Blogging behind prison walls

Blogging from inside of prison is emerging as a means of speaking out for some who are incarcerated. It is an interesting phenomenon because prior to its existence the majority of people had no idea what was happening behind prison walls. These blogs, which provide an understanding the prison environment and provide a look into the lives of people society has all but forgotten about, just might be the kind of spark needed to bring about a change in the way people are treated in the justice system.

I previously wrote about Nyki Kish who is housed in a maximum security unit at the Grand Valley Institution in Canada. Nyki writes about her experiences in prison in a way that is both poignant and raw. She draws the reader into her experiences, sacrificing the small semblance of privacy that remains within the confines of her mind just to give people an opportunity to see the world as she does – from inside of a cage. Nyki’s blog, titled This Wall is not Infallible, is here.

Communicating with the public, from within a prison, is a risky endeavor. Those who speak their mind or candidly describe their experiences subject themselves to various kinds of abuse. Before Damien Echols was released from prison after signing an Alford Plea he would frequently write about his life in prison. In his writings he relayed everything from his spiritual beliefs to various forms of abuse  in his prison.

Months before his release he wrote:

The unrest is spreading. There were two more fights yesterday, smaller ones this time. It’s going to continue, and get much worse, unless someone steps in and stops the abuse going on. It gets worse and worse by the day. The people running this place have turned it into a powder keg. When I was a kid, we had a saying, “It’s time to fight, fuck, or go for your guns.’ That’s the feeling in the air here now. The more the administration covers it up, the more dangerous it becomes because people realize they must go to further and further extremes to draw attention to the abuse. That makes it more dangerous for me, since my case is so closely watched by the media. If one of the inmates were to kill me, it would draw notice to what’s going on here. And I have no desire to be a martyr.

When Damien wrote the above he had no way of knowing that Arkansas prosecutor Scott Ellington would later agree to accept an Alford plea on behalf of all three men, know as the West Memphis Three, incarcerated as teenagers for murders that occurred in 1993. Though prison personnel did not appreciate his public candor about conditions in the prison, he spoke out and suffered the consequences until his release.

“…you have provided a spark, that left unattended, may grow into an inferno…” — Suzanne Collins, Catching Fire

I am intrigued by the few who have bravely overcome their fear of retaliation in favor of educating the public on the realities of prison life. When I learn of people who blog from prison I find myself drawn to each posting like a moth to a flame. Granted, I have been privy to negative prison experiences in private correspondences, but speaking generally in the form of a blog is riskier for those incarcerated. For that reason alone it is noteworthy.

At some point I came across the blog of Steven Farris. He was incarcerated, in Mississippi, shortly after his 16th birthday in 1998. Steven’s blog, titled The Writing on the Wall, is different from others I have read because he writes with a rare kind of humor. In one post he wrote about one of the men he was housed with:

One time I saw him “washing” his laundry. He had put a shirt in his sink, jammed the button so the water kept running, and then shuffled back to his bed. Every 30 minutes or so he’d come shuffling back over to the sink and -with just his index finger- poke at the shirt he had in there. After about the fourth time he did this, I asked him what he was up to. He replied that washing machines have an “agitate” cycle, so he figured he’d do the same. I told him he’d probably have to agitate a bit more vigorously if he expected his shirt to get clean. He said, “If I did this to you, wouldn’t you get agitated?” I had to admit that I most likely would. As an aside, when he finally took his shirt out of the sink, it was green. The water at Parchman isn’t the best.

I contacted Steven to discuss his blog in more detail. I have decided that instead of truncating his responses I will provide them in a kind of questions and answer format. The portions in bold represent my questions to him.

Q: What motivated you to start the blog and what was your original objective when you starting writing entries for it?

A: Back when I first got the idea to blog I was still housed at the Mississippi State Penitentiary’s maximum security unit – Unit 32. The National Prison Project of the ACLU had stepped in and was representing state prisoners after a recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, and after their victory for the death row prisoners housed at Unit 32 the Associate Director of the NPP, Ms. Margaret Winter, asked me to be the representative for the class and I agreed. She kept me informed about what was being printed in the newspapers, and though I was glad to see it getting media attention…there was something lacking. Family members of prisoners were wanting to know what was really going on behind those walls.  The more I learned of blogging, the more I felt it would be perfect for giving updates as to what was happening in Unit 32. I saw – and still see –  a lot of potential there.

Steven Farris

My initial objective was to give an insider’s view of the Presley v. Epps case. Then my objective was to make general information available concerning problems my family and friends encountered and how we solved them. I hope to continue growing the blogs and tailoring them to meet the needs of this niche audience. PrisonInmatesLife is the first blog we set up and it is focused in its content. My personal blog, The Writing on the Wall, was created so I could express my own opinions on matters – and because I enjoy writing. I find that people enjoy The Writing on the Wall more than PrisonInmatesLife, which is understandable.

Q: In your blog articles you talked about having detractors. Do you find the feedback regarding your blog is more positive than negative, or vice versa?

A: Overall, I think that the feedback is more positive than negative. I’ve received some information that leads me to believe that people are having difficulty posting comments on a couple of posts and I will have to look into that. The reason you see so many negative comments on a couple of posts in particular is because the Harmon clan are all in law enforcement, so their brothers and sisters in blue rallied to Mr. Harmon’s defense. I understand that and believe they are entitled to their opinions. The reason I wrote the posts that received so much negative attention is because Mr. Harmon used every excuse he could think of to get himself into the media. And every time he did, it upset my family and friends. He was doing it to no positive purpose, and when he made such an issues of my transfer it was the final straw. So I set about showing him that I have a voice too. Other than his law enforcement friends stalking my blogs, the feedback has been positive and really supportive. Especially via the Facebook page for PrisonInmatesLife that my loved ones admin for me.

Q: What are some issues relating to the justice system, and prison, that you feel people on the outside need to know?

A: From youth court, through juvenile detention centers, to county jails, all the way to state prisons – the justice system is a trap. Once you become caught in the web of the justice system, you’re never free. You are monitored; it is next to impossible to get a good job; it is difficult to even find a place to live if you’ve been to prison. And there is nothing just about the justice system. It’s nothing more than politics. Even the judges are elected in what amounts to popularity contests for adults. When you get to prison it’s not about rehabilitation. Prison is solely about punishment and warehousing prisoners. The United States of America has the highest incarceration rate. Think about that. Treat the sickness, not the symptoms.

Q: Describe the first year you spent in prison. How did you adjust? What were some of the harder things to adjust to?

A: My first year was spent in denial and daydreaming the days away when I wasn’t sleeping. I was housed at Unit 17, where the gas chamber is located and where they filmed scenes from the movie The Chamber, based on the book of the same name by John Grisham. We were locked down 23 hours per day. Monday through Friday and 24 hours per day Saturday and Sunday. Even though it was long-term segregation we all had recreation time together on the unit yard with the guys housed on the tier with us. I never had a problem with anyone trying to do anything to me or take advantage of me physically, even though I was still 16 at the time. I had to deal with mind games and things of that kind, but I learn quickly.

Steven at 14; his little sister shown behind him was three when he was incarcerated

I adjusted because I had to. There was no alternative, in my opinion. Most of my time was spent locked in a room about 5′ by 9′ in size. I’ve always had an active inner-life, spending time in my own mind. I also spent time writing to family and friends, writing poetry, teaching myself to draw. The hardest thing to adjust to was – and still is – not being able to be with my family or be there for them. It was always difficult to lose control of making even some of the smallest choices in my life for myself. I’m really self-reliant, so having to depend on others is hard for me.

Q: How does your prison experience now compare to your experience in the beginning?

A: After 14 years of doing time inside the Mississippi prison system, I am a veteran.   I know how to navigate the system and do my time with the least amount of problems. No matter where I go, someone will know me. All my business is good business. I have an established reputation as a convict, and people come to me for advice and help. But what has prison done to me? Yes, I’ve learned and applied it positively. No one does prison time and does not develop some form of prison mentality though. I’m just now learning how to let people be close to me. I don’t volunteer personal info. I have to work hard to not be suspicious of other people’s motives. What would I have been like had I not been incarcerated? That might be a future topic on my blog.

Q: In reference to the practice, how do you feel about the sentencing of juveniles to life without parole? Do you believe it is justifiable or not?

A: Since I’m serving a sentence of life without parole myself, my opinion is going to be a bit biased. Aside from that though, I feel JLWOP or even sentencing a juvenile to life with parole and only allowing them parole eligibility at the age of 60 or 65 is pure idiocy. What society is saying is that they have given up on these juveniles, that they either can’t be rehabilitated or they aren’t worth the effort. Conversely, even though they can justify in their minds that they are sentencing these juveniles as adults, they don’t feel these kids are mature enough to make adult decisions. You can sentence a kid to serve life without the possibility for parole, but they can’t buy tobacco or liquor, vote, serve in the military, own a pistol, marry without permission…But you can hold them to adult standards. Anyone else think that’s a bit hypocritical?

The United States only recently stopped executing its children. There are three countries that have not ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child: Somalia, South Sudan, and the United States of America. Why, Melissa? The U.S. is supposed to be a model for the rest of the world. The U.S. which has the largest population of professing Christians also still has the death penalty, life without parole as a sentencing option for its children, and the largest prison population.

There’s something wrong with this picture. None of it is justifiable.

Q: How would you describe yourself to a person who doesn’t know you?

A: I am probably the worst person you could ask to describe me. I am my own worst critic. So…I recruited my friend, Melanie, to assist me in this task. This is what she wrote:

“I would describe you as the truest friend I’ve ever known…You are loyal, compassionate, kind, and a comfort to the people around you. You are fierce in your standards and beliefs and since you speak from your authentic core, your words and bonds are the things that other can count on to guide them in the right direction…Truth above fluff. I see you as forthright, diligent, highly intelligent, approachable…cultured, dynamic, and well versed. You are eccentric and I love those two qualities about you…Freakin’ hilarious is more like it. You are a champion for the oppressed, you forgive those who wrong you and you serve mankind and are your brother’s keeper – even to the point of your own detriment and peril.

Steven before he was incarcerated for life (at 16)

“Sometimes I think you are misunderstood and that may just be because you are very internal. You are brave and bold and if you were a color I would paint you orange with red streaks at the edges and soft blue in the center. I think you have a humble calmness that exemplifies your spirituality, and you definitely have an aura of light around you. You are one of God’s healers and vessels. I think you can be profound and pensive…you can be moody though, too, if you let yourself fall too outside yourself or distance yourself from those who care about you. If I had to name bad things I think you can push people away to much in order to protect yourself…You can also not give yourself enough praise. I think you are a rare find in this world, and I think anyone who comes across you in their life’s path if forever blessed.”

Q: What is important to you and what are you passionate about?

A: Foremost, my relationship with my creator and my loved ones is important to me. Because of my beliefs I feel that serving others is our duty. That’s important to me. I am passionate about learning, about becoming a better person, about realizing my full potential. I think Melanie did a great job describing what is important to me and what I’m passionate about so I won’t rehash that.

Q: Is there anything else about yourself, prison, the legal system, or anything else you want to share with people?

A: Yes…I like long walks on the beach, sunsets….Joking aside, people need to realize that the problems with the justice system aren’t going to disappear. Ignoring what goes on behind prison walls won’t make it go away. Businesses like C.C.A. and G.E.O. that profit from warehousing prisoners are the same ones lobbying for “tough on crime” and “truth in sentencing” laws. Politicians, judges, and prosecutors – many own stock in these companies or others associated with the prison industrial complex. And guess who puts these people in power? You, the voters and taxpayers of this great nation. I love this country and feel it’s the greatest in the world. We’ve got some serious problems that are getting worse and need to be dealt with. Get informed. Get involved. Show that you care about the U.S.A. and your children’s future. We’re all connected and you’re sorely mistaken if you think otherwise.

Can I get a witness?

Eyewitness testimony is a serious problem when it comes to the American criminal courts. The Innocence Project has exonerated almost 300 people who have been wrongfully convicted of heinous crimes. The organization has stated that ”eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide.” The Innocence Project described misidentification as playing a role “in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.”

So what does that say about cases that rely entirely on eyewitness testimony?

Now ask yourself if you would be comfortable convicting a person if a case is based entirely on the eyewitness testimony of confirmed gang members. If the answer to that question is “no”, I have a story you must read.

Martin Anthony Villalon Jr., known to his friends and family as Anthony, is 19 years old. He resides in the Wabash Correctional Facility in Indiana – a prison well known for housing some incredibly violent and aggressive offenders. He was 15 when he was arrested in connection with the shooting of another teenager named John Shoulders. Though the DNA recovered from the crime scene did not match Anthony or the other person accused of the offense, he was subsequently convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years. The prosecution’s case was based on eyewitness testimony.

The other individual charged with committing the crime, Prevaun McDaniel, was acquitted in adult court. The case against both boys was equally as weak, but McDaniel’s defense attorney fought hard in the court room for his client. He meticulously debunked the prosecution’s cases, piece by piece. He discredited alleged witnesses who were admitted gang members and likely had nefarious motives for lying to police about the shooting. McDaniel’s attorney systematically answered every question the jury could possibly have about his client and as a result of this painstaking approach, McDaniel is free.

Anthony was not nearly as fortunate. His attorney showed up to the trial, but he did not put on a defense that came close to rivaling that of McDaniel’s. In fact, a number of people waited in the halls of the courthouse to testify on Anthony’s behalf – including his grandmother, Cheryle. None of the people who could verify Anthony’s alibi, or speak to his character, were called to testify. Additionally, because these people anticipated they would testify, they were not allowed into the court room to observe the testimony of others.

Cheryle was present at the trial of Prevaun McDaniel, however. She credits the avoidance of a wrongful conviction in McDaniel’s case to his attorney. “His lawyer fought like it was his kid on trial,” she explained to me. “He pounced on every lie, every conflicting testimony, every witness…every flaw was discussed. Every time the prosecutor came up with something the lawyer jumped on it and tore it apart.” She went on to explain that even though his attorney was working for free, “he fought like he was being paid very well.”

The eyewitness testimony did not include anyone who observed the actual shooting. Instead, it consisted of a colorful array of characters. First there was Sergio “Outlaw” Rosa. Rosa admitted in court he was a gang member – belonging to the Latin Kings. He alleged that the day after Shoulders was shot, Anthony and Prevaun told him they committed the murder. He said they did it because Shoulders was the member of the Vice Lord street gang.

Another eyewitness was less certain about Anthony’s involvement in the murder. At Anthony’s trial, the witness said he did not know the teen and admitted that in his original eyewitness description he had failed to identify Anthony as Hispanic. He also confirmed he had been unable to identify Anthony when the police showed him photographs.

The third witness, Becky Clemens, took the stand and claimed Anthony stopped by her house on the day of the murder, looking for Shoulders. She said he was looking for him because he was “going to get his ass beat on the G” and because Shoulders was apparently “claiming Vice Lord.” Her testimony lacked credibility because upon further examination it was determined she had her own gang affiliations. In an appeal on behalf of Anthony, an attorney wrote, “Clemens testified that she had previously had boys living in her house who were members of the Spanish Gangster Disciples. She was shown a copy of her MySpace page, and admitted to its accuracy.”

The same defense attorney described Clemens as a “gangster mother at heart”.

The eyewitness accounts were conflicting and at times witnesses testified to seeing or hearing things that were factually incorrect. People who could have provided information countering these claims were not called to testify at Anthony’s trial.

There were other problems as well. Allegations of jury misconduct were revealed after the conviction. It was alleged that one juror was observed hugging a family member of the victim during the course of the trial.

Another problem with the jury in Anthony’s trial pertained to one of its members. “We had a big problem with one juror,” Cheryle recalled. “He was someone who knew some of our family members. We begged our lawyer not to have him sit on the jury. The judge gave the lawyer a chance to do something when she asked him if there was a problem. He said, ‘we already picked him’. Later it was discovered he had ties to the prosecutor and he gave another juror a ride home on several occasions, admitting in court that they discussed the case outside the jury room”.

Many people have maintained that neither Anthony nor Prevaun were members of a gang. The prosecution’s theory was based on this premise, despite the unsettling lack of reliable or credible evidence supporting it. Neither of the boys have ever confessed either. Cheryle explained this was despite the police having attempted to coerce a confession from Prevaun.

She noted, “Prevaun was tortured in the adult jail and every time he was beaten or hurt, the prosecutor would tell him if he said Anthony did this crime he could go home. Prevaun never did say it was Anthony. He said he didn’t know Anthony personally. He stood up to the system. Not many adults could have done that.”

Anthony is particularly vulnerable in the prison setting. He has an I.Q. of 71 points and he is described by his grandmother as being the kind of person who wants to please those around him. She does not believe he had any part in the murder of John Shoulders. She does not believe he is even capable of such a crime. “If I believed for one second he killed John I would do my best to help him live with his punishment, but I would not fight to free him,” she told me.

Cheryle worries about her grandson’s time in prison immensely. “He can be very naive. He is still like a 15 year old. He listens to these grown men and is starting to trust in what they say.” Her biggest fear is that in prison “he will change into someone else”. She despairs at the thought of losing the kind and caring boy she has always known. “We have so many great memories with Anthony. Our family loves to spend time together.”

When asked about her fondest memory she described a vacation the family took to Tennessee a year before Anthony was arrested. “There were seven of us, including my best friend. We rented a cabin for 6 days over the New Year’s holiday. Anthony and his friend carried the entire luggage, food, and other supplies up the longest flight of stairs I had ever seen. They never once complained”. She also described all of the time spent laughing and enjoying each other’s company.

Anthony has a strong network of support. Members of the family visit him as often as possible. Sometimes Anthony has to remove a person from his approved list of visitors just to accommodate all of the people who want to see him. Cheryle believes that close connections with family are critical for Anthony. She is fighting to maintain his emotional well-being, while also balancing an expensive legal battle in the hopes of clearing her son’s name.

In 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals denied Anthony’s request to have his conviction overturned. His appeal called into question the constitutionality of the waiver into adult court. It also challenged his sentence of 60 years as “excessive”.

Anthony’s hope rests with the United States Supreme Court. The Court will make a decision about whether or not to hear Anthony’s case on September 24th of this year His motion is asking the court to consider if he should have had a right to a jury trial within the juvenile system. At the present time a Magistrate is responsible for making the decision as to whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult. Cheryle, and many others who signed a petition she posted online, believe that a jury should be involved in making such a serious determination.

To date, Cheryle’s petition has 484 signatures. The petition is located on Change.org, which you may access by clicking here. If the Supreme Court rules in Anthony’s favor it will set a precedent that would effect other countless other juvenile cases. Please help to make this petition a success by signing it and sharing it with others.

Cheryle wants the people reading this to know that her grandson “is innocent”. She went on to add, “If my grandson loses all his appeals he will be spending 60 years in prison. The real murderer will still be out there living his life. When Anthony comes home, I will be dead”. Most of Anthony’s other family members will be deceased as well.

“I want people to know all children are worth saving. No human being deserves to be locked in a cage for their entire life, even if they are guilty.” She then pointed to the punitive aspect of the adult system when it comes to punishing juveniles for crimes. “These children have no purpose in prison. They are wasting away. Anthony has had no schooling. He has only an eighth grade education”. She wonders how the people who support this kind of system can ever expect people who spend the majority of their lives in the prison environment – quite literally – to one day emerge from the prison setting and become a functional member of society.

“Our justice system has no mercy in their hearts,” Cheryle said finally. “It is so hard for me to grasp an understanding of what kind of society does this to children. Some children have committed terrible crimes, but does that give us the right to do terrible things to them?”

It’s a valid question. Does it?

And what about those who are wrongfully convicted? What about them?

Personalizing the search for justice

Pam Kulig

Pam Kulig lives in a suburb of Chicago. She has two girls, ages 16 and 23.  The thing that separates Pam from so many other people is her passion for justice and her innate desire to help those who are not in a position to do it on their own. She has been an activist for juvenile justice reform since she first learned about the many children serving life without parole sentences.

Pam’s journey to help children and teens caught up in the adult criminal justice system began around 2004. She discovered a website that featured descriptions and discussions about various juvenile cases. In 2005, she watched as Christopher Pittman who was just 12 when he was charged with murdering his grandparents, received a 30 year prison sentence as a result of a mandatory sentencing requirement. Pam described the effect that case had on her. “He was sitting at the defense table with a mountain of tissues in front of him. It was so very sad. A combination of very powerful adult psychotropic drugs caused him to lose touch with reality and he killed his grandparents.”

Chris was initially prescribed an antidepressant after he attempted to run away and was taken to an institutional facility. He saw another doctor after leaving the facility. The doctor took him off the first antidepressant, without weaning him or allowing his body to adjust to the change, and prescribed him Zoloft.

Prior to his arrest, Chris has reported concerns to his grandmother regarding symptoms he was experiencing. He explained that he felt as though he could feel a burning sensation underneath his skin. When the problem was expressed to his physician, instead of taking him off the medication he doubled the dosage.

Like Jordan Brown of Pennsylvania, who was 11 when charged with homicide, Chris waited three years for a trial. Unlike Jordan, Chris’s case proceeded in adult court. Instead of encountering a small twelve year old boy, the jury was presented with a fifteen year old teenager. It is common for children who are charged with homicide to wait years before receiving a trial.

Years later, the Food and Drug Administration requested that Zoloft and other similar antidepressants carry a black box warning regarding their effect on teenagers who take it. The eventual decision to include the warning did not help Chris, however. Pam discussed the physician’s doubling of Chris’s dosage, saying, “Within a day or two he shot his beloved grandparents who were the two people on earth he loved and who were taking care of him. It was tragic, but the most tragic part is Pfizer got off scot-free.” The addition of the black box warning came after Chris was convicted, and did not help him later.

Pam was disturbed by Chris’s case and she took to the Internet to learn more about it. She found a website devoted to his case. She joined in the cause to help Chris, stating, “We became very serious advocates for him, attending his appeals arguments in South Carolina and protesting Pfizer in front of the SC Supreme Court building.”

“Most of our work was in vain,” she explained. “He was denied a new trial.” She went on to add, “But recently he has gotten some relief from the 30 year sentence when a judge overturned his conviction and he took a plea deal.” Despite the positive news in Chris’s case, Pam is haunted by the reminder that there was no accountability for others involved. “This 12 year-old’s prescription was written on a paper bag by the doctor who was not even qualified to prescribe those types of drugs. He was never prosecuted and in fact left town in a hurry when all of this came down.”

8th grade school picture taken of Brett Jones

Pam’s involvement in Chris’s case led her down the path toward helping another juvenile convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole in Mississippi. Upon learning about another juvenile’s case, she wanted to understand how a person his age could receive what she terms, “a living death sentence.” Brett was 15 years-old in 2004 when he was charged with murdering his grandfather. Brett was convicted of the murder in 2005 – a decision that was upheld by the appeals court in 2006.

In later court documents, the media reported that Brett argued ”his trial attorneys failed to show the jury an accurate layout of the kitchen, where the fight began. That could have persuaded a jury that he was trapped by the older man, with no way to escape.”

Pam was drawn to Brett’s picture on a juvenile justice website. “I couldn’t imagine what that kid could possibly have done to be serving LWOP. He looked like a gentle child with a kind face. The boy-next door.” In reference to his case she added, “I was curious. Also, his thread was dead because he had been convicted and no real interest remained on his case. He was kind of there and I wanted to see what was up with his case.”

Brett, 12 or 13, at the beach

The decision to seek further answers about Brett and his situation was met with opposition. “People told me to forget it,” Pam recalled to me. “The big push was for Tyler Edmonds, not Brett Jones, which made me want to try all the more.” She detailed similarities between the boys. “They were both at Walnut Grove in Mississippi – the two youngest there. Tyler had a truck-load of supporters, advocates and lawyers. Brett had none.”

Pam began making phone calls to inquire about what could be done to help Brett. She was told by some not to bother, that there was nothing she could do. “I was told his only hope was post Conviction Collateral Relief, with chances of success being slim to none.” This did not deter her, however. She began reaching out to people, asking them to help. She even went so far as to pay an attorney to review his transcripts and his first appeal. This did not produce a positive result and Pam was told there was nothing in the documents that could help Brett.

Pam was unwilling to give up. She spent time trying to find an attorney to help him pro bono, but was unsuccessful. This prompted her to take a different approach to finding help for Brett. “The tide turned,” she explained, “When I built him a Myspace page to get his story out. His mother and brother found it and contacted me through his Myspace. This got the ball rolling.”

Brett’s mom, Enette Wigginton, supplied Pam with a copy of the transcripts from his trial. “She was able to provide a lot of valuable information surrounding his arrest and his trial. The transcript provided many missing pieces. More importantly, I learned that this child had been railroaded in a Kangaroo Court; the result an unlawful conviction.” It was Pam’s own children that reminded her how vulnerable people are to systems that are unjust. “I knew that this could happen to my child or any child or any mother and I was angry. I launched into a mission to get his freedom because I couldn’t imagine what Brett’s mother was going through. I already knew what Brett was going through. I knew I couldn’t continue to reassure him that everything was going to be okay when I knew it wasn’t unless I took some action.”

Pam then went on to hire a post-conviction lawyer to assist Brett. She eventually got to know his grandmother as well. Madge Jones had been widowed as a result of Brett killing his grandfather. However, she shed important light on the circumstances surrounding the event. “Madge was able to provide corroborating evidence of her husband’s steadily declining mental health, history of mental illness, PTSD from his army days, and unprovoked aggression which had worsened substantially during the years preceding his death.” Pam went on to say, “She told me she was afraid to leave Brett home alone that day with her husband. She said she thought he would do something to him while she was gone.” Brett’s lawyers ignored this information prior to and during his trial.

Pam explained the legal events that have occurred since her initial involvement. “Eventually Madge and her son Tony, Brett’s father, gave powerful affidavits as part of his post-conviction motion. Due to this new evidence the PCR application was granted by the MS Supreme Court. He was granted leave to go back to trial court and ask for a new trial.”

However, then Pam met with an obstacle she had been anticipating. “The original trial jusge denied his request after an evidentiary hearing. We all knew that his mind was made up from the get-go. We then appealed that decision to the MS Court of Appealed. They affirmed the trial judge.” In reference to the latest activity, Pam said, “We now have a Cert Petition pending at the MS Supreme Court, appealing the COA decision. We added a new lawyer from Oxford, MS who agreed to work for a small fee. We are grateful beyond belief for his help on the Writ.”

Picture of Brett at 19 – taken at the Lee County Detention Center

Pam has gotten to know Brett well in the process of advocating for him. She began to write to him in 2005, but due to emotional difficulties he experienced upon arriving at Walnut Grove, she did not hear from him until nine months later in 2006. “He attempted suicide a total of three times at Walnut Grove and that’s not the worst that happened to him there.” In reference to abuses he has endured, she expounded only by saying they were “unthinkable for decent human beings to imagine.”

Since learning of his case and getting to know Brett, Pam has provided support for him “emotionally, legally, and financially ever since.” She says she would “do it again in a heartbeat.” It is important to her that people understand that “Brett is innocent. He did not murder his granddaddy. He loved his granddaddy. Brett had not lived in Mississippi for a while and did not know the extent of his grandfather’s decline. Brett’s grandfather was angry at Brett’s dad that day and started an argument with Brett after his grandmother had left for work. Brett sasses back and his grandfather attacked him, backing him into a tiny corner of a kitchen where there was no way out. He assaulted Brett with his fists and had Brett in a choke-hold, wrestling him to the ground. Brett grabbed a kitchen knife from the counter where he had just made a sandwich. His granddaddy never backed off and Brett was forced to defend himself. He thought he was going to die and he felt the fight would not end until one of them was dead.”

After Brett stabbed his grandfather he attempted to give him CPR twice. He called 911. “His granddaddy died in his arms as he was screaming for help, but no one came. He did not flee to avoid getting ‘caught’. He left to go to his grandmother and tell her what happened. Every witness testified that he had asked for a ride to Wal-Mart.” Brett’s grandmother was working at Wal-Mart at the time.

Brett was interrogated by several police officers, without any guidance from a parent or lawyer. In regard to his questioning, Pam said, “He was strip searched, cuffed, and forced to put on jail garb (red and whites for murderers) before he was interrogated late at night. He asked for his mother and her lawyer but was told it was too late to call anyone. They then led him to the interrogation room where he waived his Miranda rights.”

However, the questioning of Brett as a suspect was not the only aspect of his case that bothered Pam. “At trial the prosecutors told many lies. They presented false testimony. They misconstrued the facts to the jury. They coerced a 15 year-old runaway girl to lie in exchange for her freedom from juvenile detention.” That was not the extent of it though. “They snuck the jury inadmissible evidence of which no mistrial was called. They launched a vicious attack on this child under the cover of a court room. And won.”

Brett’s defense was problematic as well. Like so many other juveniles facing the possibility of life without parole that came before him, his lawyer reportedly conducted no investigation into the facts of his client’s case. He did not even meet Brett until just before the trial. Pam added, “He didn’t meet with him at all during crucial first days after the arrest.” The attorney did not interview potential witnesses before the trial, did not call for a mistrial, and did not object when there were errors with regard to jury instruction.

Upon appeal, Brett’s attorney failed his client yet again when he did not bring up critical issues that could have helped Brett.  ”In fact,” Pam said, “He told Brett’s mother that he hadn’t won an appeal in 20 years and didn’t plan on winning that one.”

Pam will not give up her fight for Brett, or for other juveniles like him. She described her intentions with regard to helping people affected by these issues. “My motivation is that children are not adults and should not be treated as if they were. I don’t believe they should be charged as adults and should not be put in adult prisons or jails or receive adult sentences. I believe the criminal justice system takes advantage of kids and the fact that they don’t understand the process of anything about what is happening to them.”

She expressed disbelief that there is anything positive to be gained from the practice of trying and sentencing juveniles as adults. “I feel that trying children as adults only amounts to vengeance and retribution and career advancement for prosecutors as children are an easy target. I believe children can change if they get help and treatment.”

Perhaps one of her greatest motivators has been her own role as a mother. “What made me passionate about this cause is compassion for children and the unfairness of charging them as adults. My own children helped me to see this very clearly, as a parent and a mom.”

She wants people to understand what is happening in America’s justice system with regard to children and teenagers. Approximately 2,500 people have received life without parole sentences for homicide crimes committed as juveniles. “Children in adult jails and prisons are three times more likely to commit suicide, and seven times more likely to be raped and abused.”

Like me, Pam believes that the ability of police to question children and teenagers without an adult or attorney present is a serious problem. “Kids do not know to remain silent and pretty much do themselves in the minute they open their mouth and agree unknowingly to waive their Miranda rights or speak with the police. They are taught the police are their friend. We know, they are not. The police will take full advantage of a child at their disposal and salivate over their ability to coerce a confession or any ambiguous statement out of a confused child.”

Not all law enforcement behaves in this manner, but it is clear there is an issue when it comes to the policies and procedures surrounding the interrogation of minors. Moreover, this country places too much importance in confessions – regardless of the quality of the statement or the methods used to extract it.

“My advice,” Pam told me, “Is to give your child the business card of a local lawyer and tell them to hand it to the police if they are ever in trouble. Tell them to politely refuse to answer any questions and don’t offer to speak to them until a parent or lawyer is there, regardless if it takes hours or days because in the end it may save their life to wait patiently.”

The biggest obstacle Pam has faced is coming up with enough money to help Brett. She has paid for all of his proceedings and spent approximately $40,000 on attorney fees. She says she has been fortunate to find attorneys who keep their fees reasonable. Brett does not qualify for public defender status because even though he is considered indigent “his family isn’t poor enough.”

Pam would like to see life without parole sentences abolished for children, teens, and even young adults. She cites the fact that children and even young adults have brains that are not fully developed. She also believes that children and teens should never be interrogated without a parent or attorney present.

Additionally, she wants to see America’s justice system take a completely different approach to rehabilitating juveniles. “I think the Missouri Boys Town is the best model for helping kids who have been in trouble grow and become productive members of society. They are shown love, respect, and how to be in a community by being part of the community. It’s a model system and it works. They have a very low recidivism rate.”

Though she believes the recent Supreme Court ruling is flawed, she feels it opens doors for the future in terms of eliminating “cruel adult prison sentences for children.”

Pam has experienced much of the same thing I have when it comes to the way in which the public views these children. She discussed how the climate has changed since 2004. Years ago she stated that “most of the comments we saw on blogs, websites, and newspaper articles were of the ‘do the crime, do the time’ nature. Or really mean and nasty comments such as ‘hang the little bastards’ or ‘execute them’.”

I can relate to this when it comes to cases I have advocated for.

“Now we see more balanced comments,” Pam said. “It’s good to see that. many advocacy groups have sprung up since 2005, such as Juvenile in Justice in Texas, and groups that have the power and means to make a difference such as Equal Justice Initiative, Southern Poverty Law Center, Center for Wrongful Convictions  of Children in Chicago, and the McArthur Foundation.”

“I feel the tide has turned,” she said. “It really came through public awareness. America is far behind every developed country in their treatment of juveniles and is somewhat of an embarrassment around with world with the harsh, archaic, backwards treatment of kids who have made mistakes.”

She says that Brett is one of the “lucky ones because he is taken care of. But there are so many out there that have no one.” For those who want to help these kids, Pam has posted a list of children in the state of Mississippi searching life without parole. This may be found in her Facebook notes.

Pam wants people to know that “one person can make a difference.” She says Brett has thrived due to the support he has received and has maintained an “excellent record of conduct.” This could have a substantial impact on his ability to achieve freedom. “He is well positioned for a sentencing review because he has done well in prison due to his desire to do well for people who really care about him. Without that, I believe he would have fallen back on prison type behavior, getting in trouble.”

“I wish more folks would consider taking on a child doing an adult sentence in an adult prison and adopt him/her as their own,” she said finally. “It makes a world of difference and can make life worth living for one of these kids. It can make the bars evaporate to some degree. It’s a great charity if you ask me. And the results are personal, as opposed to giving to a charity where you have no idea where the money is going. The happiness I’ve received from helping Brett is immeasurable.”

If you are interested in finding and helping someone in your area, or another region, please contact myself or Pam.

Lamar’s quest to promote rehabilitation and change among America’s inmate population

Lamar Culpepper (first row, center)

Lamar Culpepper resides in Statesville, North Carolina. He has a unique and refreshing perspective on the American justice system as well as the areas that demand reform. This is in part because of his first-hand experiences with it. His first-born son, Dominic, was arrested for the murder of another teenager when he was barely 14 years old. Dominic was tried as an adult and given Florida’s then mandatory penalty of life without any possibility of parole.

Much focus is placed upon the ways  the justice system is changed in response to those directly victimized by crime. However, far less emphasis is put on those who work toward reforming a system that not only punishes in extreme ways, but has all but abandoned any attempt to approach those who commit crimes in a rehabilitative manner.

This includes this nation’s youngest citizens: it’s children and teenagers. Though the juvenile justice system provides opportunities for rehabilitation, the adult prison system is punitive. Placing a greater number of youth in these prisons, or even sentencing them to life terms, reflects the fearful and vengeful culture that is all too prevalent in the United States.

Some people accept the justice system for what it is. Others believe, without real knowledge of its inner workings, that the justice system works. For Lamar, his experiences with the system have ignited a passion to seek and achieve change. Instead of simply identifying the problems in the system, Lamar works to solve them. His experiences, and those of his son, have motivated him to devote his life to helping people in America’s prison system by showing them how to transform their way of thinking and use those skills to change their lives.

I discussed Lamar’s work with him, asking him what prompted him to become involved in juvenile justice issues. The court’s sentencing of his son to life without parole was eye-opening. He explained that it was the arrest, trial, and conviction of his son which caused him to “awaken to the travesty of justice in the inequities of the present law and its administration in respect of juveniles.”

He went on to say, “Found guilty of first degree murder when tried as an adult, my son, Dominic, was sentenced without any evidence or testimony presented that may have mitigated the severity of the sentence upon his sentencing. In effect, any justice in judgment, as discerned by the court in review of relevant circumstances, had been stripped from the judicial process. Justice had essentially become a mockery of itself in any sense other than that of retribution, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’”

Lamar is a reminder that the concept of victims as it pertains to the justice system is broader than most acknowledge. Lamar stated, “The horror of what we endured as Dominic’s family and the horror, pain, and suffering of the victim’s family and friends caused me to question the entire system of justice, rehabilitation, available and effective intervention programs, and what was and wasn’t being done that could be done to interrupt the prevalence of violent crime. I had worked for seven years in a juvenile residential treatment facility owned and operated by Psychiatric Institutes of America and knew that intervention was available but not commonly required due to the expense and the need for insurance if not affordable for most when needed most.”

Years after his son’s conviction, in 2007, Lamar was invited to participate on the board of directors for the Rosebud Advocacy (previously known as the Rosebud Foundation). The organization, located in Atlanta, Georgia, specialized in providing intervention training. He has since traveled to Pennsylvania to receive training qualifying him to deliver a workshop in the prisons called the End Violence Project. This program focuses on leadership and transformational thinking.

The End Violence Project is a program that was originally established in Philadelphia. It has been ongoing for over twenty years. The program is designed for correctional institutions in which inmates are serving long-term sentences. It was during his work related to this program that Lamar met his current fiance, Wendy Lippard. She shares his vision of empowering inmates, and others, to make positive and critical changes in their lives.

Lamar eventually began serving directly under the oversight of the board of directors as the Southeast Regional Director. This role made him accountable for expanding the program into prisons located in the Southeast region of the United States.

He explained, “I was accountable for the delivery of the first program in a prison outside of the Philadelphia area.” The first program outside of Philadelphia was delivered at the Lawtey Correctional Institution in Lawtey, Florida.

“Soon after, Wendy Lippard was willing to assume accountability for delivering the program at Hancock State Prison, a maximum security men’s prison in Sparta, Georgia. The next prison that opened to us was Metro State Women’s Prison in Atlanta. Wendy has continued her work now as a member of the End Violence Project board of directors and has initiated programs in Nashville, Tennessee. I am beginning to explore opportunities for delivery of the End Violence Project in a North Carolina prison.”

In addition to the above-described efforts, Lamar has been working on developing a program called the Freedom at the Wall series. This is a flexible training model that may be delivered in the short-term, consisting of one or two days, or in a more in-depth form that lasts longer.

Lamar describes his program as follows: “This educational program causes a shift in the way participants view their world and challenges the habitual thinking that seems to justify behavior and has life not working, Inmates inquire into what matters most to them for the inspiration that can powerfully alter the way they have been living their lives. Essential training provides them access to becoming confident leaders in their own lives and knowing themselves as people who can be respected, contributing members in their communities both behind the wall and upon release.”

Wendy acts as co-facilitator of the program. In November of 2011, the two  delivered it to the entire prison population in the form of a three day intensive program, lasting for eight hours each day, to one-third of the prison population at the Emanuel Women’s Facility in Georgia. The prison houses over 550 female inmates.

I asked Lamar to share his thoughts on the American practice of trying children as adults and sentencing youth to life in prison without parole. He stated, “The ‘tough on crime’ policy of trying and sentencing juveniles as adults is delusional. Acting as if one thing is another when it is not is creating something to be as if it were true when it is known to be false – treating children as adults when, in fact, they are children. The insanity is spawned from fear and the apparent intention to drive up and take advantage of fear in advancing political interests and profiteering from the incarceration of more and more people when proven effective, evidence-based intervention programs are available and are actually less costly than incarceration.”

However, as Lamar well knows there is more to be achieved from emphasizing rehabilitation in the prison system than mere financial savings. The greater cost is harder to articulate. He expounded on this by explaining the mindset and resulting consequences of the tough on crime mentality with regard to juveniles by stating the following:

“What perpetuates the persistence of an approach that is proven ineffective is two-fold: first, people persist in their belief that retributive justice–justified revenge–is the only valid approach even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and, second, an agenda exists that is advanced to benefit a political and social predisposition on the issue. The waste of so much human potential in youth that can be redeemed and be developed results, and the contribution that could be made to the benefit of us all is forever lost. The greater cost is to us as a society–the damage to our moral character suffered for how we intend to treat our fellow human beings.”

Lamar has gone on to become the creator and co-owner of United Seminars LLC, with Wendy Lippard, providing a wide range of seminars and workshops inside and outside of the prison environment. His programs and seminars focus on topics ranging from communication to self-discipline.

Dominic Culpepper, Lamar’s son, is among those who are affected by the recent Supreme Court ruling that mandatory life without parole sentences are a violation of the Eighth Constitutional Amendment relating to cruel and unusual punishments. While much more change and reform is needed regarding the treatment of America’s juveniles in the adult prison system, the ruling recognized the fundamental differences between children and adults.

Lamar discussed the ruling and its implications, stating: “Roberts was absolutely correct in acknowledging the attitude of our society toward the philosophy of punishing juveniles for their crimes. The majority of the court, especially as voiced by Justice Breyer, emphasized the indisputable psychological and neuroscientific facts that juvenile brains differ from those of adults.”

Many Americans recognize that juveniles are different than adults, but science confirms it. “These facts,” Lamar added, “were never disputed; however, Roberts and like-minded justices noted that it is the decision of the legislatures to determine whether the differences between children and adults even matter. Given who we are as a civilization, apparently, we are as a majority indifferent to the possibility of reform or the potential for change; therefore, the court responds to the argument by essentially sticking its finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing and relegating judgment to the legislature. The Supreme Court majority members had an opportunity to address that argument, and it did not.”

One of the things that Lamar would like to see in the future is a shift in the culture  of the current justice system from one that is retributive to one with a much greater emphasis on intervention and rehabilitation. He pointed out that the current system is not only outdated, but has been proven ineffective through analysis of recidivism rates, entrenched criminal thinking, and other related matters.

Lamar believes that much of the solution may be found in taking an alternate approach to those in the criminal justice system. “The principles of restorative justice applied  demonstrates that the repeating of offenses ceases, personal responsibility increases, and the opportunity for healing from the offenses committed becomes possible for both victims and perpetrators, who then can go and offend no more,” he explained.

He maintains that the training of corrections staff is an important component when it comes to promoting this kind of change. These individuals, once trained in intervention techniques, may help inmates “assume personal responsibility for managing themselves and their lives, rather than persisting in criminal patterns of behavior.”

Addressing people outside of the prison system, he recommended the following:

“For those who are willing to be responsible for the country in which we live, for our states, counties, and municipalities in which we have a more influential voice, be responsible for what difference you are not making for your silence. Educate yourself about what is happening about which you would disagree or even be appalled for being contrary to your professed beliefs and standards. Be attentive to reports of atrocities committed against juveniles–or against anyone in prison–who are dependent upon the custodial care of their keepers, who are often guilty of being their tormentors. Juveniles are often placed within adult populations, are beaten and abused, sexually molested, and are not provided adequate protection as mandated for the departments of correction.”

He wants people to understand that many children are good candidates for rehabilitation when they are willing to accept accountability for their behavior and assume responsibility for their learning.

“The travesty of justice,” he noted, “is the failing of our weaker, troubled, younger members by those members of society who have the opportunity and the ability to intervene but turn their backs. By our judgment–or lack of judgment–of what is right, we will be judged.”

Lamar is a living reminder of our human and social responsibility to promote positive change in the lives of others. People have the choice to accept life as it is or to take ownership of their responsibility when it comes to identifying problems and implementing solutions. He is also a reminder of the profound impact one or two people can have on countless other lives.

A video detailing some of Lamar’s work and advocacy may be viewed here.

You may contact Lamar or learn more about his seminars here.

The trouble with interrogating minors

Scenes from Michael Crowe’s interrogation

We know from organizations like the Innocence Project that coerced or false confessions are a major contributor to wrongful convictions. The Project’s site states the following: “In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions, or pled guilty.”

But why would someone who is innocent of a crime confess to doing it? This is the question that everyone considers when they first learn that a person has made an incriminating statement and then later claims it was coerced.

What kind of person admits to committing a crime they did not do?

It is a good question that requires analysis of the psychology behind police interrogations and the systematic breakdown of a person’s resolve. The trouble is that people who are innocent are just as susceptible to the incredible strain placed on a person during the process as those that are guilty of having committed a crime. Children and teenagers are particularly vulnerable as evidenced by the case of Michael Crowe.

In 1998, 12  year old Stephanie Crowe was found stabbed to death in her bedroom. Police quickly focused their investigation on Stephanie’s 14 year old brother, Michael. His interrogation lasted for 27 hours, conducted over the course of three days. Two of Michael’s friends also made incriminating statements to police – one of which was a confession. Michael confessed to having murdered his sister as well, though DNA evidence later showed the crime was committed by a transient named Richard Tuite.

Police used an interrogation technique known as the Reid Technique in Michael’s case. This is a popular method of interrogating individuals police feel may be involved in a crime. The approach consists of two separate stages and is discussed in a brief filed on behalf of Damien Echols, prior to his accepting an Alford Plea that allowed him to walk off death row in Arkansas. Echols, along with two other teenagers at the time, were convicted of murdering three children in West Memphis, Arkansas. Though confessions given by one of the teenagers, Jessie Misskelley, were never admitted into evidence during the joint trial of Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols, they were credited with influencing the jury because the foreman knew about the confession and purportedly told the other jurors about it.

Misskelley’s statements to police were problematic because initially they did not match the facts of the case. In his first incriminating statement to police he indicated the murders happened in the morning, which was impossible since all three children attended school that day and various sightings of the boys were reported to police up until approximately 7 p.m. the evening they disappeared. Examination of the statement provides clear examples of the police influencing changes made by Misskelley, ranging from the time the crime was allegedly committed to other critical elements.

The first stage of the Reid Technique contains three steps. First, the officers separate the suspect from family and friends. Typically the interrogation is done in a small, uncomfortable space that increases feelings of pressure and vulnerability. Second, the person or people conducting the interrogation accuse the suspect of being untruthful. It is not unusual for police using this approach to refuse to hear what the suspect is saying and to continually express the belief the suspect is guilty of the crime. Third, the police often tell the suspect they have physical or other types of evidence implicating them in the crime. Sometimes an officer will refrain from outright lying and will ask questions like, “If I told you that we found your fingerprints on the weapon used, what would your explanation be for that?”

The second stage kicks the process up several notches. First, after the suspect has been interrogated at length and led to believe that the police will not hear of their innocence, they are told there might be a way out of the situation. The suspect is essentially advised of any benefits of confessing to the crime. For example, a confession will put an end to the interrogation. An officer might even offer sympathy, saying something like this: “I can understand if you just reached the end of your rope and you lost your temper. Sometimes accidents happen.”

This coincides with the second crucial step, which is to minimize the involvement of the suspect.

“You didn’t mean to do it.”

“We know this is not the kind of person you are.”

“You only witnessed someone else committing the crime.”

“You didn’t want to participate.”

The final step consists of explaining that a confession is the only way out and is in their best interest. Keep in mind that these two stages go on for hours. The suspect’s resolve is broken down in carefully calculated steps. It is all dependent on the interrogator’s ability to convince the suspect that relief will only come from offering a confession.

Children and teenagers are especially susceptible to the above-described conditions. Many youth, when in the presence of authority, feel a responsibility to cooperate and assist with the investigation. Few realize they have the right to do otherwise, even when that is expressed to them during the reading of their Miranda rights. Children and teenagers are taught to not only act respectfully in the presence of law enforcement, but to trust them as well.

The issue of interrogating minors has surfaced once again because of the Cristian Fernandez case. Cristian was 12 years old when he was charged in the death of his younger brother. The child’s defense is asking the judge to suppress two statements he made to police on the grounds he did not understand his rights when he gave them, and he was not cognizant of the consequences of giving such statements.

He is charged with felony murder (aggravated child abuse and murder), which despite his young age could carry a life without parole sentence if the judge deems it appropriate. Previously, when State Attorney Angela Corey sought the indictment for this charge, it was the only sentence Cristian could receive if convicted per Florida’s mandatory minimum requirements. Unless he accepted a plea deal.

Cristian originally said his brother fell off a bunk bed. He later claimed he pushed his brother into a bookshelf. Upon injuring his brother, the adolescent told his mother about his brother’s injuries and the mother waited – for unknown reasons – approximately eight hours to seek help for her unconscious and bleeding son. That decision may have cost her youngest child his life, but little has been made public about the reasoning behind waiting. News reports have indicated she spent much of this time on the Internet, researching head injuries and engaging in other activities.

Cristian is also charged with sexual battery because of a statement his younger brother – 4 or 5 at the time of the alleged incident – made to another person. Only a partial transcript of the interrogation regarding this charge is available; however, it causes confusion as to what the young child was referring to when he made the statement. The transcript is troubling, and not for the reasons Angela Corey and the other prosecutors she now has working on his case would have you believe.

Then there is the fact Cristian has been sexually and physically abused throughout his life. His mother gave birth to him when she was the same age he was when charged with murder. His father has had little to nothing to do with him. Prior to the murder, Cristian’s stepfather took his own life by shooting himself in the head. Cristian was not present when this happened, but his other siblings were. The youngest was covered in blood and trembling when police responded to the incident. The stepfather is believed to have committed suicide to avoid prosecution in connection with badly beating Cristian.

In a recent turn of events, the psychologist who was originally contracted by State Attorney Corey became a witness for the defense. This was in light of his determination that Cristian did not sufficiently understand what it meant to waive his rights. The same psychologist had previously provided Angela Corey with a detailed assessment of Cristian, combined with the finding that despite his troubling past, the accused was amenable to treatment and would respond well to intensive inpatient therapy.

Then there is the matter of lost evidence. On June 28th, the prosecution called various people to the stand to testify regarding the explanation of rights to Cristian and his understanding of those rights before he made statements to police. The prosecution asked to call his previous public defenders to the stand to question them about their visits with the child. The attorneys were protected by client-attorney privilege, but the judge did allow them to provide information about the number of times they visited their client.

Why? Because the Department of Juvenile Justice apparently lost or misplaced that information.

Detective Soehling questioned Cristian and testified that she made “technical” mistakes in her reports. She even admitted to destroying her reports, giving no reason for having done it. The detective had not received formal training with regard to questioning juveniles and though she claimed he understood his rights, she offered no evidence or testimony that supported she had the training and experience to recognize when a child understands their legal rights. She did not individually expound on any of the rights, or ask Cristian to paraphrase them in a way that would indicate understanding.

Cristian was not given guidance or advice from any adult outside of law enforcement. He was on his own when he was questioned. The state’s original psychologist is claiming he did not understand his rights. The case already reflected badly on Angela Corey when she became angry at those who questioned her approach. She refuses to consider that 189,000 people have signed my petition asking her to reverse her decision to try him as an adult. It shouldn’t have come as any surprise that she would pursue, with gusto, the prosecution of George Zimmerman – the Florida man accused of committing second degree murder against a 17 year old teenager named Trayvon Martin. What kind of picture does this newest information paint of Corey’s prosecution of am adolescent?

But that is what Angela Corey does. She throws the book at people. While this might be considered a positive attribute in some cases, it becomes a liability in others when she refuses to acknowledge the clear differences between juveniles and adults. It becomes an issue when she refuses to consider potentially mitigating factors in each individual case.

On the second day of the hearing regarding the suppression of statements, the defense called child psychiatrist David Fassler to the stand. Dr. Fassler testified that Cristian did not understand his rights and provided information about the advanced scientific understanding of human brain development in adolescents. He has lectured on these types of matters at Yale, Harvard, and before Congress.

If Judge Cooper agrees to suppress the statements made by Cristian Fernandez, it will significantly weaken the prosecution’s cases against the defendant. It remains to be seen if she will take this action. Cristian’s case is just one more that emphasizes the dangers and problems associated with interrogating minor children. This is an area of the American legal system that requires significant reform, especially if courts continue to try and sentence children as adults.

Josh Young versus Josh Gouker…Again

Josh Young

For the longest time I have wondered about evidence in criminal cases and how much evidence should be required before a conviction occurs. More importantly, what type of evidence should be allowable in a criminal case? Should a person receive the death penalty when the strongest evidence against them is eyewitness testimony? Should a juvenile receive life without the possibility of parole because another person says the individual confessed to them? Even if there is no physical evidence to support it? These are the kinds of questions I still ponder.

When I was thirteen years old I read a true crime book called And the Sea will Tell. The book was written by Vincent Bugliosi who had once worked as a district attorney in California on the now infamous Charles Manson case. He eventually became a defense attorney and wrote a book about one of the cases he worked on that involved a somewhat convoluted double-homicide that occurred on the island of Palmyra.

The book was excellent and I bring it up because there was one part that has stuck with me in all the time that has passed since I read it. When Bugliosi gave his closing statement in defense of Stephanie Sterns, who had been charged in the homicides along with her boyfriend, he discussed circumstantial evidence as it applies to criminal cases. He used a compelling analogy involving rope.

I tried to find the exact words he used in the book, but I do not have a copy. When I searched for the description online I found an article called “The Winning Closing Argument”. The article discusses components of a winning closing argument as delineated by Bugliosi. There are two analogies included: the octopus analogy and the rope analogy. As luck would have it, the article also contains a description of the rope analogy using Bugliosi’s own words from the book I referred to above. He wrote:

Circumstantial evidence…is like a rope. And each fact is a strand of that rope. And as the prosecution piles one fact upon another we add strands and we add strength to that rope. If one strand breaks – and I’m not conceding for one moment that any strand has broken in this case – but if one strand does break, the rope is not broken. The strength of the rope is barely diminished. Why? Because there are so many other strands of almost steel-like strength that the rope is still more than strong enough to bind these two defendants to justice. That’s what circumstantial evidence is all about.

Let’s suppose for a moment that what Bugliosi says is true and apply it to a case like Josh Young’s. Josh Young is sixteen years old. He was fifteen when he was charged for the murder of his 14 year old stepbrother. Josh came to the attention of police a month after the murder. Josh’s father, Josh Gouker, fled the state of Kentucky and headed for Alabama on June 14th of 2011.

By the time the two were located and taken into custody, Gouker faced a kidnapping charge in connection with taking a woman hostage and forcing her to drive at gunpoint for a number of hours.

On June 22nd, according to the discovery file pertaining to Josh Young’s case, Gouker contacted the police. He informed them he had information he wanted to pass on about Trey Zwicker’s murder. In the description of a subsequent telephone interview, Detective Scott Russ, wrote the following:

I started out by telling Joshua [Gouker] I understood he wanted to speak to me in person, but I needed something to make sure it’s not a wasted drive to Alabama. He said he didn’t want to talk over the phone, but said “I can solve your case about Trey”. I asked if I come there and talk face to face if he was going to tell me everything. He said “I know everything and I’ve been carrying it with me man.” I asked if we were talking about his son and he said “yeah”.

If we apply the rope analogy to the case against Josh Young it means that his own father’s statement – given by a man with an extensive criminal record – makes up one strand of the rope. But how strong of a strand? If a person has a potential motive to lie, a criminal background, and has just been arrested for violating probation and kidnapping, does their testimony make up a strand that is strong or weak? Are all strands the same strength?

Probably not.

Josh Gouker

Perhaps take into account what he told police in his May 14th interview. The detective wrote, “He admitted to killing the family dog with a baseball bat and throwing the family cat out a second floor window in the garage. He threw both animals in the garbage.”

When Gouker decided to turn on his son, he told the detective that others would vouch for what he said about his son having committed the murder. He bragged to the police that no one would talk to them unless he told them to do it. He said, “I don’t give a f**k what you threatened them with.” When the officer stated he didn’t threaten people, Gouker replied, “I know. I’m just telling you, I’m not trying to be a hard a**, but I’m telling you it’s not an option, they’re not gonna do it.”

For a time, the detective pushed back on Gouker, saying his conflicting statements made him come across as unreliable. The detective asked him if he liked having people talking about him and being on the news. Gouker began to cry and said, “That’s what’s killing me man, not about what they said, f**k what they said. My character can’t be restored from the s**t I did in the past. I’m not going to be a model citizen to any motherf**ker that’s known to me.” Then he said, “What I am is a leader of a gang, a very violent motherf**ker that doesn’t argue…don’t get me wrong, I want all this out, I want all this out man. There is nothing else I can do for Josh, but I don’t want anybody else going down.”

After that discussion Gouker and the detective began to make phone calls. Gouker had said that there were people who would back up his story, but those people would not talk unless he told them to do it.

The first call was placed to Cassie Gouker. Cassie has been described to me by people who know this family as Gouker’s cousin. In his version of the story, the younger Josh went to Cassie after the murder and asked her to help him dispose of evidence.

Cassie did not answer her phone and so the next person they called was Ruby Jessie. Ruby is Josh Gouker’s mother and the younger Josh’s grandmother. The detective introduced himself and told her “we know everything.” Ruby asked him “what’s everything?” The report reads as follows:

I told her she is not in trouble for being an informational witness. I told her I needed her to tell me what Josh Young (her grandson) told her. She asked if I was talking about big Josh or little Josh and I told her little Josh. I asked her to tell me what little Josh told her at the Breckenridge Inn. She said “I didn’t believe him.” I told her to tell me what he told her. She said “he just told me he didn’t care for Trey”. Big Josh told her that everyone has told us everything and she said “what? That he did it?” and I said “right.” She said “I don’t believe that.” I told her to tell me what little Josh told her even if she believes it or not. She said little Josh told her Trey told on him and got him in trouble all the time and he couldn’t stand him. She said she knows Trey was bigger than Josh and little Josh said something about hitting Trey, but he didn’t know Trey was stabbed four times like the news said. She felt since little Josh didn’t say anything about Trey being stabbed that he didn’t do it.

Ruby said that the younger Josh told her, Cassie, and Cassie’s husband John that he murdered Trey. This was allegedly said in front of his father. Ruby stressed that she did not believe it.

Next they called one of Gouker’s ex-girlfriends. At first she said she knew nothing about the murders, except what was on the news. She was asked if the younger Josh told her he killed Trey and she repeatedly said no. Gouker then told her that the woman who accompanied him and little Josh to Alabama was trying to turn things around on him. Gouker talked to her while the phone was off of speakerphone for a moment and then it was put back on speaker. He cried and told her to tell the truth. The detective urged her to tell what she knew about Trey. Crying, she finally relented by saying, “man yeah” in response to the question about whether little Josh murdered Trey.

First she said she couldn’t remember where Josh told her this. Then she said it was at a hotel room with Josh Gouker and the woman who went with them to Alabama. She said he told her nothing about the weapon he used or his motive for doing it.

Then they called Cassie again. And this is where things got a little weird. In the report, the detective described the conversation as follows:

I called Cassie at 0215 hours and when she answered big Josh told her “they know everything” and she said “about what” and Josh said “everything. They know everything.” Cassie said, “How’s that?” He told her “everyone was talking when we left.” Josh told her “I’m down in Alabama with Louisville Homicide Detectives down here.” Big Josh told her “your loyalty lies with me, right?” and she replied, “yes”. He said “who killed Trey?” and she said, “What?” He said “the truth, who killed Trey?” She replied, “You did right?”

She implicated Josh Gouker instead of Josh Young, even after declaring her loyalty to the older Josh.

But Gouker didn’t miss a beat. He responded, “No, tell the truth, who did it, this is big Josh. This is big Josh. Tell the truth. Who killed Trey?” She again replied, “You did, right, I don’t know.”

To explain this Gouker told the officer he told Cassie he would take the blame for the murders if it came down to that. Gouker again urged Cassie to tell the truth and said she would not get in any trouble for doing it. The detective got on the line with Cassie and explained the two had spoken previously. He asked who woke her up in the bedroom and she said, “little Josh.” She stated he woke her up and asked for her help to get rid of “stuff”.

Then she said he told her he killed Trey.

It was a strange statement, considering that moments before she had been telling Josh Gouker that he did it.

Cassie’s husband, John, said that Josh Gouker told him his son had murdered Trey the day after it happened.

But there’s a problem with that statement. Josh Gouker told the detective in his June 22 interview that little Josh admitted to him he murdered Trey after being interviewed by the police on May 14th. Trey was murdered the night of May 10th. This was a glaring inconsistency that the police apparently never picked up on. How could Josh Gouker tell John that little Josh murdered Trey the day after it happened if he didn’t know his son perpetrated the crime?

Using the rope analogy now, which statements count as a strand of rope? Does a statement given by Cassie where she originally pointed at Josh Gouker as the killer count for Josh Gouker or for the younger Josh? Since she altered it to point to little Josh shortly thereafter.

If little Josh asked Cassie to dispose of evidence, and Cassie’s allegiance was to Gouker, why is it that Cassie never went to Gouker to tell him his son told her he murdered someone and asked her to help get rid of the evidence? If we go by Gouker’s statement, she didn’t do this because he claimed to find out that his son did it because he admitted it after being interviewed.

And why did Trey’s mother, Amanda, accuse Cassie and her husband of stealing items from her garage approximately two weeks after Gouker pointed the finger at his son. It was reported that they stole a computer, boxes, and a wheelbarrow.

Why did they take those things? What were they trying to get or hide?

And what about Ruby’s statement? She would later tell the press that it was Josh Gouker who killed Trey. She said, “Big Josh told me at first her did it, and that’s who they need to be looking at.”

Does her statement on the phone to police count as a strand of rope against Josh Young, or does her later statement that her son confessed his own guilt to her before implicating his son negate that strand?

There is no physical evidence linking Josh to the crime. There are no eyewitnesses to the murder – at least none that have come forward. Josh Young has no prior history of violence according to people who have testified on his behalf. He’s had a very difficult upbringing, involving numerous interventions on the part of Department of Child Services. More information about his childhood may be found here.

So my final questions are these: How strong is the case against Josh Young? Should charges have even been brought against him based on the evidence presented so far?

And what about his father?

If only Josh Young had Bugliosi for a defense attorney…

My petition asking for justice for Josh Young is here.

The support page for Josh Young on Facebook is here.

Updates on the case may also be found on Twitter @SaveJoshYoung.

Beyond a reasonable doubt: The Curtis Shuler case

Curtis Shuler was 16 years old when he was charged with a murder that occurred on April 26th of 1998. He waited for five years before he was tried as in adult in Sarasota County Florida, and subsequently sentenced to life without parole.

This particular case is important for several reasons. First, it highlights the unjust and unethical application of the felony murder rule. Approximately half of the states in America allow a person to be convicted of first degree murder, even if the jury believes the person did not commit the act of murder. This is possible because in many states if a person is charged with murder and another felony, such as aggravated assault or burglary, the jury only need find the person guilty of the lesser felony offense for the individual to receive an egregious sentence, such as life without parole.

This is exactly what happened to Curtis Shuler Jr. I spent a lot of time reading through Curtis’s trial which began on March 24th of 2003 and was stunned by what happened. The prosecution presented no physical evidence that directly tied Curtis to the murder of an adult male named Larry Steven Tyler.

To provide some background on this case, Tyler was accompanied the night he was shot by another man when the two approached an intersection near the Grenelefe Resort at approximately 9-9:30 p.m. As they approached a stop sign, Tyler observed a vehicle backed into an area and parked in an odd way. He pointed it out to his friend.

The friend, John Green, testified that the following occurred: “Steve is still looking back at the car. I’m approaching the stop sign. I look towards the stop sign. As I come to a stop, don’t even know if I made it to the stop, the right-hand door comes open. Whether Steve opened it or not, I don’t know. Immediately shots fill the car, quick rapid shots. He turns around. I see this face in the window. And he turns around, shoves this person out, and says go, go, go. I floor it, turn as hard as I can and just floor it. I mean, it’s just as quick as that.”

Green testified that the face he saw belonged to a person who was black, but was unable to provide any description beyond that. He testified he did not see anyone else there, but that his friend referred to more than one person when he stated “those SOBs shot me”.

Tyler’s sister, an EMT, rode in the ambulance with Tyler and talked to him about what happened. She testified that he told her he saw three or four people when the shooting took place. When pressed on this issue, the woman admitted that she originally told police that her brother said there were two black people present and possibly a third. There was no mention of a fourth person.

Tyler died from his injuries in the very early morning hours. A detective had only been able to question him for a few minutes before he was rushed away into surgery just prior to his death.

On April 30th, 18 year old Sylathum Streeter, Victor Lester, and Adrian Moore were implicated in a spree of shootings that occurred at John’s Restaurant. Moore was Lester’s brother. Seven people were shot, including a young girl who died and her cousin who was injured. Two people died as a result. Streeter was the only person formally charged in the murders, even though the other two were present. In fact, Lester testified against Streeter at the trial in reference to fatal shooting of a 20 year old woman killed during the shooting spree.

Streeter was the one who implicated Curtis Shuler in the murder that took place on April 26th. He originally testified that Curtis came up with the idea of doing a carjacking and that he made statement to the effect that if someone was in the vehicle, he would shoot them.

There were problems with Streeter’s statement, however. The first was that he had an extensive criminal background. Prior convictions included seventeen felonies. Streeter and Lester had known each other for many years, but Curtis was not as well known to the group. Streeter claimed he only knew Curtis for less than a year before he pinned Tyler’s murder on him.

By the time Curtis went to court, Streeter gave another story during testimony. He stated that he and Lester had come up with a plan to name Curtis as the killer once the two realized that the victim had died.  He testified to the following:

Attorney: And what was the plan that you guys concocted — concocted? Excuse me.
Streeter: Basically when the shit hit the fan, put it on Curt.
Attorney: Why?
Streeter: Can’t say.
Attorney: When did you find out that a man had died?
Streeter: Later on at school, I believe like — I believe it was a Tuesday, if I’m not mistaken.
Attorney: Was the story concocted before you found out that Mr. Tyler had died or after?
Streeter: After.
Attorney: What was the concern?
Streeter: Basically a murder charge.
Attorney: Is that the reason you pointed it at Curtis Shuler?
Streeter: Yes, sir.
Attorney: Why not Victor Lester or Adrian Moore?
Streeter: Well, I was closer to Victor Lester.
Attorney: All right.
Streeter: Adrian Moore is his brother.

When asked why he was recanting his original statement he said, “I guess some would have called it an attack of conscience, but I can’t really say. I decided to tell the truth.”

He named Victor Lester as the real shooter and said that Curtis was not even present when any of the events transpired on April 26th.

At Curtis’s trial, a litany of witnesses testified for the defense to support that Curtis was not with Streeter and Lester on the day in question. Family and friends described the date as memorable because the local church had an appreciation celebration for a man named Elbert Cummings. The event began in church at approximately noon. It ended around 2:30 p.m. and then attendees participated in an appreciation dinner. Multiple people testified to seeing Curtis at both church and the dinner. Witnesses recounted what he was doing and some of them even remembered speaking to him.

Following the appreciation dinner, Curtis was observed at his residence. He spent the evening working on his car radio. It wasn’t just Curtis’s family and friends that testified to his alibi, however.  A neighbor, Shirley Hill, described seeing Curtis and even asking him to turn his music down around 8 or 9 p.m. Other witnesses described him working on his car until approximately 1 a.m. when he returned to the house to go to bed. All of this testimony completely contradicted prior statements by Streeter and Lester about spending the entire day with Curtis.

Curtis left that evening, after the appreciation dinner, for a short time to go to Wal-Mart to get a wire for his car. This happened earlier in the evening, with confirmed sightings of Curtis before and immediately after his short trip to the store. Evidence of the date of the appreciation dinner was entered as an exhibit, confirming that it took place on April 26th.

The jury did not believe that Curtis committed the murder. Instead, the jury found him guilty on the lesser charge of burglary. The problem was that under the felony murder rule if a person is found guilty for the additional felony charge, they are penalized for murder component of the charges as well. A person can be sitting in their vehicle, acting as a getaway in a convenience store robbery and have no knowledge of what is happening in the store, and still be convicted for murder if an accomplice commits it.

The jury’s statement read as follows: “We, the jury, find as follows as to Count 2 of the charges. The defendant is guilty of attempted burglary, a lesser-included offense to that charged in the indictment, and we further find that the defendant did not carry, display, or use a firearm, and we further find that the defendant did not make an assault or battery on Larry Steven Tyler or John Steven Green.”

As a result, Curtis was sentenced to life without parole. It is also important to note that even though he was 16 at the time of the offense, the jury did not encounter a teenage boy. Instead, the jury was presented with a 21 year old man who had already been incarcerated for five years as he awaited trial.

It is unclear as to whether or not the jury even realized that upon finding him guilty on the charge of burglary, despite no physical evidence and only the recanted eyewitness testimony of another man involved in the crime, that he would receive a life without parole sentence.

Melissa Shuler became acquainted with Curtis while he was in prison. The two met and eventually married. Melissa has been advocating for her husband diligently in an attempt to raise awareness about the injustice that occurred when he was sentenced to life without parole. She visits him every weekend and describes him as her “best friend and soul mate.”

I asked Melissa what compels her to fight for Curtis and she responded with the following: “Other than the fact that I believe he was wrongfully convicted by the state of Florida and he was robbed of his youth. I see a person, a man who has something to offer the world. I believe that everyone should have a second chance. But I ultimately am fighting for him because our son needs his father here with us.”

Melissa has approached her advocacy work from a number of angles. She utilizes social media sites to spread the word and started a petition on change.org. The link to the petition is here. She has written letters to everyone from the governor, the president, and organizations such as the ACLU and NAACP.

She described the challenges of advocating for a man who was convicted and sentenced to life without parole as a juvenile. She indicated that one obstacle is that Curtis is black and the victim was white. Another is that the case happened 14 years ago. It is also hard to find any funding to further advocacy efforts such as this one. “No one wants to really get involved until it happens to them,” Melissa explained.

In the prison setting Curtis is a peer facilitator for the Horizon Dorm. He teaches art and bible studies. Curtis especially enjoys art and music. He is a phenomenal artist as well. His work can be found at www.shulerpublications.webs.com.

Prior appeals for Curtis have been denied, but some are still pending. Melissa wants people to know the following:

He was railroaded by the state of Florida, he was unjustly convicted, he was acquitted of all the elements of the crime so therefore he couldn’t be held culpable for the crime itself. He wasn’t convicted of one violent act in reference to the crime. He is confident that he will be released one day pending a just review of his case and that he is not a murderer as clearly demonstrated by the jury’s verdict. He loves life, the thought of life, people, and can’t wait to experience it. He has embraced my humanity, my strengths and weaknesses, as should other people. The way that I think that other people should embrace their humanity. We should all have a common bond in the fight towards justice and equality. The judicial system is not perfect but there is room to correct a situation that is unjust.

You can help Curtis by signing his petition. Melissa is in the process of finalizing plans for an event she is hosting on May 19th at noon. If you would like to get involved in the event or contact Melissa regarding it she may be reached on Facebook. She would like to find other people who have loved ones who are in a similar situation as Curtis in that they were sentenced to life without parole as juveniles.

Curtis also enjoys hearing from people and receiving letters of support.

Curtis Shuler Jr. #H07645
Tomoka Correctional Institute
Daytona Beach, FL 32124

The investigation into the death of Eric Perez

Eric Perez

Eric Perez was just days into his eighteenth year when his life ended suddenly. The circumstances surrounding his death are both tragic and disturbing. Eric died within the care of the Palm Beach Regional Detention Center where he was incarcerated because he had been caught with a small amount of marijuana while riding a bike with a broken light.

The offense was relatively minor, but the consequences weren’t.

The Incident

In March 0f 2012, State Attorney Michael McAuliffe released the grand jury presentment pertaining to Eric’s death. The document contains information about the last hours of the young man’s life based on interviews, reports, and surveillance video. The picture painted by State Attorney McAuliffe, to the grand jury, is not a pleasant one.

On the evening of July 9th of 2011, Eric accompanied the other male juveniles from module B-2 to the cafeteria to eat some snacks. It was almost 8 p.m. Before leaving the cafeteria, the three officers that brought the boys began conducting searches to ensure that no one took any of the snacks with them upon leaving.

The officers and the youths were observed on video joking and laughing during the process. The report states, “The DJJ officers also appeared to be engaging in horseplay with the youths while the searches took place.”

At some point, Eric was accused of trying to take a snack back to where he was housed. Though the report describes the officers and the youths as laughing during the search, it also points out that during the search Eric was “roughly tossed in the air, striking the wall and/or floor with his head and/or shoulder as he came back down.”

Eric left the cafeteria appearing unsteady on his feet. Within a fairly short amount of time the report stated that Eric once again appeared normal. He was sent to bed at about 9:30 p.m.

At about 1:30 a.m. Eric’s cell mates called an officer into the are because Eric was screaming. His cries became louder as he yelled for someone to “get it off me, get it off me.” The officer who responded reported that Eric was hallucinating and subsequently called the supervisor.

By the time the supervisor arrived, Eric was staggering around inside his cell. The officers asked Eric to leave the cell, which he did by crawling since he did not appear to be able to stand. Eric laid down on the floor and rolled from side to side. He screamed that his head hurt.

While Eric lay on the floor, the officers began to review his medical chart. The report states that Eric “then rose to his feet, using the wall for balance, before he stumbled forward, fell, and appeared to strike his head on the corner of the table.”

The officers observed all of this take place, but no one did anything to help the teen. Instead, Eric was given a mattress pad to lie down on in the common area of the facility. Officers helped him onto the pad and then covered him with sheet. Eric appeared to fall asleep on the pad.

At about 2:22 a.m., Eric awoke. He rolled off his mattress and then vomited on the floor. He also lost control of his bowels and was reported as defecating in his clothing. and underwear. Officers tried to help Eric to his feet but he could not stand.

Despite the alarming turn of events, no attempt was made to contact 911 or to seek medical assistance for the teen. It was not until 2:39 a.m. that the supervisor made the first call to the superintendent of the facility. He reported that Eric was vomiting. The supervisor was advised to contact the nurse. He called the nurse twice between 2:39 a.m. and 3:07 a.m. The calls went unanswered and the report specified that the nurse was no on call.

The supervisor again contacted the superintendent at 3:08 a.m., informing him that he was unable to get in touch with the nurse but that everything with Eric appeared to be okay because he was sleeping.

The grand jury was presented with testimony that the supervisor was overheard saying “he did not want to call 911 because he thought the youth was faking and he did not want to fill out extra paperwork.”

The bigger problem, in the eyes of the officers, appeared to be the smell that accumulated as a result of Eric having lost control of his bowels. The officers made attempts to clean around Eric. Video surveillance showed the officers mopping the area, but failing to check on Eric.

At about 5:15 a.m. one of the officers attempted to help Eric stand so he could take a shower. The teen was unable to stand up and so the officers dragged him by the mattress pad into what is known as a medical confinement cell. Pillows were placed around the teen and he was covered with sheets. Eric could be heard snoring.

No further attempts were made to contact a nurse or the superintendent. 911 had still not been contacted.

The last visible movement from Eric occurred at 7 a.m. His arms, which had been placed at his sides, moved slightly. An examination of the video by the medical examiner revealed that this movement was “decerebrate posturing”, indicating that this was the time when Eric died.

The female officer continued to report checking on Eric every ten minutes; however, evidence was presented to the grand jury that the officer was checking on a youth who had already been deceased for about an hour.

At 7:51 a.m. another officer became concerned because he did not hear Eric snoring anymore. He checked for a pulse and noted that the teen was “cold to the touch.”

At 7:57 a.m. a call was finally made to 911. Eric was pronounced dead shortly upon their arrival at 8:09 a.m.

The Policies

The report describing the presentment to the grand jury indicated that the Palm Beach Regional Juvenile Detention Center had policies and procedures pertaining to contacting 911. Employees are directed to contact 911 if a “potentially life threatening medical emergency arises.” If a youth experiences medical difficulties that are of an unknown severity level the officers are to send the individual to the clinic or call a nurse to conduct a further assessment.

The facility had signs posted prominently throughout stating that staff members maintained the right to call 911 if they believed a situation was potentially life-threatening. However, this did not occur in Eric’s situation.

All incidents are also to be referred to the Central Communications Center (CCC). A review of the detention facilities practices showed that between July 1st of 2011 and July 10th of 2011, 107 reports and/or calls were made to emergency services from the facility. Despite the policy requiring the facility to report these incidents to the CCC, only eight were ultimately reported to the CCC.

Prior to Eric’s death, officers involved in the incident had received training – some within weeks of the event – regarding the policies and procedures regarding handling a youth in custody who appeared sick or injured. Officers are taught during that training that they can contact 911 at their own discretion without receiving approval from a supervisor.

But in Eric’s case, no one did.

Grand Jury Findings

The grand jury found that the staff at the detention center were insufficiently trained when it came to identifying early warning signs of a potentially life threatening situation. They further indicated that the facility needed to provide  an around-the-clock trained medical professional for the purpose of evaluating youth who might be experiencing a life-threatening emergency.

The grand jury also found that officers were engaging in “inappropriate relationships with their youth wards”. This was made in reference to video surveillance that showed “several youths being treated in a rough manner by the DJJ officers.”

The report states:

At one point, many of the youths are seen pointing at Mr. Perez as if he had the prohibited snack in his possession. Two DJJ officers are then seen lifting Mr. Perez, one by Mr. Perez’s head, and one by his feet. Mr. Perez is turned upside down and dropped onto the floor or nearby wall hitting his head and/or should area. Throughout the interaction in the cafeteria, the youths laugh and joke with the DJJ officers and appear to treat the entire interaction like a game. The DJJ officers do nothing to discourage this behavior.

The DJJ has and had policies prohibiting that type of interaction, but they were not followed.

In addition to the above, the grand jury also cited inappropriate reactions to the medical needs of residents on the part of officers. They pointed to the lack of care provided when Eric experienced hallucinations, head pain, and other signs of clear distress.

The officers’ response to Mr. Perez’s hallucinations, instability and cries of pain were to simply observe him as he lay on the floor vomiting and defecating in his underwear. More effort was spent cleaning the floor around the youth than attending to his welfare.

The Autopsy

An autopsy revealed that Eric died from a cerebral hemorrhage. The autopsy did not find that the teen had external trauma that would have caused the bleeding, despite the video showing he injured his head. The medical examiner’s office was unable to determine if Eric’s death could have been prevented.

Specialists, including one in neuropathology, reviewed the video and the medical evidence in an attempt to determine if the hemorrhage was caused by the injury or if medical intervention could have prevented the youth’s death. They were unable to make this determination.

Despite the efforts of four forensic pathologists and one practicing neuropathologist, there is not sufficient evidence establishing the specific cause of the cerebral hemorrhage that resulted in Mr. Perez’s death or whether prompt medical attention could/would have saved his life. Thus, no criminal charges are appropriate. As a result, the manner of death is undetermined.

The grand jury indicated that criminal charges could not be brought against anyone in reference to child neglect because they did not feel that Eric met the criteria of “child” according to the statutes.

Recommendations

The grand jury report contained several recommendations. The first was that the correctional officers at the facility receive extensive training.

The second was that the policies and procedures be modified to contain the requirement that officers must seek an evaluation by a medical professional for youths complaining of a medical condition.

The third recommendation was that the facility needed to have a medical professional on site at all times for the purpose of performing such a medical evaluation. “The officers should be required to call 911 for outside medical assistance.”

Finally, the report recommended that the legislature should “enact a statute addressing the criminal neglect of anyone in the care of custody of the DJJ.”

Aftermath

In mid July two officers working for the facility were fired after having been placed on administrative leave following Eric’s death. Though the facility had not confirmed the reason for their termination, the media drew a correlation between Eric’s death and the dismissing of the officers. The same report indicated that Eric was scheduled for release from the facility within a week.

By the beginning of August, the media had reported that the state was refusing to pay for Eric’s funeral expenses, despite everything that occurred while he was in the custody of the DJJ. One article stated:

Juvenile justice administrators had offered to pay up to $5,000 in funeral costs to bury 18-year-old Eric Perez, who died at the West Palm Beach detention center on July 10. But after the state cut a check to the Tillman Funeral Home, Florida’s chief financial officer ordered that the check be destroyed, records show.

The article also indicated that this would not have the first time a youth’s funeral was covered by the state. The same article stated that five corrections officers were suspended because of the incident, along with Anthony C. Flowers, the facility’s superintendent.

In terms of the recommended changes, only time will tell if they are implemented.

Eric’s death is unsettling for many reasons. The lack of response to the rapid onset of his symptoms is perhaps the most troubling, although I was really disgusted to read that the state issued a check to assist in paying for the funeral, only to put a stop on it.

Eric has not been the only youth in Florida to die within the custody of a detention facility. Omar Paisley died in a Miami-Dade Detention Center in 2003, after spending three days in his cell writhing in pain due to an appendicitis attack.

Speaking Out

If you are equally disturbed by what you have read there are actions you can take toward ensuring the recommendations provided in the grand jury report are put into effect. The first thing you can do is contact the Secretary of the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Wansley Walters, and urge her to monitor implementation of the recommendations. Her contact information is available here.

You can also share Eric’s story and ask others to take action as well. Please help to prevent the death of another youth in Florida’s detention facilities. Sending an email costs nothing and it could have a significantly positive impact if our voices are heard and acknowledged.

Another action you can take is to contact legislators within Florida to modify statutes relating to child neglect or abuse to ask that all youth detained within the state’s facilities be included in the description of children who qualify for protection under the law. You may find contact information for Florida House Representatives here.

Irony, Trayvon Martin, and Angela Corey

On Thursday, it was announced that Florida State Attorney Angela Corey was appointed as special prosecutor to the Trayvon Martin case. The Martin case has ignited discussions about racism and injustice, in part because of the failure of law enforcement to bring charges against 28 year old George Zimmerman who fatally shot the unarmed 17 year old.

The irony is that the choice of Angela Corey for this particular case is only beneficial for one reason: she is a tough on crime prosecutor who enjoys throwing the book at any perceived criminal, regardless of the actual circumstances of the crime. This means that Zimmerman will likely be brought to justice. Which is a good thing.

But look at case in point about her history of prosecution of a minor, minority child: 13 year old Cristian Fernandez of Jacksonville, Florida. Cristian faces not one trial, but two trials, surrounding the unintentional death of his two year old brother David. Cristian is a hispanic minor who has experienced sexual and physical abuse throughout his life. Corey sought indictments for murder and aggravated child abuse against the young child, exposing him to a mandatory penalty of life without parole if he was convicted in a criminal trial. She claimed to the public she was not seeking life without parole, but when his defense rejected a plea deal that could have forced him to serve three years in an adult prison (from 18-21), undoing any good he would have received in the juvenile system, and also forcing him to carry a murder conviction for the rest of his life, she did the unthinkable: she sought an indictment for a third criminal charge.

The third charge was a sexual battery charge pertaining to a claim made by Cristian’s younger brother about sexually activity that occurred between the two when Cristian was approximately 11 or 12. The date and location of the activity was unclear. Though Corey had known about the claim since very early into the original murder investigation, she waited until his defense rejected the plea deal to seek an indictment, making it appear as though she was retaliating against the boy and his defense.

There is a petition for Cristian Fernandez here. Over 182,000 people have signed it, but Angela Corey has publicly stated she does not “prosecute by petition.”

But Cristian Fernandez is not the only minority child suffering under the reign of Angela Corey. In fact, a deeper look into the statistical data of the fourth judicial circuit for which Corey is responsible yields startling information about racial disparities involving black males.

It is a known fact that Corey transfers more juveniles into the adult criminal system than any other county in Florida on average, but what most people don’t know is that Corey also moves a much greater percentage of black males into the adult system than the rest of Florida as a whole.

And this is odd. Because the 4th judicial circuit is made up of a majority of white people. Why is there such a huge disparity when it comes to the number of black males tried as adults? Why is this disparity continuing unquestioned?

More importantly, why would a State Attorney with this kind of record toward young black males be chosen to head the prosecution for a murder victim who is the exact demographic of those she marginalizes in her own judicial circuit? Is it a publicity stunt to save her career? An easy way to make her look like a good prosecutor in light of all statistical data over the course of three plus years showing what she is really doing to children and minorities?

Is anyone going to take a closer look into what this woman is doing?

Statistical Comparisons

Here are the percentages of black males versus white males transferred into the adult criminal system in Florida as a whole. This includes all judicial circuits, including the 4th judicial circuit:

2006-2007 – 146,950 total juvenile referrals. 4,622 transferred to adult court.Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 53.3% were black. 24.5% were white.

2007-2008 – 145,539  total juvenile referrals. 4, 907 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 50.1% were black. 25.7% were white.

2008-2009 – 138,218 total juvenile referrals. 4,393 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 52.8% were black. 23.4% were white.

2009-2010 – 121,642 total juvenile referrals. 3,694 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 52.1% were black. 24.2% were white.

2010-2011 – 109,813 total juvenile referrals. 3,061 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 50.8% were black. 26.1% were white.

Here is the data for Angela Corey’s 4th judicial circuit. Note the considerable increase. Angela Corey took office in the beginning of 2009 and did nothing to decrease the number of black males tried as adults – a trend that started before her and has not ceased. The trend has likely increased for 2011-2012 since juvenile crime referrals in her district of Duval went up, while referrals in the majority of other Florida counties actually went down:

2006-2007 – 8125 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 61.7% were black. 31.3% were white.

2007-2008 – 9482 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 79.2% were black. 13.8% were white.

2008-2009 – 8911 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 71.1% were black. 19.6% were white.

2009-2010 – 6877 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 74.4% were black. 16.8% were white.

2010-2011 – 5889 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 62.2% were black. 27.8% were white.

All statistical information may be found on the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice site.

Governor Scott

Governor Scott refused to get involved in helping Cristian who faces life without parole. Perhaps he will change his mind now that he has gotten involved in another criminal case.

Contact the Governor and thank him for seeking justice for Trayvon. Ask him to please do the same regarding Cristian Fernandez and to look into the disparities involving black males in the 4th judicial circuit:

http://www.flgov.com/contact-gov-scott/email-the-governor/

What is happening to the children in Duval County?

Duval county in Florida is in crisis. A new report shows that crimes among the county’s school-aged students have increased, while a significant number of other counties in the state have experienced an overall reduction. As of 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reported the population of Duval as 864,263. When compared with Miami-Dade’s nearly 2.5 million, that may not sound like a lot of people. However, almost a quarter of Duval’s population consists of children under the age of 18.

Many of these children will grow into adults within Duval county. The future success of these kids should matter in large part because of the potential contributions each may make to the community over the course of their lives – positive or negative.

Despite the importance of the juvenile population within the county, Duval is experiencing a problem that suggests past approaches to handling the issue have not been effective. The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ) released a preliminary briefing regarding juvenile delinquency referrals in Florida’s school systems. The report is reflective of the first eight months of fiscal year 2011-2012. Delinquency referrals represent “a case referred to the Department for one or more alleged acts of delinquency”. The act may be minor or major in significance in terms of representing a misdemeanor or a felony.

The report highlighted positive results in that overall state delinquency referrals in schools declined by 14% when compared to the prior fiscal year. Referrals in the majority of the state’s counties experienced a decline rather than an increase. Interestingly enough, Miami-Dade reported the largest decline. This is interesting for a number of reasons, but mainly because of the county’s systematic annual reduction of the percentage of juveniles transferred into the adult criminal system.

When it came to overall referrals, Miami-Dade experienced a decline of 58%. Angela Corey’s county, Duval, experienced an increase of 16%.  The number is somewhat surprising considering that juvenile crime has been on the decline throughout Florida for years.  While Duval’s misdemeanor offenses only increased by 5%, the county’s felony school referrals increased by a staggering 26%.

By contrast, Miami-Dade reported a decline in felony referrals of 39%.

So what is happening within the Duval schools? Why are the children of Duval committing more crimes, while the children of the majority of other counties are committing less? So much for the belief that Corey’s tough on crime stance acts as a deterrent when it comes to juvenile crime. Is it a coincidence that past information relating to juvenile crime and transfers into the adult system reflect a statewide reduction in the practice on an annual basis, and is followed by a report showing overall declines in juvenile delinquency? Or that the county of Duval has increased the number of juveniles transferred into the adult system in the years since Corey has taken office, only to see an increase in the number of juvenile referrals?

There are likely a number of explanations for the increased number of delinquency referrals. However, the truly disconcerting factor here is the way in which these children will be treated within the court system if they are transferred into the adult system. We know based on statistical information available in Florida that Corey transfers a large number of juveniles into the adult system even though it is shown, unequivocally, not to work.

Putting aside the question relating to why there is an increase in juvenile delinquency referrals, the next question is: How much is Duval willing to invest in its most valuable asset – its children? And then: How far will the county’s own state attorney go to ensure the behavior of these children is corrected in a manner that not only treats the underlying contributors to the criminal activity, but also recognizes the significantly negative impact of transferring children and teens into the adult system?

I suppose that remains to be seen. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see how Angela Corey explains these unsettling changes since the prior year.