Judge Jails Domestic Violence Victim For Failing To Testify

[Lady Marva]

What did this judge hope to accomplish? The power makes her feel good?

"You think you're going to have anxiety now? You haven't even seen anxiety," Judge Jerri Collins said.
A Florida judge is under fire from domestic violence advocates after a video shows her berating a victim and sentencing her to three days in jail for failing to testify against her attacker.

Video released Tuesday to WFTV shows Seminole County Judge Jerri Collins holding the victim in contempt of court for failing to appear at her case on July 22. The Huffington Post is withholding the woman's name because we do not identify victims of domestic violence.

Court documents allege that the victim ignored a subpoena to testify against the father of her child, who allegedly choked her and threatened her with a knife. A day before the assault trial, the victim told a court advocate, "I am not going in tomorrow, I don't care if I get arrested!"

Video shows the distraught, tearful victim at her contempt hearing on July 30, telling Collins that she was riddled with anxiety after her attack, and was living with her parents and her 1-year-old child. Collins told her that's no excuse for failing to show up to court, which could blow the case for the prosecution. (It didn't -- State Attorney Phil Archer said in a press release that the abuser was sentenced to 16 days in jail "despite the victim's lack of cooperation.")
Collins, on the video, appears to become agitated as the victim pleads for her freedom.

"You think you're going to have anxiety now? You haven't even seen anxiety," Collins says before sentencing the sobbing victim to jail.

The victim cries harder and pleads for another chance, but Collins says her fate is sealed.

Advocates said the judge's decision sends a message that victims of domestic violence have no legal recourse.

"She's never going to call 911 again," said Cindy Southworth, executive vice president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. "I understand how frustrating it is for prosecutors without certain evidence and testimony, but the solution is never to threaten or bully the victim. She's scared to testify. And that judge sealed the deal -- she's never calling 911 again."

Southworth added, "And if she dies, it's on that judge's watch."

Southworth said judges will sometimes threaten to charge victims with contempt to try and get them to testify against defendants. But rarely has she seen a victim thrown in jail on the spot.

Kim Gandy, president and CEO of National Network to End Domestic Violence, said it's the prosecution's job to gather more evidence to convict an abuser, not the victim's.

"We condemn this judge’s decision, which places a woman in jail for trying to save her own life," Gandy said. "The system -- not the survivor -- needs to hold perpetrators accountable. Evidence-based prosecution is a viable option when survivors choose not to be a witness due to the trauma they’ve already suffered."

Collins refused to comment on the case. Her spokeswoman said she wouldn't answer questions about any case still open to appeal. The spokeswoman confirmed that the office is getting a lot of feedback from the public since the video was released Tuesday.

Sadly, the justice system fails domestic violence victims all too often. Kate Ranta, a survivor who says she's been waiting nearly three years for her attacker's criminal trial to begin, started a nonprofit called Women Against the Violence Epidemic to advocate for additional domestic violence training for judges, police officers and lawyers.

"I was breathless at the end of this video," Ranta told The Huffington Post. "[The judge] re-traumatized the victim. She underscores the reason why victims often don’t leave their abusers, or don’t try to seek help because it’s well known that the family courts are broken ... This is someone who’s been through trauma, she didn’t want to face her abuser in court. I’ve been there."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0dbb8000dc745

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I would like to hear from Philly on this one. I totally understand the position of the advocates, and we definitely need better ways to protect DV victims (restraining orders not being bullet-proof and sentences, as demonstrated by this case, often being ridiculously light). My own inclination is usually to believe and support the victim.

However, I saw another article on this case that mentioned she told someone she wouldn't testify because then the guy would go to jail, lose his job and be unable to pay child support. Uh, no. Put his battering butt away for a good long time. The child support thing is why we have welfare, programs like Dress for Success, shelters, job training programs for DV survivors and comparable services. If she was working with a court-appointed advocate (and it sounds like she was), surely she had been informed of these options.

I deplore the "blame the victim" mentality. I get that it can seem impossible to escape a DV relationship. Going back to the abuser after you've gotten out and gotten help, though, is just stupid, and when there's a child involved, it arguably becomes criminally stupid.

[Gingersnap]

I don't know a lot about this kind of thing first-hand but my understanding is that in Colorado, it's up to the DA to prosecute and prove DV. If the victim wants to help, fine but the decision to arrest or prosecute is up to the police and the State.

I wonder if the problem here is that she refused to attend court. How does this work? It seems that victims always attend unless they are incapacitated or dead.

I thought the entire point of changing the DV laws was to take it out of the hands of the victim since so few did file complaints or testify.

[scott]

I don't know a lot about this kind of thing first-hand but my understanding is that in Colorado, it's up to the DA to prosecute and prove DV. If the victim wants to help, fine but the decision to arrest or prosecute is up to the police and the State.

I wonder if the problem here is that she refused to attend court. How does this work? It seems that victims always attend unless they are incapacitated or dead.

I thought the entire point of changing the DV laws was to take it out of the hands of the victim since so few did file complaints or testify.

That's exactly the issue and why she was sentenced to 3 days, Contempt - failure to appear.

[phillygirl]

There are a couple of things at play here that I think I should explain. In PA, and in many other states, there is a dual approach to stop domestic violence. One is from a criminal law perspective. Some states have a specific domestic violence charge, others simply use the assault laws already on the books, as it really doesn't matter if you punch a guy that is in the same bar as you or you punch your wife while you're in the house. The forbidden action is the punch.

The second approach is from a civil perspective, which may become quasi-criminal in enforcement. States have what are called Protection From Abuse Acts, or something similar. These acts allow a victim to get an immediate, usually ex parte, temporary restraining Order against the abuser, with a followup up hearing (in PA, it's within 10 days) to determine if a more permanent Order is appropriate (in PA, 3 years is the maximum time for such an order).

From the criminal side (which is what this judge is dealing with), the victim does not file the charges, the police do. The police can choose to prosecute with or without the victim's consent. This does in fact take it out of the victim's hands. Where there is discretion, some D.A.'s take the position that they prosecute all such cases whether or not the victim consents. I've never agreed with that approach, although I understand it.

From the civil side, the victim must consent in order to pursue, as she, not the state, is the plaintiff. If she doesn't pursue, the case is dismissed. In my county the judges are requiring significantly more for a victim to withdraw, even from the civil side. The victim must personally appear and agree on the record that she is withdrawing, and must be colloquied as to no force, duress, etc. If she doesn't show for the first listing, it is usually continued to another date in order to try to make some personal contact with the victim to determine the reason for her failure to appear.

From the criminal side, her contempt was for failure to appear in court after presumably having been duly subpoened. It was not "her" case...she was a witness for the prosecution, like it or not.

I understand the judge's frustration that the witness/victim failed to appear pursuant to a lawful subpoena. I also understand the frustration regarding the state resources that were used based upon her call to the police, only to have lack of follow through.

Having said that, I think imprisonment is a severe sanction, especially for 3 days for a woman who apparently was the victim of abuse (and probably prolonged abuse, although I don't really know that for certain based on my perusal).

I disagree with Celeste that her concerns about child support, etc. are unwarranted. She contacted the police to get immediate help from abuse. I don't know how severe the abuse was, but it appears that it resulted in separating the abuser from her. I disagree that welfare is necessarily a reasonable substitute for child support for her and her children. I deal with a lot of women (and a few men) who merely want the abuse to stop. Calling the police to have him removed from the home so that she can get things in order in terms of divorce, separation, etc. is a very important step in getting her to a safer, healthier place. Overall a woman/parent needs to look at the overall best interests of her children and sometimes having the abuser out of the home, but not in jail, is a better long term solution. At times, the woman may also be more fearful of the repercussions when he gets out of jail (and he will get out of jail) to her than if she simply lets it drop and she gets out of the relationship.

I also understand, more than most, just how abused the protection from abuse statues are in terms of false claims being made in order to get an advantage on things like divorce, possession of the marital home, custody of children, division of assets, support, etc. It's a terrible side effect of the statute and perhaps this judge had seen that side of it so much that she decided to send a message to this woman and others that this won't be tolerated.

For those that have truly been abused, especially for extended periods of time, we can't presume to place real rational thought onto them in terms of why they stay; why they withdraw after filing, etc. Their psychology is not within "normal" ranges during that time period. I have a personal rule about it. If you file and withdraw, when I know that you have truly been abused, you have 2 chances with me. I understand the psychology and I will take you back as a client when you've come to your senses and decide to move forward. You reconcile again and I'm out. You deserve representation, you just don't deserve mine. I don't represent doormats...they're a dangerous client.

[Gingersnap]

There are a couple of things at play here that I think I should explain.

Thank you - now it makes more sense to me.

I do "get" why witnesses have to appear even if they are not cooperative. At the same time, I kind of agree with the person in the article who stated that the victim would never call 911 again. This person is obviously more sensitive to threat than most of us but a worse decision-maker. She may fail to seek help in the future when help could save her life.

I don't know how we level the playing field on DV at this point. I've known women who openly told me (and others) that they had a strategy of claiming abuse in divorce. For the most recent stats, men outnumber women as DV victims but who cares? Not many people, apparently.

[phillygirl]

Thank you - now it makes more sense to me.

I do "get" why witnesses have to appear even if they are not cooperative. At the same time, I kind of agree with the person in the article who stated that the victim would never call 911 again. This person is obviously more sensitive to threat than most of us but a worse decision-maker. She may fail to seek help in the future when help could save her life.

I don't know how we level the playing field on DV at this point. I've known women who openly told me (and others) that they had a strategy of claiming abuse in divorce. For the most recent stats, men outnumber women as DV victims but who cares? Not many people, apparently.

I don't know that there is a correct answer here. I have a case in the inventory where the victim has filed and withdrawn 3 times. That factor was definitely used against her on the fourth filing. Each time she files, he files. I do believe her that the abuse is real. I do believe that she now minimizes the horror of it because she is desensitized to it. I do believe that her life is in danger and the piece of paper will not stop a bullet. Unfortunately, many people in positions of power don't necessarily understand that cycle of abuse and what it can do to a woman's psyche that would cause her to keep going back...for many, they believe that it can only be because it's a false claim. Those that falsely claim abuse for advantage on the ones that harm the real victims the most in terms of court intervention.

I started my career in Protection From Abuse Court. Now, if I am there, it's usually on the side of the accused and it's usually because it's an horrific miscarriage of justice that he is there to begin with...and it's so rare that I appear that all the court staff comments on it and know that it's probably going to be a long hearing with complex facts. I hate to be there and I'm lucky that I have 3 other attorneys that are younger than me that haven't yet had their fill.

[Gingersnap]

I don't know that there is a correct answer here. I have a case in the inventory where the victim has filed and withdrawn 3 times. That factor was definitely used against her on the fourth filing. Each time she files, he files. I do believe her that the abuse is real. I do believe that she now minimizes the horror of it because she is desensitized to it. I do believe that her life is in danger and the piece of paper will not stop a bullet. Unfortunately, many people in positions of power don't necessarily understand that cycle of abuse and what it can do to a woman's psyche that would cause her to keep going back...for many, they believe that it can only be because it's a false claim. Those that falsely claim abuse for advantage on the ones that harm the real victims the most in terms of court intervention.

I started my career in Protection From Abuse Court. Now, if I am there, it's usually on the side of the accused and it's usually because it's an horrific miscarriage of justice that he is there to begin with...and it's so rare that I appear that all the court staff comments on it and know that it's probably going to be a long hearing with complex facts. I hate to be there and I'm lucky that I have 3 other attorneys that are younger than me that haven't yet had their fill.

Maybe you can weigh in on this question - I don't know exactly what the fallout would be:

Can't we bifurcate divorce between no-fault (both parties agree) and for-cause (one is cheating, mismanaging family finances, a drunk, etc.)?

I know most divorce lawyers are using FB, Twitter, etc., in some way but if we had a divorce-for-cause situation, it seems like all that would be more effective for either men or women.

It seems wrong to me that a horrible (not necessarily lethally violent/controlling) spouse gets to destroy a family and walk away. If female, she gets the kids, most of the house, and child support kind of by default. Statistically, women are more likely to initiate divorce and often they are more culpable in terms of affairs, money management, and now physical violence.

[phillygirl]

Maybe you can weigh in on this question - I don't know exactly what the fallout would be:

Can't we bifurcate divorce between no-fault (both parties agree) and for-cause (one is cheating, mismanaging family finances, a drunk, etc.)?

I know most divorce lawyers are using FB, Twitter, etc., in some way but if we had a divorce-for-cause situation, it seems like all that would be more effective for either men or women.

It seems wrong to me that a horrible (not necessarily lethally violent/controlling) spouse gets to destroy a family and walk away. If female, she gets the kids, most of the house, and child support kind of by default. Statistically, women are more likely to initiate divorce and often they are more culpable in terms of affairs, money management, and now physical violence.

I understand the argument against this. In PA, fault can only be used in an alimony claim. If not, we would waste a ton of state resources trying to get to the bottom of the he said she said claims. I get it. I think it's appalling that someone can find a new partner and basically demand to be not only let out of the marriage, but force the house to be sold, the proceeds divided and she's generally in a far inferior position moving forward in life. It sucks. I deal with that suckage every single day in almost every single case in some form or another. But the reality is that for most county courthouses it would come to an absolute standstill if we did it any other way. Ultimately, the state's real interest is in dividing assets and moving the family out of separation limbo and causing the least amount of emotional turmoil. Adding fault to the mix of division of property doesn't lessen the sting of divorce, it prolongs and fuels it.

Just to be clear, you can still in some circumstances get a fault divorce in PA, it just doesn't mean much in the area where it counts...the money.

[Gingersnap]

I understand the argument against this. In PA, fault can only be used in an alimony claim. If not, we would waste a ton of state resources trying to get to the bottom of the he said she said claims. I get it. I think it's appalling that someone can find a new partner and basically demand to be not only let out of the marriage, but force the house to be sold, the proceeds divided and she's generally in a far inferior position moving forward in life. It sucks. I deal with that suckage every single day in almost every single case in some form or another. But the reality is that for most county courthouses it would come to an absolute standstill if we did it any other way. Ultimately, the state's real interest is in dividing assets and moving the family out of separation limbo and causing the least amount of emotional turmoil. Adding fault to the mix of division of property doesn't lessen the sting of divorce, it prolongs and fuels it.

Just to be clear, you can still in some circumstances get a fault divorce in PA, it just doesn't mean much in the area where it counts...the money.

I was thinking that with social media and cell phone records, it would be easier to establish who is doing what to whom and why.

People just constantly put their lives out there now so it's less of a he said/she said thing.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I don't know a lot about this kind of thing first-hand but my understanding is that in Colorado, it's up to the DA to prosecute and prove DV. If the victim wants to help, fine but the decision to arrest or prosecute is up to the police and the State.

I wonder if the problem here is that she refused to attend court. How does this work? It seems that victims always attend unless they are incapacitated or dead.

I thought the entire point of changing the DV laws was to take it out of the hands of the victim since so few did file complaints or testify.

Yes, she refused to attend.

This is not limited to DV cases. When I was substantially younger, I lived in what's called "an emerging neighborhood" in SF. Practically speaking, that means your house or apartment is nicely kept up, as are the others on your side of the street, but the projects are across the street. So, my car got broken into and a bunch of stuff stolen (I was in the process of moving in and just couldn't manage that last load that night). Never saw the person who did it, couldn't identify him. Cops actually busted him with an apartment full of stolen goods, including some of mine. I got a witness summons for the arraignment. I called the ADA and said, "I'm self-employed. If I take a day or several off to come to court, I don't have the rent money. There's nothing I can testify to that will help you. I'd like to be excused." He said, "If you don't show up, we'll have a warrant issued for your arrest AND we'll report that to the State Bar."

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I understand the argument against this. In PA, fault can only be used in an alimony claim. If not, we would waste a ton of state resources trying to get to the bottom of the he said she said claims. I get it. I think it's appalling that someone can find a new partner and basically demand to be not only let out of the marriage, but force the house to be sold, the proceeds divided and she's generally in a far inferior position moving forward in life. It sucks. I deal with that suckage every single day in almost every single case in some form or another. But the reality is that for most county courthouses it would come to an absolute standstill if we did it any other way. Ultimately, the state's real interest is in dividing assets and moving the family out of separation limbo and causing the least amount of emotional turmoil. Adding fault to the mix of division of property doesn't lessen the sting of divorce, it prolongs and fuels it.

Just to be clear, you can still in some circumstances get a fault divorce in PA, it just doesn't mean much in the area where it counts...the money.

With the exception of criminal proceedings and some forms of injunctive relief, really the state's interest in almost ALL court proceeding is money or property. Divorce law is mostly about property because, at law, MARRIAGE is about property. In my field, I would always tell the industrially injured worker that I could not get him or her justice, and the court could not give him or her justice; I could only get him/her money (and not enough of that). No apology, no admission that the employer should have been more careful or treated you better. No change in the way the employer does things (usually - I had some success in changing the way they handle bloodborne pathogens). The law won't fix what the defendant broke; it will only make the defendant give you his or her stuff or money.

[Lady Marva]

[QUOTE=Celeste Chalfonte;45264]Yes, she refused to attend.

This is not limited to DV cases. When I was substantially younger, I lived in what's called "an emerging neighborhood" in SF. Practically speaking, that means your house or apartment is nicely kept up, as are the others on your side of the street, but the projects are across the street. So, my car got broken into and a bunch of stuff stolen (I was in the process of moving in and just couldn't manage that last load that night). Never saw the person who did it, couldn't identify him. Cops actually busted him with an apartment full of stolen goods, including some of mine. I got a witness summons for the arraignment. I called the ADA and said, "I'm self-employed. If I take a day or several off to come to court, I don't have the rent money. There's nothing I can testify to that will help you. I'd like to be excused." He said, "If you don't show up, we'll have a warrant issued for your arrest AND we'll report that to the State Bar."[/QUOTE]
See, that also seems to me abusing his power. Couldn't he have been a little nicer? Try to work with you, as in taking a deposition when it wouldn't interfere with your work? Or something?

[Celeste Chalfonte]

See, that also seems to me abusing his power. Couldn't he have been a little nicer? Try to work with you, as in taking a deposition when it wouldn't interfere with your work? Or something?

In fact, the work wasn't my real reason. The real reason I didn't want to testify was that I knew very damned well that he and his buddies would be back on the street operating out of those same projects within a few months, and they knew where I lived. If it was a matter of pissing someone off, I would have preferred to piss off the DA rather than piss off a probably-armed criminal who lived right down the block.

As it turned out, I really did not know anything that could help them convict him, but I inadvertently testified to something that made the cops look bad, because they had been very sloppy, although I didn't know that. I just told what I did, and it turned out the cops had not matched up the reports of all the items that were stolen, so half the police report I made was missing. It would have just been more damning to the defendant, but the fact they mishandled the report caused the DA big problems with the judge, so some sort of justice was served, if only to the extent that the pissant DA got his.

[phillygirl]

In fact, the work wasn't my real reason. The real reason I didn't want to testify was that I knew very damned well that he and his buddies would be back on the street operating out of those same projects within a few months, and they knew where I lived. If it was a matter of pissing someone off, I would have preferred to piss off the DA rather than piss off a probably-armed criminal who lived right down the block.

And that's why I took issue with your first statement regarding this woman. The ex husbands/boyfriends etc. get out of jail pretty quickly. They know that jail time will infuriate the abusing even more and when kids are involved there is no just "getting away" from him. I am constantly having the discussion about where the line is drawn in terms of having the "bad" spouse be punished and how much that will effect future interactions. It's a delicate balance.

I know an attorney (who is a complete and utter jerk and incompetent) that thinks being an attorney, especially a family law attorney, is about the drama. She pushed a guy that was clearly on the edge and he ultimately killed her client and the client's boyfriend, while the 3 year old was in her mother's arms. There is no doubt in my mind that the tactics the lawyer used helped push this guy over the edge. I don't excuse the guy's actions, but there are ways of handling these types of situations to at least try, professionally, not to escalate things. This attorney brings her own blow torch to every case.

As it turned out, I really did not know anything that could help them convict him, but I inadvertently testified to something that made the cops look bad, because they had been very sloppy, although I didn't know that. I just told what I did, and it turned out the cops had not matched up the reports of all the items that were stolen, so half the police report I made was missing. It would have just been more damning to the defendant, but the fact they mishandled the report caused the DA big problems with the judge, so some sort of justice was served, if only to the extent that the pissant DA got his.

Luckily I have young people in my office that know those young d.a.'s now. God they're sometimes impossible to deal with. The ego and lack of common sense is infuriating. I frequently want to tell them that some day they will be looking for a job in the private sector and they ought to keep that in mind when dealing with private counsel.