Threat Assessment 101

It warms my heart when a judge expresses great concern for a victim in a high lethality situation.  And when he or she keeps the no contact order in place even when the victim asks to have contact.

Last week, CourtWatch monitored the request of Neil Abraham Ramroop to modify his bond and allow him to have contact with his victim, the mother of his two children (2 1/2 years and 10 months old).

The defendant was arrested on 10/14/10 for kidnapping, robbery, domestic battery, and tampering with a victim/witness to hinder communication with law enforcement. Mr. Ramroop allegedly abducted his victim as she was leaving a night class at Valencia State College, threatened to stab her in the neck and up her nose with a pen as he was taking her to his car, stole cash and her cell phone, and threatened to kill her. He allegedly drove her to their apartment, battered her, and ultimately returned her to the VCC parking lot. Throughout the ordeal, he repeatedly abused her verbally. He also stated, "You think a restraining order will stop me? I'll find you, I'll kill off your family one by one" and "I'll leave a bloody mess for you to clean up."

In addition to requesting contact with the victim, Mr. Ramroop requested that his GPS monitor be removed because the cost ($84/week) was a hardship due to his unemployment.

The victim, a very petite woman who sought an injunction immediately after the incident (which was later dismissed due to her failure to appear), testified that she is no longer afraid of the defendant. Judge Rand Wallis asked her several probing questions about their children and any prior incidents. He read an email that the assigned prosecutor, Pamela Smith, sent to the Court about how high the defendant scored on the lethality indicators test (Ms. Smith had a colleague covering for her in this hearing). The defendant has, on at least one occasion, threatened suicide - an extremely big red flag.

When I hear that, and particularly when there are small children involved, I am alarmed for the victim and their children. Because once someone decides to commit suicide, they have nothing to lose and are much more likely to try to "take their loved one(s)" with them. Or prevent anyone else from "having" their "loved one(s)."

Judge Wallis denied the defendant's motion without prejuduce, stating that he would like to hear testimony from the police officer who administered the questionnaire (which occurred at 3:00 AM immediately after the incident) to the victim in order to more accurately assess her testimony.

CourtWatch commends Judge Wallis and Assistant State's Attorney Pamela Smith for trying to keep this victim from becoming another name on the fatality list that we maintain. If this was school, they'd both get an A+ for the way they handled this case.

It is our hope that Mr. Ramroop's victim in this case will seek counseling from Harbor House as this case works its way through the court system.


To see what a threat assessment questionnaire includes, or to perform your own free domestic violence assessement online, visit the Mosaic Threat Assessment website. 

If you are in an abusive relationship, we urge you to seek the assistance of a trained advocate at your local domestic violence shelter in order to develop a personalized safety plan. Seventy-five percent (75%) of fatalities occur with the victim attempts to leave an abusive relationship. Most of those victims attempted to do so without a comprehensive safety plan in place.

2/4/11: The State dropped the charges against Mr. Ramroop after the victim declined to participate in the prosecution.

Whatever Happened to . . . ? #10

Robert Chester Double Jr.
2009-CF-009805-A-O
Lewd/Lascivious Conduct
Defendant was charged with groping some girls in the wave pool at Typhoon Lagoon.
Pled guilty, adjudication was withheld. Sentenced to 4 days jail with credit for 4 days time served; 5 years sex offender probation; no contact with victim; no unsupervised contact with children under 18 years old; no return to water parks or museums. Defendant may transfer probation to New York.

Quentin O'Kelly Lee
2009-CF-009535-A-O
Aggravated Battery Great Bodily Harm
Defendant grabbed a woman by the neck and used a roofing knife to slash her fingers because she refused to have sex with him.
Pled no contest, adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 3 years in Department of Corrections to be followed by 2 years probation; undergo psycho/sexual evaluation and treatment; have no contact with the victim; complete anger management class; and submit to random urinalysis testing.

Faustino A Santiago
2008-CF-009730-A-O
Sexual Battery Child<12yrs old; Lewd/Lascivious Molestation Victim<16yrs; Lewd/Lascivious Conduct; Battery on Detention Facility Employee
Jury verdict acquitted defendant of the first charge but convicted him of the remaining three charges. Judge Rand Wallis sentenced defendant to LIFE in Department of Corrections on count 2 plus 30 years consecutive plus another 30 years consecutive for counts 3 & 4.

The Price of Pretrial Freedom

I attended a Motion to Remove GPS Monitoring Device in Judge F. Rand Wallis' courtroom Friday. The defendant, Charlie Anthony Jackson, has a degree from FSU and works in a high paying MIS job that requires him to travel often. He is now living at a hotel in Jacksonville (previously having commuted to his job from Orlando), and claimed that the GPS monitoring device provided by Court Programs has malfunctioned in the past, once causing him to have to return to Orlando from a job in Arkansas to be replaced. In addition to claiming financial hardship (having to pay $84/week for the privilege of not being incarcerated while awaiting trial), Mr. Jackson expressed concern that the monitoring company could call him at an inopportune time, for example while he is conducting a training session or in an important meeting, that might cause him a hardship (though I guess embarrassment is more the issue).

I suppose that Mr. Jackson believes that the judge should try to minimize any potential for awkward situations he's made to suffer while awaiting trial.

The defendant's wife, the victim in this case, was assaulted so severely in August that she literally thought her eye had come out of its socket when blood squirted from it during the attack. She has two facial scars and suffered facial fractures.  She testified that this was the fourth physical assault by her husband during their nine year marriage.  She obtained a 3-yr injunction immediately after the offense and the defendant was granted only supervised visitation with his child through Family Ties, which he has not yet exercised, even though it was ordered two months ago. She told Judge Wallis that knowing his movements are monitored is the only thing that has provided her with any peace of mind since the attack.

Jackson is charged with Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm) and Domestic Battery by Strangulation. Defense Attorney Charles Willits did a good job of pleading his client's case, but Assistant State Attorneys Christopher Pasquale and Michelle Latham countered every argument with convincing testimony by a representative from Court Programs and the victim herself.  Additionally, Court Programs told the judge that if Mr. Jackson cannot risk being disturbed during an important meeting, they will refrain from contacting him during that pre-arranged time.

In the end, Judge Wallis denied the motion, finding that the defendant's concerns did not rise to the level of a hardship and that his issues had been alleviated by a newer device that does not have the same battery problems the older device had. 

CourtWatch commends Judge Wallis for maintaining this level of protection for the victim and accountability for the defendant while awaiting trial.

Men Need to Speak Out Against Sexual Violence

State v. Edwin Antonio-Rafael Cintron Bond Motion (held Friday, 6/26/09)

Initially the defense was asking for a bond of $5000 and for Mr. Cintron to stay at his grandmother’s house.

Assistant State Attorney Natalie Stratis asked for “a bond of more substance” (when asked for a specific amount, she left that up to Judge Wallis to determine), electronic monitoring and/or home confinement, and relinquishing of his passport.

What the judge granted

• Bond in the amount of $15,000.
• Electronic monitoring - he may not leave Orange County.
• Must relinquish his passport to the court.
• No direct or indirect contact order with any/all of the victims and there families.

CourtWatch's observations

• None of the child victims were in court today.
• Unlike the news reported on Channel 9, Ms. Stratis made it clear that the State understood that Mr. Cintron's charges were eligible for bond, she was not debating that, it was the amount of bond that was in question.
• The mothers of the victims felt confident that money wasn’t as scarce as it was being made out to be.
• The mothers of the victims believed that he was a flight risk.
• The mothers of the victims expressed that the victims fear retaliation.
• The mothers of the victims were concerned about the close proximity of where he lives verses some of the victims.

CourtWatch believes that Judge Wallis heard their concerns and met their needs for this particular case at this particular time. It was clear that this case was just for one person, one victim, there are still more cases to come, more bond hearings to be held, this is just the beginning.

It was powerful to see the mothers bonding together, wanting to protect their children, to keep them safe from harm.

What was painful was to watch the mother and grandmother of Mr. Cintron. Before the hearing started, they sat behind the cameraman, then they literally hid crouched down on the floor behind the benches to hide from the camera, the deputy quickly confronted them and they said they didn’t want to be on camera because they own a business and they didn’t want to be filmed. The officer informed them that the courtroom is a public area, and they can’t be hiding on the floor behind the bench. So, her concern is her business? She is concerned about what he son does and how it affects her business? She hides he face in shame? Mr. Cintron has thus far admitted to what he has been accused of doing. He told the truth… that is a good thing. There is so much pain and suffering that the victims will not have to endure because he is telling the truth. The victims do not have to convince anyone. The truth is being told. Healing can begin for the victims and justice can be reached. Yet she hides her face because she is ashamed. Her son did something bad, but he has told the truth.

Still one must wonder who is most important, is it the 18 year old son who has admitted to the truth (note - he has previously been arrested two times before, one time being domestic violence), or his mother who covered her face because she was ashamed and didn’t want her business associates to see her on the news, or a grandmother who hid on the floor because she was ashamed, yet has volunteered to take in her grandson, or the 13 year old sister who is being, well, who knows…?

I think what concerns me the most (at least as it relates to the defendant's family) is the thirteen year old sister of Mr. Cintron. Does she feel responsible or guilty for allowing this to happen to her friends? Are others blaming her for her brother's actions, or does she seem to think this in her mind? Has she been a victim of incest? And if so, does she understand that the effects of incest are different for her from what her brother has done to her friends? If her mother is so ashamed of the entire situation, she might not understand that her daughter did nothing wrong. She should be able talk about it if she wants too. The Victim Service Center in Orange County offers counseling support to victims of sexual assualt. CourtWatch hopes that all the victims seek assistance as a step in their healing process.

Finally, I wonder, where are the fathers of these girls? There were two men there, but they stayed away from the women, they remained quiet. Sexual assault is a big deal. If these men were the victims' fathers, they missed an opportunity to speak to other men about stopping this type of crime. The TV camera was there. I hope next time the opportunity presents itself one or more of the men affected by this crime will step forward to speak.

For WFTV's report on this case, go to http://tinyurl.com/qhqhr5

Defendant Ignored by His Attorney

CourtWatch's goal is to be impartial in our assessment of the justice system. Today, we want to call attention to a case where a defendant's attorney, Octavio Andrade, left his client hanging outside a courtroom without notifying him that his court hearing, a Motion to Modify Conditions of Bond, had been cancelled.

In the words of one of our volunteers:

I went to Judge Rand Wallis' courtroom today (6/26) to watch the Edwin Cintron case (scheduled for 2:00pm). I arrived at the courtroom at 1:20pm, and the door was locked. I noticed that a young man was sitting with his friend (or relative) near the courtroom door. When it was 1:35 the young man asked if I had a list for the courtroom. I informed him that on my list I was showing a 1:30 hearing for an Abraham Zamora. He took a deep breath, and said, “That’s me, I was worried that I was in the wrong place” he explained that his attorney hadn’t showed up and of course, the door was still locked. I told him that there was also another case scheduled for 2:00, and it would probably include the media and news crews. He looked a little puzzled, said "oh, okay,” checked his cell phone and quietly waited.

At 1:40 someone for the 2:00 hearing showed up and asked if that was the correct courtroom. I confirmed that it was. At 1:45 a cameraman from channel 9 arrived. Abraham stared almost in disbelief. The judge’s trial clerk walked up to the courtroom, used a key on the door, and walked in. The cameraman then tried to enter the room but the door was locked, so he knocked. A deputy answered, and the cameraman asked if he could come in and set up. Abraham walked up to the officer, with a look of fear on his face, and simply couldn’t talk. I could feel his fear at that moment. So I asked, “He is here for the 1:30 bond hearing, is that still happening?" The officer said, “Oh, no that was cancelled… well, let me double check on it, wait here.” The young man believed that this meant he would have to go to jail because he missed a court date. The deputy came back about a minute later and informed him that it was cancelled, there weren’t any other notes, he then asked him what his relationship was to the case. Abraham identified himself and asked what he should do next. He was informed that he should contact his attorney and ask him. He did thank me for telling him about the media and news crew showing up.

I made a point to be there to watch this case because it was still “active” and on my print out from this morning. Mr. Zamora made it a point to be there. He knew about this court date. He arrived early. He was well groomed and appropriately dressed. At no time did he show any anger or frustration.

When did this change? Why was defendant not informed? He had a cell phone. He checked it at least twice. When we sit in the courtroom and listen to people being told over and over again that they are to stay in constant contact with their attorneys, and then their attorney seem to be unreachable, what message is really getting across? Further, in this particular case, this young man had hired a private attorney, which is what makes this all the more frustrating - he is paying for someone to ignore him.

The rest of the story:
In researching this case on the Clerk's website, CourtWatch discovered that there was a notation of "No Information Filed" on this date. In other words, the case was dismissed.


CourtWatch's suggestion:
If there's something scheduled on the docket, the door to the courtroom ought to be unlocked so that anyone showing up for a hearing can get inside. The deputies do an excellent job of providing information when needed, but if they don't know someone is waiting outside for a hearing, how can they inform them when there's been a change in schedule?