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).
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Recipe for Future Conflict
I monitored several injunction hearings today in Judge Theotis Bronson's court, and one struck me as headed for disaster. The participants are currently married to one another and have a five month old child. The judge did grant a 6-month injunction, but then failed to work out all the issues that need to be addressed so that the Respondent (dad) could visit his child without having to come into contact with the Petitioner (mom).
Judge Bronson, although doubtful about its accuracy, accepted the father's representation that the Ocoee Police Department would serve as a monitored exchange location (from his testimony, it sounded as if the patrol officer who responded to the 911 call told him they would do it - I'm not familiar with any police department serving in this capacity on a regular basis, though it would be wonderful if they did).
The judge failed to fully explain what "no contact" means. In addition to not going near the Petitioner's home/workplace, the Respondent is not permitted to call/email/text her nor is he to have someone contact her on his behalf. The only exception is to have the judge designate a third party for them to communicate about their child. Judge Bronson did order child support, but failed to work out a schedule for visits with the child. After the hearing had concluded and the mother had left the courtroom to wait for her paperwork, the father asked the judge when he could see his child. The mother had to be brought back into the courtroom and a schedule was arranged. The judge even commented that he was doubtful the police would monitor the exchanges and that if it needs to be changed, the parties will have to come back to court to do so.
The judge also did not remind the parties that the injunction is only a temporary order. For these issues to be fully addressed until their child is 18, they need to file for a dissolution of marriage. He failed to ask if either party has done so. What happens in six months?
It seemed to me and the volunteer I was training that Judge Bronson was rushing through this case (it lasted about 20 minutes). In addition to only granting the injunction for 6 months (most other judges grant them for a year), his expectation that they'll come back to court if it doesn't work out with the police department is unrealistic. Most people are not able or willing to take half a day off from work to attend a hearing for which they have to wait 2 weeks. The likelihood is that they'll violate the "no contact" requirement of the injunction in order to take care of visitation issues.
As I said, this case is a recipe for future conflict which will serve to victimize all parties, but most especially the child.
Judge Bronson, although doubtful about its accuracy, accepted the father's representation that the Ocoee Police Department would serve as a monitored exchange location (from his testimony, it sounded as if the patrol officer who responded to the 911 call told him they would do it - I'm not familiar with any police department serving in this capacity on a regular basis, though it would be wonderful if they did).
The judge failed to fully explain what "no contact" means. In addition to not going near the Petitioner's home/workplace, the Respondent is not permitted to call/email/text her nor is he to have someone contact her on his behalf. The only exception is to have the judge designate a third party for them to communicate about their child. Judge Bronson did order child support, but failed to work out a schedule for visits with the child. After the hearing had concluded and the mother had left the courtroom to wait for her paperwork, the father asked the judge when he could see his child. The mother had to be brought back into the courtroom and a schedule was arranged. The judge even commented that he was doubtful the police would monitor the exchanges and that if it needs to be changed, the parties will have to come back to court to do so.
The judge also did not remind the parties that the injunction is only a temporary order. For these issues to be fully addressed until their child is 18, they need to file for a dissolution of marriage. He failed to ask if either party has done so. What happens in six months?
It seemed to me and the volunteer I was training that Judge Bronson was rushing through this case (it lasted about 20 minutes). In addition to only granting the injunction for 6 months (most other judges grant them for a year), his expectation that they'll come back to court if it doesn't work out with the police department is unrealistic. Most people are not able or willing to take half a day off from work to attend a hearing for which they have to wait 2 weeks. The likelihood is that they'll violate the "no contact" requirement of the injunction in order to take care of visitation issues.
As I said, this case is a recipe for future conflict which will serve to victimize all parties, but most especially the child.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Child Abuser Gets a Birthday Present From Judge
Gabriel Hernandez (2007CF18243) got a big birthday present today, all because it's Judge John Adams' "policy" to withhold adjudication of guilt on a first time felony. Apparently, the fact that Mr. Hernandez (whose birthday happens to be June 8th) has only 23 traffic offenses and one misdemeanor offense in Orange County still qualifies for a withhold so he won't lose his voting privileges.
Hernandez was charged with Aggravated Child Abuse (punishable by up to 30 years in prison) and Neglect of Child Causing Harm or Disability (15 year maximum) for inflicting multiple rib fractures upon an infant less than 12 months old. LESS THAN 12 MONTHS OLD! The negotiated plea agreement was for 5 years probation, a parenting class and no unsupervised contact with children under 18 years of age. As Judge Adams was announcing a withhold of adjudication (which will allow the defendant to truthfully state he's never been convicted of a felony), Assistant State Attorney Sarah Freeman leapt to her feet. She notified the judge that this was a negotiated plea that did not include a withhold and she objected. After a somewhat lengthy off-the-record bench conference, Judge Adams did not reverse himself.
I wonder if the judge would have made the same decision if the victim and victim's family had been present in the courtroom today. I certainly hope he sets aside his "policy" and does a better job of holding perpetrators accountable for their crimes - particularly in cases where the victim is the most vulnerable member of the human race - a small, defenseless child.
Hernandez was charged with Aggravated Child Abuse (punishable by up to 30 years in prison) and Neglect of Child Causing Harm or Disability (15 year maximum) for inflicting multiple rib fractures upon an infant less than 12 months old. LESS THAN 12 MONTHS OLD! The negotiated plea agreement was for 5 years probation, a parenting class and no unsupervised contact with children under 18 years of age. As Judge Adams was announcing a withhold of adjudication (which will allow the defendant to truthfully state he's never been convicted of a felony), Assistant State Attorney Sarah Freeman leapt to her feet. She notified the judge that this was a negotiated plea that did not include a withhold and she objected. After a somewhat lengthy off-the-record bench conference, Judge Adams did not reverse himself.
I wonder if the judge would have made the same decision if the victim and victim's family had been present in the courtroom today. I certainly hope he sets aside his "policy" and does a better job of holding perpetrators accountable for their crimes - particularly in cases where the victim is the most vulnerable member of the human race - a small, defenseless child.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Stalking Firefighter Gets His Gun Returned
Last year Derek Lennon, an Orlando firefighter, got a huge break from Judge Jerry Brewer after being convicted by a jury for misdemeanor stalking. See WFTV's report at the time: http://www.wftv.com/news/15247420/detail.html.
Today Judge Michael Murphy returned Lennon's firearm to him, over the objections of the Orange County Sheriff's Department and the State Attorney's Office. The judge granted his motion because adjudication had been withheld by Judge Brewer in February 2008 - in spite of the fact that a jury had adjudicated him guilty!
Lennon, at the time of trial, even had the gall to ask whether or not the GPS device that he planted on his ex-wife's car could be returned to him. Even in the subsequent civil injunction hearings, he attempted to avoid complying with court-ordered psychological evaluations and Batterers' Intervention requirements.
CourtWatch is concerned for his victim's safety now that he has completed his probation and is no longer under supervision of the Court. We can only hope that he has learned a valuable lesson and he refrains from further criminal behavior.
Today Judge Michael Murphy returned Lennon's firearm to him, over the objections of the Orange County Sheriff's Department and the State Attorney's Office. The judge granted his motion because adjudication had been withheld by Judge Brewer in February 2008 - in spite of the fact that a jury had adjudicated him guilty!
Lennon, at the time of trial, even had the gall to ask whether or not the GPS device that he planted on his ex-wife's car could be returned to him. Even in the subsequent civil injunction hearings, he attempted to avoid complying with court-ordered psychological evaluations and Batterers' Intervention requirements.
CourtWatch is concerned for his victim's safety now that he has completed his probation and is no longer under supervision of the Court. We can only hope that he has learned a valuable lesson and he refrains from further criminal behavior.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
