Saints open season with start of camp
July 30, 2013
Audit: Ex-sheriff misspent TPSO cash
July 30, 2013
In a small, windowless courtroom where bailiffs outnumbered spectators, a judge listened patiently to testimony from psychologists and other witnesses for almost a week, although a resolution to the case before him is a long way off.
The issue before District Judge George Larke is whether the people of Terrebonne Parish should pay money to a woman sexually abused at the age of 14 by a juvenile detention guard whose job was to keep her safe and, if so, how much.
The civil suit against the now-imprisoned guard, Angelo Vickers, and the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government alleges officials should have known Mary Doe – a fictitious name given to protect the victim’s identity – was at risk and that Vickers was improperly supervised.
The case is one component of a scandal that rocked the parish’s juvenile detention center in 2010, resulting in a scathing report from the U.S. Department of Justice. Improper use of isolation cells, lack of supervision and accusations of guards exchanging candy and other favors in return for sex led to indictments and dismissals of staff.
But the case before Judge Larke includes a new twist that is troublesome to child advocates.
As part of its defense, attorneys for the parish say the court should consider what they maintain was Mary Doe’s consent to sex with the guard, and that the amount of damages, if awarded, should be adjusted accordingly.
“Vickers could not have engaged in sexual relations within the walls of the detention center with (the victim) without cooperation from her,” legal papers filed by the parish’s attorneys read. “Vickers did not use force, violence or intimidation when engaging in sexual relations.”
That has some victim advocates fuming.
Offensive defense
Marci Hamilton, a nationally recognized sex crime victim advocate and professor at Benjamin Cardozo Law School in New York, who once clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, is among experts who question the validity of the parish’s argument.
“The defense has no basis in law,” Hamilton said. “She is a victim of statutory rape. The age of consent in Louisiana is 17. The defense is also offensive to sex assault victims everywhere.”
Advocates – and attorneys for the girl – say it is impossible for a 14-year-old to give any kind of consent to sex, especially within the walls of a detention center, to a man who controls her every move.
Terrebonne Parish President Michel Claudet said he could not comment on the case itself but expressed confidence in the work attorneys are doing on behalf of the parish.
“We have attorneys working for us and they have to take certain actions that they feel are necessary to our interests,” Claudet said.
Some parish officials told of the defense strategy expressed concern that attorneys for a community that prides itself on strides made combating sexual abuse and aiding youngsters who fall prey to it would take such an approach.
Others say they understand the hardball tactic, noting their opinions on the baggage Mary Doe and other young women victimized at the detention center brought with them.
“These girls in the detention center are not Little Miss Muffin,” one official said, asking not to be quoted by name.
Societal interests
Child advocates say that’s precisely the point: That children do not end up in the detention center because they or their families are exemplary. They come with problems and it is the job of the center that detains them, advocates say, to protect them from the likes of Vickers, no matter their social histories.
In its initial trial memorandum, the plaintiff’s legal team maintains that, “[A]ll sexual acts between a youth and facility staff are deemed non-consensual.”
Even if Louisiana civil law has no marker noting specifically that children cannot consent to sex, the context of how criminal statutes are written should be Larke’s guide to deciding that issue in the cases, the attorneys maintain.
“There are societal interests embodied in the criminal laws protecting children from sexual abuse and these interests should apply equally in the civil arena,” the plaintiff’s trial memorandum states. “Holding otherwise would basically hold that a child has a duty to protect him or herself and would virtually conflict with well-established laws in the United States and … Louisiana. All have to admit that it would be a peculiar rule that consent by a child could be a viable defense against civil liability when the exact conduct does not provide a defense to a defendant in a criminal case. This is especially true in the context of minors held in detention when their freedom of movement is most limited and access to help is often minimal or non-existent.”
Informed of the parish’s defense, Katie Schwartzmann, director of the nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center’s New Orleans office, expressed concern.
“The parish’s argument that a 14-year-old child could consent to sex with an adult in any context is disturbing,” Schwartzmann said. “In the jail or prison context, power dynamics between children and adults are even more skewed. When a child is in custody, guards have complete coercive control over every aspect of that child’s life. The argument that a child could consent to sex with an adult prison guard is, frankly, shocking.”
Casting the die
Mary Doe, now 20 and the mother of two children, suffers from several psychiatric disorders, according to testimony from doctors and information in court papers.
The die was cast for a life of tragedy, according to facts presented in the case, from the time she was just out of toddlerhood.
According to court papers and testimony, the girl was sexually molested at the age of 5 by her swimming teacher, and at the age of 9 by a construction worker.
During that same year, her mother was killed in an auto wreck; a year later, she was raped by an uncle and those assaults continued for two years. During that time, court papers say, the uncle gave the girl alcohol, heroin, marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine.
“He also tried to kill her on three different occasions, once trying to slit her throat,” the court papers read, going on to say that at the age of 11 she was raped by her step-sister’s cousin. In addition, she was largely incarcerated from the ages of 10 through 18 in seven different facilities.
A key defense contention is that Mary Doe was already suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and other psychiatric conditions before coming to the center in Houma.
Assistant Parish Attorney Alexander “Kip” Creighton III, who leads the defense team, has maintained that before assigning blame to Terrebonne Parish, a sharp look must be directed toward the victim’s history. It would not be fair, the lawyers say, for Terrebonne to pay for problems it did not create.
Napoleonville attorney Felix Sternfels, who leads the team representing Mary Doe, maintains that the damage done to the girl at the center exacerbates issues caused by the prior problems, and that as such Terrebonne is fully liable.
Some local attorneys suggest Sternfels and his team are exhibiting greed by holding out for as much money as possible in damages rather than opting for a settlement.
Members of the plaintiff’s team contend they are doing what is right for their client, by taking a chance at getting her the most compensation possible – in punitive as well as actual damages – and so continue mounting a case at trial.
Victims speak
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder – a diagnosis given by doctors after the Terrebonne experience – was not specifically cited prior to that in medical, papers filed by Sternfels and other lawyers state.
Mary Doe took the witness stand last Tuesday, and was carefully walked through details of her abuse at the hands of Vickers.
He most often worked the night shift. Her testimony included reports of coerced sex after being led in handcuffs to an area outside the view of video cameras on multiple occasions.
The young woman’s mood and tone fluctuated at various points during her testimony, causing questioning later of psychologists who were asked how victims fare when speaking in the presence of their molesters, what is appropriate behavior and what is not.
During the testimony, Vickers watched impassively, clad in an orange prison jumpsuit, his hands restrained by shackles and chains.
The 49-year-old Vickers was indicted in 2011 on four counts of juvenile molestation and sexual malfeasance in office because of complaints related to Mary Doe and other girls. He pleaded guilty to a single count of molestation and was sentenced to seven years in state prison.
No Miss Muffin
An overall climate of intimidation at the center, attorneys for the plaintiff maintain, served to perpetuate Mary Doe’s abuse.
“She was fearful of additional harm or injury that (Vickers) might further perpetrate against her,” a brief reads. “Further, the rampant sexual and physical abuse of other girls occurring in the Juvenile Center reinforced her belief that no one would protect her or prevent the rapes.”
The contention that girls at the detention center are not “little Miss Muffin” – no matter how legally or morally moot – was reinforced when another victim of Vickers took the stand, sounding like anything but a victim.
The young woman, who settled with the parish after bringing her civil suit, knew of Mary Doe’s trysts with Vickers and, at times, had been brought along with her to the control room area where the sex acts occurred.
The woman stated that she herself wanted relations with Vickers and that she saw no force or coercion directed toward her detention-mate, Mary Doe.
The young woman testified that she would purposely break rules in order to be placed in isolation, which gave Vickers easier access to her.
Open Season
Victim advocates contacted for this article, even in the face of such claims, hold fast to their contention that consent is and should not be an issue, nor the perceived morals or propriety of a victim or victims.
“This is about trying to defend a rotten system and it is a very common ploy, blaming the victim when the victim has been in your custody and care,” said New Orleans attorney Roger Stetter, who represented 75 plaintiffs in suits against the Archdiocese of New Orleans regarding Madonna Manor, a former orphanage where sex and physical abuse were rampant. “There is a boundary line that must not be crossed including in civil court and it is devoid of merit. Because she was abused that made her more vulnerable, and what these predatory males do in these situations is prey on the weakest ones, the most vulnerable ones, the most unstable ones. They are easily manipulated and exploited. These are the people who were to take care of her and assure her safety. If this were true, then the guards can take open season on all these young women and exploit them.”
Duty to protect
One witness both sides were eager to hear from testified Tuesday and Wednesday. Jason Hutchinson, whose job has been to supervise the entire detention center since its 1997 opening, said he had faith in Vickers and had no reason to believe anything improper was going on during night hours at the detention center.
Learning of the abuse allegations, Hutchinson said, was devastating. Learning that his most trusted lieutenant was among those accused was worse.
Using a red laser pointer, Hutchinson identified places where cameras were positioned, explained how some recorded and retained video for long periods of time and how some do not. He also spoke of his funding issues, and how staff has had to be juggled and managed for hours.
A key contention of plaintiff attorneys is that inadequate staffing helped lead to problems at the center; although it did not appear they had connected all the dots in that regard. Hutchinson, considered a golden boy of the Claudet administration, whose Teflon escape from consequences of the Department of Justice slam on the center is still regarded by some in the local juvenile justice community with disbelief, gave visible signs of discomfort on the stand. Sternfel’s period of questioning appeared at times like a sparring match between the two men, although any time Hutchinson appeared to lose patience he re-composed quickly.
“Mary could have been better protected,” Hutchinson acknowledged. “If policy had been followed.”
Under continued questioning from Sternfel, Hutchinson said that while certain federal standards were not met at the institution, it was at all times in compliance with best practices standards from the American Correctional Association.
At the close of Sternfel’s questioning, Hutchinson was asked whether juveniles in his facility have a duty to protect themselves from being harmed.
“No,” Hutchinson said. “Inmates don’t have an obligation to protect themselves. It’s our job to protect them and keep them from harm.”
On Thursday afternoon, attorneys prepared for another key point in the trial, the questioning of the shackled Vickers under oath. It would mark the first time that Vickers had ever publicly been held to account for his actions directly.
But the moment will have to wait.
With time running short and an overbooked calendar, Judge Larke opted to have that segment of the trial begin on a new date.
Consultation with attorneys and his own calendar resulted in a continuance three months into a new year.
Court will reconvene March 24, 2014. Until then, unless a settlement is reached, the questions that plague Terrebonne Parish and its people regarding how the scandal at the juvenile detention center could have occurred – or how it could be excused by blaming a 14-year-old – will remain unanswered.
