the courtroom. We are not privvy to much of the information that the Court, State and Defense have. I do know that this defendant's behavior caused the 17-year old victim and her family to become estranged from one another. CourtWatch cannot begin to put a "price" on what the victim in this case has endured. It's impossible to undo the damage to her and her family.

Click here for the background info.

In addition to his sentence of 18 months in prison + 8 years sex offender probation, the Mr. Gilbert was terminated from his 17-year career with the Florida Highway Patrol as a result of his crime.

CourtWatch collected sentencing data about cases in which defendants were charged with the same crime as Gilbert was (most of which had fewer than 10 counts) and compared it to cases where the defendants were charged with Sexual Activity With a 16-17 Year Old. The sentences were converted from months or years into days so that we could more easily compare them. They range from no jail time to 15 years in the Department of Corrections.

We find it interesting that nearly half (12 out of 23) defendants who had actual physical contact with their victims were sentenced to less prison/jail time than Gilbert was. Eleven of those defendants got away without being required to register as a sex offender.

Only one defendant who pled to similar charges as Gilbert got more incarceration time than he did.

This sheet shows cases sorted by amount of time incarcerated.

This sheet shows cases sorted by total time supervised (incarceration + community control + probation).

Finally, in the majority of all types of criminal cases, first time offenders have adjudication withheld when they are sentenced. Essentially, this means that if they successfully complete all the conditions of their probation, they are not considered to be a convicted felon.

Why did this not happen for Mr. Gilbert? While we're at it, we ask the same question about Casey Anthony when she pled to the theft, forgery and uttering charges (2008-CF-013331-A-O) in January and was adjudicated guilty (although she certainly has more serious charges to deal with).

CourtWatch prefers to not open the "Casey" can of worms - there are plenty of other bloggers out there talking about her.

Was Gilbert's sentence too harsh? Or too lenient? We'd love to hear from you.

Sexting Trooper sentenced to 18 months in prison

If he had accepted the State's plea offer, James E. Gilbert could have walked away from Judge Lubet's courtroom a year ago with an 18-month sex offender probation sentence. And no jail time.

But he didn't think he should be labeled a sex offender, so he rejected the offer.

Two months ago, when confronted with going to trial, Gilbert pled no contest to ten counts of Solicitation of a Minor via Computer while he was employed by the Florida Highway Patrol as a State Trooper. For more background info on this case, see our earlier blogs.

Earlier this week, he was sentenced to 18 months in the Department of Corrections, 8 years sex offender probation, ordered to have no contact with the victim and her stepfather (his former supervisor at FHP), undergo mental health evaluation and treatment, and pay restitution.

Neal McShane, attorney for Mr. Gilbert, presented testimony from one psychologist, another psychologist's written report, and the defendant himself, in an effort to provide enough mitigation per Florida Statute 921.0026 as he requested a downward departure before Judge Lubet. Gilbert's 198 sentencing points equated to a lowest permissable sentence (by statute) of 127.5 months in the Department of Corrections.

Per Florida Statute, if the defendant requires specialized treatment for a mental disorder that is unrelated to substance abuse or addiction or for a physical disability, and the defendant is amenable to treatment, the judge may downward depart.

• One psychologist's report diagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and was submitted for consideration.
• Dr. Robert Tango, LMHC, testified that the defendant's motivation wasn't sex but having fun/excitment (in large part because he was bored with his assignment at a Turnpike rest area). Dr. Tango found that Gilbert had bipolar disorder.
• Dr. Tango's assertion that DOC was not equipped to provide the specialized treatment needed was not based on any discussions he had with officials at DOC, but upon the reports of other clients referred to him by DOC after their release.
• Neither psychologist conducted a psychosexual exam.

Another mitigating factor occurs if the offense was committed in an unsophisticated manner and was an isolated incident for which the defendant has shown remorse.

• Gilbert took the stand and testified that he had never before engaged in texting of a sexual nature.
• The defendant explained that even though some people might think he's shown no remorse (because he hasn't broken down and cried) he felt bad for what he did.
• Gilbert looked directly at the victim, apologized to her for causing stress, humiliation and family separation. He stressed the impact that this entire episode has had on the victim's family, and almost as an afterthought he added, "and of course, yourself."
• He admitted he knew what he did was wrong and said he accepted responsibility for his actions, though he told the prosecutor under cross-examination "I don't think that what I've done rates me registering as a sex offender." And, "For the circumstances that are involved here, I don't think I should have to register as a sex offender." Ultimately, by pleading to the offenses, he has accepted legal responsibility for his behavior.
• The defendant claimed there was never any intention to do anything with the victim or anybody else in her family.  It was all talk. It was all in fun.

Judge Lubet found that the offense was indeed unsophisticated in nature.  As for it being an "isolated incident," much discussion about whether the 10-17 days (no one was sure how many exact days were involved) over which the text messages occurred could be considered as "isolated."

The prosecutor questioned whether or not "great remorse" had been exhibited by the defendant. Case law indicates that when great remorse is evident immediately after an incident, it could be grounds for a downward departure.

The judge noted that Gilbert took 2 years to enter a plea to the offenses. He recognized how difficult it was for a law enforcement officer to admit that he had done something of this nature. Mr. McShane replied that even at the outset, everyone knew that this case would be a plea, but that there were several motions that needed to be filed. The defense complained about the State's handling of this case as well as the victim's mother's involvement in the case (she and the victim's father were conspicuously absent from the proceedings). Mr. McShane also emphasized that the sentencing hearing was his client's first opportunity to apologize to the victim and that all he wanted throughout the process was his day in court.

Mr. Williams reminded the Court that defendants typically have the opportunity at their arraignments (which occur approximately 5-6 weeks after arrest) to accept responsibility and move on. He questioned whether a defendant who hides behind numerous motions really was remorseful.

The disdain between the attorneys for one another was evident.

Mr. McShane asserted that the State Attorney's Office initial plea offer was unreasonable and that it was treating his client more harshly than it would anyone else because he was a law enforcement officer. The State responded that the defendant, by virtue of his job, was in a better position than most to know that his actions were illegal.

Other factors that Mr. McShane presented to the Court for consideration were a dozen letters from FHP personnel, at least one of which bashed the victim and her family and extolled Gilbert's career accomplishments. An additional factor that was presented for consideration was that the victim's mother did not want Gilbert prosecuted. The stepfather has maintained a neutral position about what should happen. The judge was reminded that the defendant had a squeaky clean record and it was argued that he does not pose a future threat to society.

Mr. McShane argued that if ANYONE deserves a significant downward departure, his client is the one.

The victim's attorney, William Jay, provided an impact statement on behalf of his client. He testified that the victim is very afraid of the defendant and wanted him to be incarcerated. She believed that he is not remorseful and seemed angry and resentful during his testimony. She is concerned about Dr. Ming's report which called the defendant a sadist.

She requested what the sentencing guidelines called for (127.5 months in DOC). Mr. McShane objected to the victim asserting that she was afraid of the defendant.

The judge found that Mr. Gilbert had a mental disorder and that he was amenable to treatment, but indicated there was no evidence presented that the Department of Corrections was unable to provide the necessary treatment. Judge Lubet also agreed that the offense was unsophisticated in its commission.

The judge's greatest concern related to the remorse that was, or was not, shown. He believed that it was possible that Mr. Gilbert's personality is that of a hard man who does not express emotion well. The judge was not 100% convinced of Gilbert's level of remorse, and therefore found that Mr. McShane had not proved his client was truly remorseful.

The Court took into consideration Gilbert's exemplary career, that neither parent requested incarceration, the victim (now 18 years old) did request incarceration, the defendant does not pose a future threat, and that he is amenable to treatment that is unrelated to substance abuse.

Judge Lubet found that while this was an extremely distasteful offense, he noted there was no physical abuse involved. The defendant was a friend of the family and violated the family's trust in a dramatic manner. Gilbert knew what he was doing was wrong.

The judge believed that 10 years in prison was too harsh, and sentenced him to 18 months + 8 years probation. He was adjudicated him guilty on all 10 counts, designated as a Sexual Offender, ordered mental health evaluation and treatment, and no contact with the victim or her stepfather. The judge noted that the mother might want to have contact with him.

A supersedeas bond in the amount of $7,500 was granted and he was remanded to custody.  In spite of assertions he had no money, he managed to post the 15% necessary to be out of jail the following day. Judge Lubet ordered GPS monitoring, waived the cost, and ordered him to relinquish his passport before being released.

Was this sentence in line with other cases in Orange County? More to follow in the next blog entry.

Whatever Happened to . . . ? #14

Thomas Vennel
2008-CF-011597-A-O (Orange)
1st Degree Murder
Defendant allegedly killed his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend at a homeless camp in east Orange County
Jury adjudicated defendant guilty as charged. Judge Marc Lubet sentenced him to LIFE in the Department of Corrections.

Duston Hobbs
2009-CF-014829-A-O (Orange)
Burglary of Dwelling; Criminal Mischief; Cruelty to Animals (2 counts)
Defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to 51 weeks to be served in the work release program and ordered to attend Lakeside Alternative Psychosocial Rehabilitation Group while in work release; 30 months probation; restitution; no contact with victim; take prescribed medications

Vincent Michael Marchese
2009-CF-016698-A-O (Orange)
Attempted Burglary Occupied Dwelling (2cts); Petit Theft
Defendant allegedly abducted a friend's 3-yr old while she was receiving medical care at Altamonte Hospital - a 5 hour search resulted in his apprehension in Maitland. Seminole case 2009-CF-005396-A is pending.
Defendant pled no contest and was sentenced to 46 months Department of Corrections

Shawn E Hammonds
2008-CF-015541-A-O (Orange)
Sexual Battery Vic<12 (2cts); Lewd/Lascivious Molestation vic <12 (4cts); Lewd/Lascivious exhibition by person >18
The State offered 15 years in a plea deal which the defendant rejected (defendant passed a voice stress analysis test).
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of all counts and was sentenced by Judge Marc Lubet to LIFE in the Department of Corrections and was designated a sexual predator.

Arkeisha Perez
2009-MM-013037-A-O (Orange)
False Info to LEO re: Missing Person or Felony; Perjury When Not in an Official Proceeding
Defendant's boyfriend, Somele Jean Calixte allegedly accidentally shot her child. Defendant claimed her 4-yr was the accidental shooter after Calixte fled.
Defendant pled no contest and was sentenced to complete a parenting class and 6 months probation. Probation to be served concurrently with her sentence in drug case 2009-CF-011932-A-O wherein she will serve 2 years probation and 75 hours community service.

William Harris
2009-CF-000659-A (Seminole)
Possess Material Depicting Sexual Performance by Child (21 counts)
Defendant pled no contest to all counts and was sentenced to 4 years Department of Corrections + 5 years sex offender probation. Defendant's motion for supersedeas bond was granted by Judge Debra Nelson. Defendant was released on $2500 bond pending his appeal. He was ordered to be monitored by GPS (at no cost to him) while his case is on appeal. He is to have no contact with children pending his appeal.
It seems to CourtWatch that a defendant who pled no contest in a plea agreement (where he agreed to 4 years DOC) should be in prison while his appeal progresses, not living with his mother in Longwood, as was ordered by the Court.

Bobby Palmer
2008-CF-006442-A (Seminole)
Lewd/Lascivious Molestation (2 counts)
Defendant pled no contest and was sentenced to 7 years DOC + 15 years sex offender probation.

Arsonist/Stalker now in custody

In following up on the arsonist/stalker case from last month, I was delighted to learn that Tommy Lee Knight's charges were amended to 3 counts of Attempted Murder and he is now in custody. The State's Motion to Revoke Bond on March 5th was also granted by Judge Lubet.

This is one of those cases that haunted me after monitoring the February bond hearing. The fear that the victim exhibited, as she trembled during her testimony, was abundantly evident. Her mother expressed how helpless she felt in keeping her teenage daughter safe from the defendant.

Knight now has two new misdemeanor charges pending. In case 2010MM2269AO there are two counts of Resisting Officer w/o Violence and in 2010MM2250AO he is charged with one count of Violating Pretrial Release Conditions on a Domestic Violence case (both filed on 3/3/10).

Mr. Knight is now in custody. His trial is scheduled for next month.

"He's 40 - She's 17!"

James Gilbert
2008-CF-018238-A-O
Solicitation of Minor via Computer (10 counts)
Click here for previous CourtWatcher blogs on this case.

Gilbert and his attorney, Neal McShane, were back in court on Friday, scheduled for yet another Motion to Dismiss.  Mr. McShane vigorously tried to convince Judge Lubet for the umpteenth time that the text messages sent to the defendant by the victim (who was 17 at the time) should be retrieved and be admissable at trial.

Mr. McShane wanted the judge to allow his computer expert to examine the victim's parents' home computer where the mother allegedly viewed the messages on their cell phone provider's website. The issue of invasion of privacy was discussed at length.

After listening to the attorneys argue, at times quite heatedly, whether or not the messages could (1) even be retrieved after nearly two years, and (2) even be admissable at trial, Judge Lubet denied McShane's motion. The judge, for the umpteenth time, told Mr. McShane that her texts to the defendant are not relevant because, as he emphatically stated, "He's 40, she's 17! It's still illegal!"

Judge Lubet would not permit a fishing expedition at the expense of the victim's family. He refused to impose sanctions (as requested by defense counsel) on the State for their lack of technical expertise in retrieving her texts when the charges came to light in 2008. As unfair as it might seem to some, because the victim was a minor, anything she wrote to Mr. Gilbert is not admissable at trial.

As the hearing reached the 60 minute mark, Judge Lubet asked Mr. McShane what his client was going to do - go to trial Monday or plead to the charges. When he replied that Mr. Gilbert hadn't decided yet, the judge informed him that "inaction results in other people making decisions for you." It was very clear that there would be no more delays.

Mr. Gilbert and his attorney went out to the hallway to discuss his options.

After taking about an hour while other matters were handled, the defendant returned to the courtroom to enter a plea of "no contest" to all 10 charges (each one could be punishable by up to 5 years in prison). There was no agreement with the State. Judge Lubet did indicate he would be willing to grant a bond for Mr. Gilbert while the case was appealed.

Sentencing was scheduled for April 19th at 1:30pm to give the Department of Corrections time to prepare a pre-sentence investigation.

Gilbert's fate will then rest with the judge.

Injunction Denied to Victim of Stalking - Stalker/Arsonist Granted Bond

With all the media attention focused on Judge Moxley's denial of an injunction request by Alissa Blanton and her subsequent murder earlier this month, I monitored a criminal case in Judge Marc Lubet's courtroom today that is equally frightening.

On December 1, 2009 19-yr old Tameka Hibbler requested an Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence against her ex-boyfriend, Tommy Lee Knight. Her petition noted five different instances of stalking behavior during the previous 4 days:

11/27/09: At her place of work, Mr. Knight was there from 7:00-9:45pm, crying and making a scene. He refused to leave after she asked him to leave her alone.

11/28/09: At the home she shares with her mother and 16-yr old brother, Mr. Knight repeatedly knocked and yelled  at the front door from 11:45pm until 2:00am.  When the Petitioner opened the door, he grabbed her by the arm and insisted she listen to him. He left after her mother threatened to call the police. Ms. Hibbler indicated that for the prior two days he had been repeatedly called her personal, as well as employer's, phone.

11/29/09: Mr. Knight followed her to her church and refused to leave her alone. She asked him to sit in another location, but he refused.

11/30/09: Mr. Knight waited at her place of employment for her to appear. Petitioner's co-workers advised her that he was there from 10:30am until 1:00pm.

11/30/09: Mr. Knight followed Petitioner to her friend's apartment and watched them from the bushes at the apartment complex. Her friend called the police to report Mr. Knight's behavior because they were concerned he might harm one or both of them.

On 12/1/09, Judge Theotis Bronson denied Ms. Hibbler's petition, stating "the allegations are not sufficient for a domestic violence injunction." They certainly seem sufficient to CourtWatch. Actual physical assault is not the sole thing that can be considered when deciding whether or not to grant an injunction.

Click here for the Statute definition of stalking and tell me if you don't think the above allegations support a temporary injunction and a hearing.

It should be noted that Mr. Knight lived in the Petitioner's home with her mother and brother after his parents kicked him out of their home. Mr. Knight is 22-years old.

 

Mr. Knight was in Judge Lubet's courtroom today for a Bond Hearing.

The charges?

Arson 1st Degree of Dwelling/Building w/People Present (a felony) & Stalking (a misdemeanor).

Mr. Knight allegedly doused the doors and windows of the victims' home with gasoline and ignited a blaze at approximately 4:00am on December 2, 2009 - the day after Ms. Hibbler's injunction was denied.

Earlier that evening, some neighbors alerted the family to the defendant's presence in the neighborhood. His bike was seen nearby. The main breaker to their home had been turned off. According to the mother's testimony, the Orange County Sheriff's Department said there was nothing they could do unless someone witnessed a criminal act. This was not the first time they heard that from law enforcement.

Thankfully, Ms. Hibbler's younger brother was unable to sleep as a result of the events earlier in the day, heard and saw the defendant through the front door peephole with a gas can, and got the family out of the house safely when he realized it was on fire.

All three family members testified today that they are terrified that Mr. Knight will return to "finish the job" if he gets out of jail. The defendant's family and friends are allegedly pressuring the victim to drop the charges against him.

Judge Lubet commented that he was surprised that the State Attorney's Office had not filed 3 counts of Attempted Murder charges against Mr. Knight. Assistant State Attorney Shannon Corack indicated that it was being reviewed for possible upgrade. Had that been done, Judge Lubet indicated he probably would not have granted a bond at the hearing today. However, because Arson and Stalking are both bondable offenses, he was obligated to set a bond and conditions of release that accomplish two things:

1. Ensure the saftey of the community, particularly the victims.
2. Ensure the defendant's presence in court.

Considering the fact that Mr. Knight scores 46 months as a minimum in the Department of Corrections, with a maximum of 30 years, it is entirely possible that he would be tempted to flee. He has demonstrated by two earlier Violation of Probation charges that he has a problem with complying with court orders.

Ultimately a bond in the amount of $26,000 was set with the following conditions of release:

• Ankle monitor
• Home confinement - may only leave home go to work, school, meet with his attorney, or seek medical attention
• No contact with any of the victims - either directly or indirectly
• Stay 1000 feet away from the victims' home
• Possess no weapons or firearms
• Possess no flammable liquids

At this time, the family is in a confidential location. But my gut tells me they are far from safe, even with the conditions placed upon the defendant if he does manage to make bond.

Lots of Smoke, Not A Lot of Substance

Former FHP Trooper James Gilbert was back in court today for a 3.5-hour hearing relating to numerous motions made by his attorney, Neal McShane, about allegations that were made by him in December regarding a supposed conspiracy within the State Attorney's Office. See our earlier blog about this case here.

After hearing testimony from FHP, the victim's father (who was also Gilbert's supervisor at FHP before he was terminated), the victim's mother, Assistant State Attorney Sarah Freeman (who initially handled the case before ASA Ryan Williams took it over last spring), and Counsel for the victim's family, William Jay, it became abundantly clear that Mr. Gilbert's attorney was throwing numerous allegations and constitutional issues against the wall, hoping something would stick.

Nothing did.

Judge Marc Lubet, occasionally appearing exasperated with some of McShane's arguments, repeatedly tried to keep him focused on the issues he had raised in order to conduct the hearing in a methodical manner. Judge Lubet asked him approximately 6-8 times, "Tell me how your client's due process rights were violated." The reason he had to ask so often was because McShane never did provide an answer that "stuck."

The allegations of prosecutorial misconduct were based solely on the representations of the victim's mother, whom I will not name in order to protect the identity of the victim. McShane claimed that the State Attorney and FHP conspired to prevent a deposition in the civil injunction by telling the mother to dismiss the injunction - something to which McShane and Mr. Jay (Counsel for the victim and her mother) had both stipulated. Once the injunction was dismissed, there was no case to be deposed. At this point, Judge Lubet pointed out that Mr. McShane couldn't have it both ways (dismissing the injunction AND deposing the victim), to which he replied that he believed he could. At this point in time, the criminal case had not yet been filed.

It seemed odd to me throughout the hearing that the mother sat directly behind the defense table, her husband (the victim's father) sat in the last row on the same side, and the victim sat in the last row on the prosecution side of the courtroom.

When the mother took the stand, everything became clear as soon as she broke into tears after praising the defendant's 17-year career with FHP and tearfully telling him from the witness stand that she wished he had accepted the initial plea offer of 18 months probation. She complained to the Court that Mr. Gilbert was now facing the possibility of prison because the State's initial offer of probation, and a subsequent offer of 90 days jail, were now off the table because he had rejected them.

Remember, this is the man who texted her teenage daughter several hundred times in a sexually explicit manner!

She felt that it was not fair that the defendant might have to go to prison for his conduct with her daughter over the course of only 17 days. She minimized his actions by stressing that he never touched the teen. She indicated that the entire situation started when she filed for a civil injunction on behalf of her daughter because it was her husband's intent to have Gilbert transferred out of his unit.

Another spectator in the courtroom turned to me and stated "Appalling."

I would have to agree.

Mr. Williams confronted the mother after her lengthy diatribe about the unfairness of it all and remarked that she never once mentioned her daughter's well-being during her testimony. The mother then expressed a bit of relief that her husband had earlier left the courtroom and didn't hear what she had said. She then expressed anger at Mr. Williams' observation and proceeded to attack her daughter's character by telling the Court that she had tried to protect her child from dating the 24-yr old man with whom she was now living. The victim moved out of the home as soon as she turned 18 in August. Judge Lubet told her none of that was relevant and she stepped down.

Appalling. I don't think this woman will garner any support in a "Mother of the Year" contest.

Judge Lubet permitted Mr. McShane to submit what seemed to be reams of caselaw about the constitutional issues he believes are at issue (many of them dealt with drug cases) and asked him to be concise in his argument (it was already after 5:00pm at this point).

He wasn't.

Judge Lubet was though. All defense motions were denied. He allowed the defense attorney to do what he felt was necessary to preserve the record for an appeal, and stressed that this case would not be granted any more continuances.

I think the defendant would have a good case for replacing his lawyer after today's performance.

Mr. Gilbert's trial is scheduled for to begin during the trial period starting Feburary 15, 2010.

Grasping at Straws

Last Wednesday I had occasion to monitor what was on the docket for a plea, but morphed into a highly unusual hearing in Judge Marc Lubet's courtroom (it seems as though he's gotten more than his fair share of "highly unusual" cases lately).

James Gilbert (2008-CF-018238-A-O) was arrested December, 2008 for ten counts of soliciting a minor via computer. Gilbert was employed by the Florida Highway Patrol at the time of the offenses. The defendant allegedly had sexual conversations and sent over 600 text messages to a 17-year old girl. Gilbert's ex-wife, an Orange County Deputy Sheriff, was later disciplined for conduct unbecoming a member of the OCSO for intimidating the victim's mother at the mother's place of employment.

In the hearing (which started to look a bit like a circus) last week, Defense Counsel Neal McShane made several serious allegations about a cover up within the State Attorney's Office.

• He told the Court that the previous Friday some new information had just come to light about an alleged cover up - claiming that the State and FHP conspired to obstruct justice by tampering with the victim. The victim was allegedly told by the State that she did not need to go to the deposition that had been scheduled in a corresponding injunction case (the parties in that case jointly requested a dismissal, having worked out the issues involved with the assistance of their attorneys).
• McShane also alleged that all of the victim's text messages to the defendant are now missing.  However, Judge Lubet stated that what the underage victim may or may not have texted is not relevant - the defendant is an adult and is therefore still responsible for his messages to her.

Assistant State Attorney Ryan Williams argued that the allegations are without substance because Mr. Gilbert's attorney had no evidence to back them up. His "source" remained unnamed. Mr. McShane requested that Judge Lubet call Assistant State Attorney Sarah Freeman, who handled the case at the time, and William Jay, Counsel for the victim in the injunction case, to testify on the spot. He asserted that if he could just ask them some questions, he could prove his allegations.

Judge Lubet told Mr. McShane that making allegations without knowing the facts is unethical. He would not grant McShane's request at that time.

Ms. Freeman advised that her office will be filing a protective order to prevent her from testifying in the matter and will attempt to quash any subpoena that is issued for a deposition.

Mr. Williams' original offer to the defendant of 90 days jail and 3 years Sex Offender Probation was not withdrawn at this stage of the game (remember, the case was scheduled for a plea - not a hearing where testimony would be taken) because he did not want to punish the defendant because of his attorney's allegations and motions.

Mr. McShane became extremely argumentative with Mr. Williams and angrily yelled at him about some emails he had sent to the State. I couldn't capture it quickly enough in my notes, and must admit that I was a bit stunned to see an attorney behave so badly. I don't remember what else was said.

Judge Lubet, who was in the second day of a jury trial, would not tolerate Mr. McShane's multiple assertions that this was still going to be a plea. He refused to order the victim to be deposed a second time in this case, but granted a second depo of FHP only as it related to the new information.

While waiting for the elevator after the hearing, several observers commented that Mr. McShane's arguments were without merit. I thought he was grasping at straws to further prolong his client's case.

A follow up 90-minute hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, January 6th at 2:00pm.

Click here for WFTV's coverage of the initial arrest.

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?

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

Judge Lubet Will Not Be Manipulated

Lester Williams (case 2009CF66) was charged with Burglary and Petit Theft after breaking into his ex-girlfriend's home and stealing a Nintendo game system. In spite of a "no contact" order, Williams has contacted his victim (with whom he has a child) from the jail.

After playing "cat and mouse" with the court system today - first telling the judge he would plead guilty, then demanding a trial, then promising to plead, then demanding a trial - I saw him plead guilty after jury selection. He made demands that his victim come into the courtroom (she was not required to do so) in an effort to intimidate her. Only after a jury was selected and he knew that she was waiting to testify did he accept the State's offer of 10 months jail and 1 year probation. He scored 33 months in the Department of Corrections based on his criminal history.

The defendant asked the judge about his "parental rights" (wanting to know about his child's life & wanting to see his child), yet since he wasn't married to the child's mother and he hasn't filed a paternity action to secure those rights legally, he really has none at this point. Judge Lubet explained this to him. As is often the case with abusers, they use the children as a means to continue to manipulate and control the other parent.

The judge also explained that if the defendant contacts the victim, either from jail or once he's on probation, he would find him in contempt of court and sentence him to another 6 months incarceration. Judge Lubet was very forceful in his admonitions and CourtWatch applauds his concern for the victim.

We also applaud the performance of Assistant State Attorney Camelia Coward, who effectively advocated for the victim in this case and Assistant Public Defender Bartley Vickers, who went to great lengths to explain to his client what "no contact" entails - even asking the deputies to hold him downstairs so he could meet with him before sending him back to the jail.

The only thing about this hearing that disappointed me was that the State's offer was only 10 months in jail. From reviewing this defendant's criminal history, CourtWatch thinks it should have been more (the maximum would have been 15 years in prison).

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.