By WILLIAM R. LEVESQUE

© St. Petersburg Times, published March 1, 2001 


LARGO -- After 17-year-old Anthony Castle was killed by a shot to the head Jan. 13, witnesses saw a heavyset man in a brown jacket running away. 

St. Petersburg police showed mug shots of possible suspects to one eyewitness in particular. That witness identified a man with resolute certainty. 

She identified Larry James Brown Jr. as the killer. 

But not long after St. Petersburg police arrested Brown for first-degree murder, a Pinellas County grand jury last week refused to indict him. It's a rare example of a grand jury rejecting a murder charge filed by police. 

Brown, 20, is still jailed on unrelated drug charges. 

Pinellas-Pasco Public Defender Bob Dillinger's office found witnesses to support Brown's alibi that he was home sleeping at the time of the shooting. 

And when Dillinger made the witnesses available to State Attorney Bernie McCabe, McCabe's lieutenants called them before the grand jury without hesitation, Dillinger said. 

"If there's evidence that a person is innocent, the grand jury should hear it," Dillinger said. "It saves taxpayers a lot of money, and it's the fair thing to do. The state called the witnesses and let the chips fall where they may. They did the right thing." 

Chief Assistant State Attorney Bruce Bartlett did not close the door on the possibility that his office may yet again seek a grand jury indictment of murder against Brown if more evidence comes to light. 

Since the case is ongoing, prosecutors and police declined to discuss what evidence they presented to the grand jury. Nor would they provide a motive for the shooting just south of 22nd Avenue S. 

Bartlett said his office must present all evidence to a grand jury, whether it hurts or helps their case. 

This is especially important, he said, because the grand jury system does not allow a defendant's attorney to be present, much less call witnesses. 

"From a prosecutor's standpoint, it's very foolish not to have the grand jury consider all the evidence that exists," he said. "Our job is to seek justice, not merely to convict. It's kind of like mom's apple pie." 

But Bartlett said, "I do not agree with the proposition that Mr. Brown is innocent" of the crime. Bartlett would not go into detail about why he thinks Brown was involved in the shooting. 

Dillinger credited one of his investigators, Mickey Romanello, with finding four alibi witnesses who, he said, confirmed Brown was sleeping at the time of the 8:30 p.m. shooting. 

Some of the witnesses had been sought by police but not yet located. 

Brown, who lived at 2219 1/2 Seventh St. S, is jailed awaiting trial on two counts of possessing crack cocaine with the intent to sell and operating a crack house. 

Dillinger's office declined to make him available for an interview. 

The state high court says an appeals court should revisit Pinellas Park's rule for teens. The move leaves all such laws in question for now. 

By ANNE LINDBERG

© St. Petersburg Times, published April 27, 2001 


The legality of curfews across the state remained in question Thursday after the state Supreme Court avoided ruling on the constitutionality of Pinellas Park's juvenile curfew. 

The high court tossed the issue back to the 2nd District Court of Appeal to reconsider whether the curfew is constitutional. But justices said the appeals court should use guidelines different from those used last May when it declared the curfew sound. 

While the case works its way back through the court system, Pinellas Park officials say they will continue to enforce the curfew. 

"Nothing has changed as far as the curfew goes," Pinellas Park police spokesman Sandy Forseth said. "We're still enforcing the curfew until a court tells us to stop." 

Tampa, Largo and Kenneth City also have juvenile curfews, but the decision should have no immediate effect on those cities, said Michael Neimand, the assistant state attorney general who argued the case before the Supreme Court. 

But officials in those cities and in such places as St. Petersburg, where a curfew was considered, are keeping an eye on the court system. Subsequent rulings could wipe out all curfews across the state. 

"My inclination is to let it play out before I bring it back," St. Petersburg City Council member Jay Lasita said. Lasita has long been an advocate of juvenile curfews and spearheaded an unsuccessful drive last year to have the St. Petersburg council pass one. 

Lasita said he has thought of bringing the issue back before the council, but "if there's any sort of constitutional cloud over this thing, it's going to be difficult to bring it back." 

Pinellas Park passed its juvenile curfew in 1997, saying it was an effort to reduce youth crime and protect children. The curfew generally restricts youths younger than 18 from being in public without an adult from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. on weekdays and from midnight to 6 a.m. on weekends and legal holidays. A written warning is the penalty for the first violation. Juveniles can be fined up to $500 and face six months' imprisonment for subsequent violations. 

The curfew had not been in effect long when the state American Civil Liberties Union challenged it. The ACLU argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it interfered with parents' rights to raise their children without too much governmental intrusion. 

Pinellas-Pasco Judge Peter Ramsberger agreed, ruling the curfew unconstitutional. 

Pinellas Park appealed to the 2nd District Court of Appeal. 

That court, in a 2-1 decision, overturned Ramsberger's ruling and reinstated the curfew. The judges said Pinellas Park has an interest in reducing juvenile crime. That interest, they said, overrides any rights parents might have to allow their children to stay out late at night. 

The ACLU took the case to the state Supreme Court, which declined Thursday to decide the issue of constitutionality. 

The high court instead told the appeals court to reconsider that issue using a stricter set of legal guidelines to determine whether the ordinance should stand. 

The decision, ACLU attorney Bruce Howie said, makes him hopeful the ordinance will be overturned in time. The appeals court decision indicated that if those judges used the stricter guidelines, they might have reached a different decision, he said.

Prosecutors complain about a system that pulls from licensed drivers, not voters. But defense lawyers say it yields a more diverse jury.

By WILLIAM R. LEVESQUE

© St. Petersburg Times, published May 7, 2001

A lobbyist stood in front of Florida lawmakers a month ago and repeated a complaint by prosecutors in courtrooms across the state. 

Potential jurors showing up for trials are beginning to look similar to crowds at concerts for the defunct rock band, the Grateful Dead, said Buddy Jacobs, a lobbyist for prosecutors. 

It wasn't a compliment. 

That crowd is supposed to be an irreverent bunch, non-conformists who march to the beat of a different drummer. Not pro-prosecution people. 

"We're getting a broader group of jurors than we used to," said Skip Babb, public defender in the 5th Judicial Circuit, which includes Citrus and Hernando counties. "And prosecutors don't believe they're getting a fair shake." 

Since Jan. 1, 1998, jurors have been picked from the lists of licensed drivers rather than from the rolls of registered voters. 

State lawmakers have toyed with the idea of going back to the old system, lending a sympathetic ear to prosecutors who lament that juries seem far less respectful of the system -- and less likely to convict. 

But this year's legislative session ended with a bill to go back to the old jury system shelved for another year. 

"I think there's great dissatisfaction for the current system," said Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer. "We're seeing many more jurors who have a disregard and disrespect for the system, a lack of pride for their civic duty." 

State Sen. Rod Smith, D-Alachua, who is a former prosecutor, introduced this year's bill. His staff said he withdrew the bill so lawmakers could commission a study to examine a number of issues, including examining complaints that fewer people now show up for jury service. 

"We've heard stories about judges having to send bailiffs out on the street to find enough jurors for trials," said Tonya Shays, a spokeswoman in Smith's office. 

That doesn't appear to be the case in the Tampa Bay area, where the number of jurors reporting for service is generally adequate. 

Otherwise, the complaints have been many. Prosecutors say people who register to vote have a greater sense of civic duty, are older, are more respectful of the system and make better jurors. 

Jurors picked from the rolls of licensed drivers, meanwhile, are said to be angrier at being called for service and more likely to acquit defendants or even hand out large civil awards. 

Prosecutors also fear more convicted felons, ineligible for jury service, now make it onto juries without detection. 

"Sometimes we get a jury panel, and the whole panel has an attitude," said Alan Johnson, chief of felony prosecutions in Krischer's office. "But it's all anecdotal evidence, not statistical." 

Figures don't appear to bear out a drop in conviction rates under the new system. 

Conviction rates have not changed significantly in the two years before and after the change, according to figures compiled by the Office of the State Courts Administrator. 

In 1996, for example, the statewide conviction rate stood at 60.4 percent. In 1999, the last year figures were available, the conviction rate was slightly higher at 61.7 percent. 

Pinellas-Pasco Public Defender Bob Dillinger, like most public defenders, likes the new system and doesn't buy arguments that juries today are less likely to convict. 

"We're seeing more people today who may not have been your traditional voters," he said. "But I still think they're productive citizens who take jury service seriously." 

Pinellas criminal defense attorney Steve Bartlett said, "What are prosecutors saying, only people who approve of what the government does should be allowed to serve on juries? That's crazy. 

"Why shouldn't people who are unhappy with the system and think there is injustice out there and think that the government doesn't always run smoothly and believe that police are capable of lying and that prosecutors charge innocent people -- why shouldn't they be on juries, too?" he said. 

That's the point of the new system, a system that brings more minorities and younger people into the courtroom, a system that truly brings a defendant a jury of peers, Bartlett said. 

Getting jurors from registered voters assured "that predominantly in Pinellas County, we got senior citizens and very little race representation," said criminal defense attorney Jeff Brown. 

"Now, we're seeing much more diversity." 

State Sen. Walter Campbell Jr., D-Tamarac, who is also a plaintiff's attorney, doesn't like the juries he sees. 

Many more jurors today don't want to be in a courtroom, he said, and he always fears they will take their anger out on one side or the other without fairly considering the evidence. 

"Then you have trial attorneys who are trying to determine how to become the jurors' friend so they don't take their anger out on their client," Campbell said. 

But Campbell drew the line at the committee meeting at which the lobbyist for prosecutors made the comment about the Grateful Dead. 

Asked Campbell, "What's wrong with the Grateful Dead?"

By ANGELA K. BROWN
.c The Associated Press

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said Saturday it would form a task force to address what it calls ``systematic corruption'' in forensic laboratories across the country. 

Members plan to review cases where defendants were convicted on DNA evidence analyzed by scientists whose work or testimony in other cases has been questioned. 

``We're very serious about litigation and winning in this area,'' association president Edward Mallett said Saturday at the spring meeting of the group, which claims 10,500-members. 

The task force will be led by attorney Barry Scheck, who co-founded The Innocence Project, a group that helps inmates challenge convictions with DNA evidence. 

Defense attorneys say juries often convict based on testimony from scientists, rarely questioning their methods or motives. 

Lawyers say forensic labs must work independently from police and prosecutors. They say labs must do a better job of making sure employees are qualified and that evidence and results remain sealed. 

Scheck said a recent Oklahoma case was an example of ``forensic fraud.'' Police chemist Joyce Gilchrist has been criticized by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals for allegedly testifying to results that were not scientifically supported. 

In 1999 a federal judge accused her of giving ``untrue'' and ``misleading'' testimony for her work in an Oklahoma murder case. 

Gilchrist was placed on paid leave after an FBI report accused her giving testimony ``that went beyond the acceptable limits of forensic science'' and of misidentifying hair and fibers in at least six criminal cases. 

Gilchrist, a 21-year employee of the police department, has denied the allegations. 

Scheck said 25 people on Oklahoma's death row were implicated by Gilchrist's testimony about hair and fiber analysis. He urged members to help review those cases. 

Top law officers will sign a resolution today against race-based policing in hopes of ending bias perceptions.

By LEANORA MINAI

© St. Petersburg Times, published May 9, 2001


ST. PETERSBURG -- As Attorney General Bob Butterworth prepares to appoint a task force that will investigate racial profiling by police, Pinellas County police chiefs are joining the effort.

They will sign a resolution today banning race-based stops and searches.

The resolution makes a bold statement on paper but provides no sanctions for breaking it. Still, police administrators say, it should help change a perception that discriminatory enforcement actions occur.

"There are significant minority communities in Pinellas, and they're growing, so we want to get ahead of the curve," said Tom Lange, executive director of the Pinellas Police Standards Council, which includes all Pinellas police chiefs, State Attorney Bernie McCabe and Sheriff Everett Rice.

The resolution urges each Pinellas police agency to adopt a policy ensuring that officers do not make decisions based on gender, sexual orientation, race, creed, or national origin. It will be signed at 1 p.m. today at the Allstate Center at St. Petersburg Junior College.

Last month, the Tampa Police Department implemented a policy prohibiting officers from targeting someone based on race or ethnicity.

Communities across the country are trying to identify racial profiling and end the practice.

In Cincinnati, where riots erupted last month after a police officer fatally shot an unarmed black teen, police are now required to record the race, sex and age of each person in every car they stop. The St. Petersburg Police Department, for example, does not collect that sort of data and does not have plans to start.

"It's engrained in our policies and procedures that that type of behavior is not acceptable," Chuck Harmon, assistant chief of patrol, said of racial profiling.

Pinellas police officials say there is no evidence that departments are disproportionately singling out minority drivers for traffic stops or other law enforcement actions.

"We're not aware of there being a problem here in the county right now, although if you spoke to someone who fits into one of these groups, they may tell you they have a different view of it," said Lange, the police council's executive director.

Darryl Rouson, president of the St. Petersburg branch of the NAACP, has a different view.

"Yes, it's happening," he said. "I think that my community feels a bit safer but still harbors concern of being charged with driving while black."

Rouson praised Pinellas police officials for their stand.

"It's phenomenal that the top law enforcement would join together and make a statement like this at a time when Cincinnati is boiling over," Rouson said. "I hope that it has impact on those who really need to hear it."

The Pinellas Police Standards Council had an incentive to write and pass the resolution.

A bill, now awaiting the signature of Gov. Jeb Bush, would require agencies to write a policy against discriminatory profiling. Officers also would get training.

"I think this is a good thing for agencies to step up to the plate," said Sen. Kendrick Meek, D-Miami, who pushed for a task force.

Butterworth's task force also will draft legislation for the 2002 session that could outlaw race-based stops, Meek said.

"It can make or break a city," Meek said of discriminatory enforcement.

Joe Bizzaro, Butterworth's spokesman, said Tuesday that a task force will be appointed, but he does not know when or how.

"That stuff all has to be worked out," Bizzaro said.

The principal at Oldsmar Elementary says the 11-year-old probably won't return for the rest of the year.

By ED QUIOCO and JULIE CHURCH

© St. Petersburg Times, published May 11, 2001


OLDSMAR -- A fifth-grader was taken from Oldsmar Elementary School in handcuffs Wednesday after a teacher found drawings he had made of weapons, school officials said.

The 11-year-old, who is not being named because of his age, was not charged with a crime. The boy was taken to meet with his parents and counselors after classmates told school officials about the drawings.

"There were some drawings that were confiscated by the teacher," principal David Schmitt said. "The children were in no danger at all. It involved no real weapons."

The boy has received a discipline that Schmitt said he couldn't discuss. But he said the boy probably won't return for the rest of the year and probably would be moved to another school.

The boy was handcuffed by campus police for his safety and not because the student was violent or out of control, said school district spokesman Ron Stone.

"That's normal procedure in a situation like this," Stone said. "The primary concern was to make sure we get appropriate services for the child."

It is not unusual for students in elementary and middle schools to make threats, said Nancy Zambito, a director of school operations for the school district. The typical procedure involves immediately notifying a campus police officer or a school resource officer, counselors and the student's parents to "assess the threat and work with the child," she said.

Depending on the severity of the threat, Zambito said, the outcome for the student can be a number of things ranging from disciplinary action by the school, such as suspension or expulsion, to being arrested or taken to a hospital under Florida's Baker Act, which allows for the involuntarry commitment of people who threaten or attempt to hurt themselves or others.

"It's nothing unusual and we address them all seriously because, of course, we don't know," Zambito said. "And in most cases, our prime goal is to let those students know what is appropriate to say and what is not and how to be angry and cute and funny without alarming people."

The classmates who turned in the student after seeing his drawings should be commended because that was the right thing to do, Schmitt said.

"All I can tell you is it was a threat . . . against students," he said. "Nobody in particular, but students in general."

Schmitt planned to send a letter home to parents Thursday letting them know generally what had happened.

"We just need to get it through kids' heads that there are certain things you don't say and there are certain things you don't draw," he said.

- Staff writer Richard Danielson contributed to this report.

Starting July 1, jail time will accompany convictions that involve bodily harm.

By LUCY MORGAN

© St. Petersburg Times, published May 22, 2001


TALLAHASSEE -- Florida will be getting much more serious about dealing with domestic violence under a bill signed into law Monday by Gov. Jeb Bush.

Beginning July 1, those convicted of domestic violence will serve a minimum-mandatory five days in jail when convicted of causing bodily harm. They will be guilty of a felony if convicted of a second offense. "Making Florida a safer and healthier place for our families to live is a priority," Bush said. "Domestic violence is one of the biggest challenges facing the people of our state."

Patricia Smith, a Tallahassee woman who survived 17 years of domestic violence, stood at Bush's side as he signed the bill.

Tiffany Carr, director of the Coalition Against Domestic Violence, a state group that helps operate 38 Florida domestic abuse shelters, praised Bush for making a commitment to end domestic violence and for putting money in his budget that will go directly to shelters "for the first time in history."

Each domestic violence offender will be forced to pay a $201 surcharge on any court-imposed fine. Part of the money will defray the costs of mandatory jail sentences, and $85 will be used to fund shelters in the area where the abuse occurred.

Officials estimate the surcharge will add about $4-million a year to help shelters house and feed abuse victims.

In addition, the state will provide about $500,000 to publicize the tougher penalties.

Those convicted also will have to complete an abuser's intervention program to serve on probation or community control. More training will be required for child protection workers so they can help get abusive parents out of the home.

The Family Protection Act was Bush's top criminal justice priority this year and passed in the wake of reports that domestic violence crimes inched down by only 1 percent last year while other forms of serious crime dipped 8.1 percent in 2000.

State Rep. Bruce Kyle, R-Fort Myers, sponsor of the bill in the House and a prosecutor, said he thinks the public awareness campaign will help prosecutors and law enforcement officers.

State Sen. Anna Cowin, R-Leesburg, sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said the money for shelters will be of great assistance for those who struggle to feed, clothe and house women and children who seek help.

Domestic violence is a problem for all Floridians, Cowin noted.

"It affects the children who go to school with our children," she said. "And it is difficult to raise awareness of the problem."

Not everyone likes the new bill.

Pasco-Pinellas Public Defender Bob Dillinger said the law is likely to clog the courts even more because few defendants will plead guilty knowing they will face a mandatory five-day jail sentence.

- Staff writer Craig Pittman contributed to this report.

A federal grant would fund a secure psychiatric treatment site for the mentally ill charged with felonies.

By DEBORAH O'NEIL

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 4, 2001


They have thrown feces at guards, attempted suicide, attacked others and sometimes sat and cried endlessly in their cells. Every day, the Pinellas County Jail houses more than 300 inmates who need psychotropic medications to stabilize mental illnesses ranging from depression to schizophrenia.

"Jails have become the mental health facilities of the 1990s," Pinellas-Pasco Public Defender Bob Dillinger observed in a recent report.

Dillinger is behind an effort to reverse that trend in Pinellas County.

He is seeking $6.75-million in federal funding so Pinellas County can establish a secure psychiatric treatment facility for severely mentally ill jail inmates charged with felonies. Windmoor Healthcare of Clearwater is interested in accommodating the program and could provide about 40 beds in a section of its psychiatric hospital on U.S. 19, near the county jail.

The request spotlights a problem that mental health advocates and criminal justice officials say needs attention. As the mentally ill have been turned out of treatment facilities nationally, adequate resources to help them have not been established, advocates say. As a result, some end up homeless, without treatment and ultimately in trouble with the law.

Those who commit minor offenses can be treated at area mental health facilities. But Sheriff Everett Rice has long said that there is nowhere to bring the mentally ill charged with felonies, except jail. The proposal would change that.

"As someone who operates the jail, I know very well there are folks who don't belong there," Rice said. "I think it's a good idea."

Windmoor would not be a sentencing facility. It would be for mentally ill inmates awaiting a determination of competency or trial. The average stay would range from a couple of weeks to a few months.

The hospital would provide treatment at a cost of $2.95-million a year, and the sheriff's office would transport the inmates and staff the hospital with detention deputies for $2.5-million annually. Part of the money also would pay for mental health evaluators to work in the jail's looking section to screen the mentally ill when they arrive.

Dillinger also wants to set aside $45,000 a year to hire personnel who would help the mentally ill inmates find housing when they are released from jail. And he would provide $810,000 annually to help up to 150 released inmates pay rent.

The idea is to stop the cycle of mentally ill individuals becoming homeless, committing crimes, going to jail and being released back onto the street with nowhere to go, Dillinger said.

"The ultimate goal is they don't come back into the criminal justice system," Dillinger said. "They can have quality of life and they can be productive as citizens."

The request was submitted to U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson's office April 25, where it is still being reviewed, said Bryan Gulley, a spokesman for the senator. The office still is receiving funding requests from around the state, he said.

"We certainly support the concept," Gulley said. "We're going through all the requests and figuring in light of the tax package what realistically we are going to be able to support."

Dillinger's request would pay only for the first year of the program. But he said he hopes it would prove its worth to the federal government so that the funding would be renewed.

He plans to lobby for the money in July when he attends the annual convention of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill in Washington. If Pinellas receives the money, Dillinger said the program could be in place by January.

* * *

The Pinellas County Jail houses an average of 2,700 inmates a day. Nurses inquire about mental health during medical screenings when inmates arrive. Some inmates lie, and some have never had mental illnesses diagnosed, which are later diagnosed by jail doctors.

The mentally ill who have commited misdemeanors can be taken for psychiatric evaluation to mental health facilities like PEMHS, or Personal Enrichment through Mental Health Services, in Pinellas Park. But PEMHS is not designed to accept serious offenders, said executive director Thomas Wedekind, who supports the proposal.

"The prevalance of mental health problems at the jail really has amazed me. There's more and more people ending up coming in contact with law enforcement," Wedekind said. "The crux of the thing is to move everyone into a treatment setting and keep some of the controls of law enforcement."

Mental health advocates say the mentally ill don't belong in the jail to begin with. Mental illness is a chemical imbalance in the brain that is treatable, like physical problems, said Indian Shores resident Elliott Steele, president of the Pinellas chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.

"If we were putting people in jail because the side effects of cancer had them loitering on the streets, how moral would that be?" said Steele, whose 26-year-old daughter has schizophrenia. "If it's cancer or any other illness, we're not in that situation."

Law enforcement officials and advocates for the mentally ill agree that untreated mental illness can lead to criminal behavior. Often, people stop taking their medications because they feel better, then they have a relapse, Dillinger said.

"Many times it's because voices are telling them to do it," said Dianne Steele, who is on the Florida Commission on Mental Health and Substance Abuse, which issued a report in January calling for a statewide effort to divert the mentally ill from incarceration to treatment. "Delusions can send a person doing a lot of very bizarre things, and some of it falls into crime."

At the jail, the psychiatric inmates are housed in cells with bars in the maximum security D-wing. There is a full-time psychiatrist and two psychiatric nurse practitioners, along with counselors and part-time psychiatrists.

Maj. Ken Remming, jail director, said the staff does what it can to treat mentally ill inmates, but he recognizes it is not the ideal setting.

"The physical environment of the jail is not conducive to mental health treatment," Remming said. "No matter what we do to try to treat them, probably, it doesn't have the same effect as it would have if they were given the same treatment in a non-jail setting. That's part of the problem, treating people in this environment and trying to get the same effect as if you were in a hospital environment."

Windmoor Healthcare, formerly Horizons, is a 163-bed comprehensive psychiatric hospital for adults that offers mental illness and substance abuse programs.

President C. William Brett, who has a doctorate in clinical psychology, said the hospital has a two-story, 40-room unused section that could be dedicated for the inmates. The rooms have solid doors and are clustered around a common area.

Dillinger's proposal includes $300,000 to make one-time security renovations.

Windmoor would provide psychiatrists, nurses, social workers and psychologists and tailor treatment programs to the needs of the inmates at any given time. Brett said he does have concerns about how the hospital's other patients would respond.

"I don't want to be known as a jail," he said. "I think if we do this right, it won't happen. I think we can provide excellent service for the population in an isolated part of the hospital."

Forty beds, everyone agrees, would easily be filled. Dillinger said they could probably fill hundreds, so these will be reserved for those with the most serious illness.

"That's our start," Dillinger said. "It's better than what we've got."

Joaquin Martinez, a Spanish citizen who spent three years on Florida's death row, is acquitted of two murder counts during a retrial watched by Spain.

By DONG-PHUONG NGUYEN

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 7, 2001


TAMPA -- He spent three years on Florida's death row for killing a couple in their home near Tampa in 1995.

But Wednesday, 30-year-old Joaquin Martinez became a free man.

A jury took two hours to acquit the Spanish citizen of two counts of first-degree murder during a retrial that was watched closely by the Spanish media, the king of Spain and the pope.

After he was declared not guilty, Martinez's lips quivered, and he cried into his attorneys' shoulders.

Martinez's mother, Sara Martinez, sobbed. His family and some members of the Spanish media applauded and cheered. He was then led back into a holding cell for processing. As he waited, he turned to his attorney, Peter Raben.

"Thank you for giving me my life back," he told Raben.

Martinez was sentenced to death in 1997 for the murders of Douglas Lawson and his girlfriend, Sherrie McCoy-Ward, in their home in Clair Mel, east of Tampa. But the Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial because a detective in the first trial improperly told the jury he thought that Martinez was guilty and a prosecutor repeated the statement in closing arguments.

The Spanish media in Miami, where Martinez's family lives, and in Spain, where Martinez was born, devoured the story. Television reporters flew in from Spain for the retrial, the pope spoke out against the death penalty and Sara Martinez met with the king of Spain. Hundreds of thousands of
dollars was raised to pay for Martinez's defense. The family also hired Tampa jury consultant Harvey Moore.

"To go from death row to freedom is just mind-numbing," Moore said. "It's unbelievable."

Raben argued that prosecutors did not have any evidence against Martinez. No fingerprints or DNA was ever found.

"I was not surprised," Raben said of the verdict. "We had a lot of compelling defense evidence."

Jurors could not be reached for comment.

"Nobody should criticize the jury," said prosecutor Chris Watson. "The job is to see if we proved it, and this trial, this month, we didn't prove it."

Lawson and McCoy-Ward were both 26 when they died in October 1995. Lawson was shot several times with a 9mm pistol; McCoy-Ward was shot and stabbed more than 20 times as she tried to reach the front door to escape.

Lawson and Martinez once worked together at a warehouse, and prosecutors contended that Martinez went to the couple's house to buy marijuana.

Because of the passage of time, prosecutors were not able to call on the same witnesses in the retrial.

One died, another one refused to cooperate and another, Martinez's ex-wife, Sloane Martinez, essentially changed her story after testifying against Martinez during the first trial.

Sloane Martinez, portrayed by the defense in the first trial as a vengeful ex-wife, led authorities to Martinez. She helped them secretly tape conversations in which Martinez supposedly made incriminating statements. Later, however, she went on Spanish radio and television denying that her ex-husband ever admitted the killings.

The first jury convicted Martinez after listening to the tape and reading a transcript of it. It was revealed in this trial that the transcript was prepared by Lawson's father, William Lawson. He was the evidence manager for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office.

But for the retrial, Circuit Judge J. Rogers Padgett ruled the tape inaudible. A deputy was allowed to read only from parts of the transcript.

An hour into deliberations, the jury asked for more information about the tape, but Padgett told them the tape was not in evidence.

At 2:15 p.m., they had a verdict, which was broadcast live in Spain.

The victims' families, distraught over the outcome and the outburst by Martinez's family, quickly left the courtroom.

"We accept the verdict from the jury because that's the law of our land," said Alice Lawson, Douglas' aunt. "But we are very disappointed because we absolutely believe that he is guilty."

Although acquitted, Martinez didn't walk out of jail Wednesday. He was placed in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service because he was an alien who had been charged with a crime. Lawyers were working late Wednesday to speed through the paperwork required for his release. His family said Martinez plans to return to Spain.

Martinez's relatives exulted outside the courthouse, giving interviews to the Spanish media here and in Spain for three hours.

"I always said my son is innocent," Sara Martinez said to Raben, Moore and Dave Parry, another Martinez attorney. "But nobody believed me but you. Thank you for saving my son."

Sara Martinez wore the same outfit and the same hairdo she had when she met with the king of Spain in Miami in April to seek help for her son.

"I had a good feeling," she said. "He said he would fight for us."

Rates on federally guaranteed student loans will reach their lowest levels ever July 1, leading to lower payments.

By HELEN HUNTLEY

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 7, 2001


The cost of a college education is about to go down for a lot of people: Interest rates on federally guaranteed student loans will drop dramatically July 1 to their lowest levels
ever.

Although most of the savings will go to recent graduates, anyone repaying a variable-rate Stafford Loan will benefit, as will parents repaying PLUS loans.

The potential savings are huge, with more than $180-billion in federally guaranteed loans now in repayment. At the University of South Florida alone, students and their families took out $76-million in Stafford Loans and $1.7-million in PLUS loans in the 1999-2000 school year.

The interest rate on Stafford Loans issued since July 1, 1998, and currently in repayment will drop from 8.19 to 5.99 percent. The savings on a typical $10,000 10-year loan will amount to about $10 a month.

Rates on variable-rate Stafford Loans issued earlier also will fall, but not as far. The new rates on those loans will range between 6 percent and 7 percent, depending on the formula in effect when they were issued. The rate on parents' PLUS loans will drop from 8.99 percent to 6.79 percent.

"This is the lowest rate in the history of the student loan program, lower than even the 7 percent in place when the student loan program began in 1965," said John E. Dean, lobbyist for the Consumer Bankers Association.

The historic drop is occurring because market interest rates are the lowest they have been since the current rate formula went into effect in 1998. That formula adjusts rates every July 1 based on the rate for 91-day Treasury bills.

The new rates are only good for a year, but borrowers have the option of locking them in by consolidating their variable-rate loans into a fixed-rate loan.

Mark Bortel of St. Petersburg plans to be one of the first to take advantage of that opportunity. Bortel, 25, owes $12,874 he borrowed while earning a degree in social and political science from Florida State University.

He learned about consolidation when he went to work three months ago for Collegiate Funding Services, a student loan consolidator that employs about 400 people at a call center in Pinellas Park.

"I've been waiting since then for the rates to go down," he said. In addition to getting the current low rates, he plans to take advantage of Collegiate Funding's offer to cut his rate further if he signs up to make payments electronically.

There are no fees to consolidate student loans, but you can do it only once for the same group of loans. Once the rate is fixed, the borrower can't benefit from further reductions in the variable rate. Consolidation also stretches out the term of the loan, which can increase the amount of interest paid over the life of the loan, even if rates are lower.

Students who take out loans to pay for college leave with an average debt of $10,173 for an undergraduate program and $24,479 for a graduate program, according to the Lumina Foundation. At Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, the 886 students who took out loans last year borrowed an
average of $6,370.

More information about student loans and loan consolidation is available from Sallie Mae at (800) 448-3533 or http://www.salliemae.com and from Collegiate Funding Services at (888) 423-7562 or http://www.cfsloans.com.

- Helen Huntley can be reached at huntley@sptimes.com or (727)893-8230.

* * *

Here's a look at some student loan rates that will be reduced July 1. Rates vary depending on when the loan was issued and whether the borrower is still in school:

Stafford Loans

Issued since July 1, 1998:

Current: 8.19% (7.59%*)

New: 5.99% (5.39%*)

Issued July 1, 1995-June 30, 1998:

Current: 8.25% (8.25%*)

New: 6.79% (6.19%*)

Parents' PLUS loans

Issued since July 1, 1998:

Current: 8.99%

New: 6.79%

Issued earlier:

Current: 9.0% to 9.63%

New rates not yet available

* * *

* Rate if still in school

-- Source: Sallie Mae

School-sponsored trips to a Washington, D.C., jail were meant to scare some students with behavior problems, but what happened left parents and officials shocked.

[Times art: Teresanne Cossetta]


By JOHN BALZ

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 7, 2001


WASHINGTON -- It was meant to be a wake-up call. A group of adolescent boys with a history of fighting and mouthing off was sent to tour a city jail to see the grim fates of those who didn't learn to behave.

Teachers and guards paraded the 13 middle-schoolers into the cell block, where they watched a strip-search of adult inmates. Then, perhaps to drive home the point, nine boys were ordered to take off their clothes, bend over and cough, just like real prisoners.

The image of naked 14-year-olds on a field trip to the inside a grown-up jail is enough to make even the strictest parent cringe. So when news of the strip-search got out a week later, parents, school officials and other officers screamed, first in horror, and then at each other.

But the story was about to get uglier. It turned out that strip-searches of students were routine. The day after the boys' May 17 visit, teenage girls in another group were strip-searched and brought to the male side of the jail, where they were harassed by inmates.

Now the town that thought its biggest worry was some obscure Vermont senator fleeing the Republican Party finds itself struggling with the painful fallout of exposing children to the very adult side of lockdown.

Naturally, jail tours have been canceled. Warden Patricia Britton, three officers and three managers have been fired, with city council members calling for more pink slips. The principal of Evans Middle School in Northeast Washington has been placed on leave. Parents of the boys and girls involved say their children are too ashamed to finish out the school year, which ends June 19. Even the FBI has stepped in to investigate.

"It's very embarrassing to the Department of Corrections, the D.C. public schools and the mayor's office," said William Dupree, the union official representing officers at the jail. "The fact that it happened, it happened to kids. The Department of Corrections didn't do what it was supposed to do, the school board didn't do what it was supposed to do. It blew up."

Signs of the shrapnel are everywhere, with reputations wounded and nobody taking responsibility. In this soap opera there are no villains, only victims.

The kids weren't really troublemakers. The teachers were only trying to save the kids' futures. The corrections officers were just doing their jobs.

"I walk down the street in my neighborhood, and people who know me look at me funny," said Karl White, one of the guards who was let go by the department. "For the last few days I really haven't wanted to come out of my house."

Neither has Constance Redd's 14-year-old daughter, one of the students strip-searched.

"She doesn't really want to go to school," Redd said. "She doesn't want her friends to make fun of her. She's not the same little run-around child that she was."

The press has swarmed the city like Donald Trump at a beauty pageant, and it's no wonder. The story has nudity, minors, prison life and questionable decisionmaking. The D.C. Public Schools communication office is taking 40 calls a day and has stopped giving interviews to the national media. One family appeared on NBC's Today show for a sit-down with Matt Lauer.

Things would have been different in a place like, oh, Johnson County, Ind. In 1998, 13 boys on a hard-knock-life tour were forced to strip down to their underwear in the hallway of the juvenile detention center. One officer was fired for violating procedures, but the local newspaper didn't bat an eye. The community considered the whole episode a case of tough love.

"Being a very conservative state, we're more apt to say "Look, this kid did this, he deserves this,' " said Jim Higdon, director of the Johnson County juvenile center. "In Indiana they want to crack down. If you get in trouble, you pay the price."

In Washington, you pay a lawyer, who then files a $28-million lawsuit against the city for negligence, due process violations, emotional distress and a host of other legal claims. You
could even name him Wayne Cohen and build him like a distance runner.

Cohen, who represents the Redd family and six others, says everyone's to blame -- except his clients.

"Everyone seems to be pointing the fingers at each other," he said at a news conference.

Why? Because for 12 years everyone thought taking kids' clothes off inside a jail qualified as outside instruction. The D.C. jail began offering to school groups starting in 1989. But it didn't write official rules for how the tours should be conducted until last week -- after the scandal broke.

Most of the students who took the tours had previous discipline problems or in-school suspensions, so they were brought to jail in hope they wouldn't end up in . . . jail.

"This was not a field trip to Six Flags or the zoo," said Louis Cannon, president of the Washington, D.C., Fraternal Order of Police, who is familiar with the tours. "They weren't
going there to pet pandas."

The details of what went down on the block remain shady.

For instance, did the school teachers suggest the scare tactics, or did the guards use their own imaginations?

Each side says it was the other's idea. Still, it's clear that the Evans staff wanted to teach the kids a lesson. Two months before the visit, an employee at the boys' middle school
sent a letter to the corrections department.

"I am sending you this letter because of our youth," wrote Dorothy Simpkins, the suspension coordinator at the school. "They are beyond control. I would love them to tour Lorton Minimum Correctional Facility to experience the way they will live when they are punished by law. . . ."

How much did parents know about what might happen to their sons and daughters?

Each parent had to sign a permission slip authorizing the visit, but the piece of paper left out any mention of a possible strip-search.

Once inside the jail, were any of the youths touched?

One boy "didn't want to take off his shirt, and a big guard grabbed him by his shirt and took it off," 13-year-old Jose Ross told the Washington Post, which broke the story.

In a small bit of irony, the Department of Corrections can't conduct strip-searches against people arrested and held overnight unless guards suspect the inmate is hiding
weapons or drugs. The rule stems from a 1981 lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is now considering another courtroom challenge.

Community outrage has been overwhelming. More than a hundred parents and residents squeezed into children's seats Monday night at Evans Middle School's auditorium and seethed at school officials. What could a child possibly learn from a field trip to prison? they wondered. "You mean we can't motivate our children any other way?" asked Don Foleen, a 48-year-old single father. "Then our school system is sick. Why don't we send them to the Supreme Court and
let them tour that?" The Post ran an editorial under the headline "Unacceptable," calling the strip-search "outrageous." In a reference to the city's reputation for twiddling its
thumbs, the editorial went on to label the officials' response as "familiar and by now predictable."

"We apologize for what happened here," Peggy Cafritz, the president of the D.C. Board of Education said Monday night. "We know what happened was wrong and we are going to do all that we can do to fix it." The only sliver of common ground for those involved is that underage nudity and prison don't mix.

"I want change out of this, so that it never has to happen to any other children again," said Redd.

Joaquin Martinez, once sentenced to die, leaves the Orient Road Jail a free man.

By DONG-PHUONG NGUYEN

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 8, 2001


TAMPA -- As Joaquin Martinez signed the paperwork for his release from jail Thursday, he started to cry and his hands began to shake.

"He was a very terrified young man," Dave Parry, one of his attorneys, said later. "It was the most scared I had ever seen him, other than when the verdict was read."

Martinez, a Spanish citizen who spent three years on Florida's death row before winning a retrial, had a nervous smile as he walked out of the Orient Road Jail shortly before noon Thursday, his arms wrapped around his parents.

He was greeted by a throng of reporters, most of whom had traveled from Spain to cover the retrial that ended in his acquittal Wednesday. Martinez's release was broadcast live on television in Spain, a country that raised $500,000 for his defense.

Martinez held on to his mother as Spanish reporters shoved microphones, tape recorders and cell phones in his face.

"I've dreamed of this day, but I never thought it would be like this," said Martinez, 29. "I want to cry. I want to laugh. But most of all, I want to see my daughters."

Martinez, who is a legal alien, was kept in jail overnight while the Immigration and Naturalization Service finished paperwork.

"I couldn't sleep," Martinez said, describing his last night in jail. "I was afraid that I would wake up and find out this was not true."

Martinez was sent to death row in 1997 when he was 25 after being convicted of killing Douglas Lawson and Sherrie McCoy-Ward in their Clair Mel home in October 1995. Lawson was shot several times with a 9mm pistol; McCoy-Ward was shot and stabbed as she tried to reach the front door to escape. Lawson once worked with Martinez at a warehouse and prosecutors contended Martinez went to his home to buy marijuana.

Martinez's parents, Joaquin and Sara Martinez of Miami, hired Peter Raben, an appellate lawyer in their hometown.

Last year, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a new trial because a detective improperly told the jury he thought that Martinez was guilty and a prosecutor repeated the statement in closing arguments.

After Raben won the appeal, the Martinezes asked him to defend their son in the new trial. Raben solicited the help of Parry, a former public defender now working in the Clearwater office of Bauer, Crider and Pellegrino.

Sara Martinez met with the king of Spain and won his support. The pope also spoke out against the case, because of the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty.

Martinez became a cause celebre in Spain, his father's birth country. A documentary and a movie based on the case are in the works.

He became the 22nd person condemned to die in Florida since 1972 who ultimately was released from death row because of a wrongful conviction. Florida leads the nation in such cases.

Spanish reporters interviewed Martinez at the Cuban Club in Ybor City after his release Thursday. Martinez was accompanied by the Spanish consul in Miami, Javier Vallaure. From the top floor of the Cuban Club, Martinez looked outside.

"I see clouds, I see trees," he said. "I feel like I am living in a dream right now."

While the victims' families still believe Martinez is guilty, he maintains his innocence and said he will now spend his life speaking out against false convictions.

"It's a nightmare," he said. "I do not wish it on anyone in the world."

After signing his release papers, he walked to the jail bathroom with Parry to collect himself. He looked in the mirror and saw his reflection for the first time in four years. In jail, the only thing close to a mirror was a metal pan.

"I've got gray hair," he said to Parry.

He said later that he was shocked at his appearance.

"This is me," he said he thought to himself sadly. "I was in shock."

Martinez will return to Spain with his parents on Saturday.

"It's been a long journey," he said. "I am going to make the most of my new life."

by ANNE GEARAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Police violate the Constitution if they use a heat-sensing device to peer inside a home without a search warrant, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

An unusual lineup of five justices voted to bolster the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and threw out an Oregon man's conviction for growing marijuana.

Monday's ruling reversed a lower court decision that said officers' use of a heat-sensing device was not a search of Danny Lee Kyllo's home and therefore they did not need a search warrant.

In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, by many measures the most conservative member of the court, the majority foundthat the heat detector allowed police to see things they otherwise could not.

''Where, as here, the government uses a device that is not in general public use to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant,'' Scalia wrote.

While the court has previously approved some warrantless searches, this one did not meet tests the court has previously set, Scalia wrote.

The decision means the information police gathered with the thermal device -- namely a suspicious pattern of hot spots on the home's exterior walls -- cannot be used against Kyllo.

The court sent the case back to lower courts to determine whether police have enough other basis to support the search warrant that was eventually served on Kyllo, and thus whether any of the
evidence inside his home can be used against him.

Justices Clarence Thomas, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined the majority.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy.

At issue was how modern police technology fits into the court's long line of decisions on what should be considered a search requiring a court warrant.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that police must get bus passengers' consent or a search warrant before squeezing their luggage to see if drugs might be inside. The court also requires a warrant to put a ''bug'' in someone's home or in a telephone booth.

But the justices have said police do not need a warrant to go through someone's garbage left on the curb, fly over a backyard to see what is on the ground, or put a beeper on a car to make it easier to follow.

Kyllo was arrested in January 1992 and charged with growing marijuana at his home in Florence, Ore.

Police had been investigating his neighbor, but they focused on him after they trained a thermal imaging device on his home and saw signs of high-intensity lights. Using those images, electricity records and an informant's tip, police got a warrant and searched Kyllo's home, finding more than 100 marijuana plants.

Kyllo contended the marijuana plants could not be used as evidence against him because the police did not have a search warrant when they used the heat-sensing device. A judge ruled against him, and Kyllo pleaded guilty on condition he could appeal the search issue.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the use of the device, saying it should not be considered a search.

During arguments at the Supreme Court in February, Kyllo's lawyer told the justices that people should feel free to let down their guard at home without fear of the government unreasonably looking over their shoulder.

The Justice Department contended the heat-sensing device did not intrude on Kyllo's home but instead passively detected the heat that escaped from it, and the court's dissenters apparently agreed.

Police gathered only information available on the outside walls, and used ''a fairly primitive'' device to do so, Stevens wrote.

Using the Thermovision device ''did not invade any constitutionally protected interest in privacy,'' Stevens wrote.

The case is Kyllo v. U.S., 99-8508.

^------=

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov 

Gov. Jeb Bush signs a measure that will let experts evaluate defendants. If found to be mentally retarded, they won't face the death penalty.

By JULIE HAUSERMAN

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 13, 2001


TALLAHASSEE -- In a long-awaited victory for death penalty critics, Gov. Jeb Bush signed into law Tuesday a bill that prevents mentally retarded people from being executed.

Bush released a statement that said the new law provides "much-needed protection for the mentally retarded in the judicial process."

In Florida, debate has long raged about what standards courts should use to determine who is mentally retarded. Generally speaking, a person is thought to be mentally retarded if his or her IQ is below 70.

The new Florida law doesn't specify an IQ level. Instead, it allows two court-appointed experts to evaluate a defendant's mental capacity. If the defendant is found to be mentally retarded, he or she will not be subject to the death penalty.

The law doesn't apply to the 371 inmates currently on death row -- only to killers who are sentenced to death from now on.

But Marty McClain, a lawyer who represents death row inmates, predicted the new law could spark court challenges from current death row inmates.

Georgia passed a similar law in the late 1980s, and that state's Supreme Court later ruled that the ban on executing mentally retarded people could apply to current inmates, McClain said.

It's unclear how many mentally retarded people might be sitting on Florida's death row. Department of Corrections spokeswoman Jo Ellyn Rackleff said: "We are currently conducting IQ evaluations of death row inmates, and it is too early to give out any numbers."

The measure that Bush signed into law Tuesday is "a recognition that people with limited mental abilities -- who are functionally children, even though they are adults -- don't warrant the death penalty. They don't have the same moral culpability of someone who is smart and kills," McClain said.

Michael Radelet, a sociologist at the University of Florida, said at least one mentally retarded person has been executed in Florida: Arthur F. Goode III, who was executed in 1984 for killing a 9-year-old boy. One expert said Goode had the intellectual capacity of "a small child" and an IQ of about 60.

The Florida Legislature has tried to address the issue of executing the mentally retarded before but has not found consensus.

"There have been a number of attempts to pass a bill, but none went anywhere until this year when Gov. Jeb Bush backed it," McClain said.

The state House of Representatives passed the bill 110-1 last month, with Rep. Carey Baker, R-Mount Dora, the lone dissenter. The Senate passed the same bill unanimously.

Gov. Bush's decision to sign the bill comes a day after his brother, President George W. Bush, said, "We should never execute anyone who is mentally retarded."

Aides to President Bush said the president has not changed his position on the matter, even though his statement Monday seems to contradict his past positions. When President Bush was governor of Texas, he opposed legislation to bar execution of the mentally retarded and he maintained that stance during his campaign for president.

Florida now joins more than a dozen states that have the death penalty and also prohibit mentally retarded people from being executed. A similar bill passed the Texas legislature and is awaiting action by Gov. Rick Perry.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which long ago declared that states cannot execute people who are insane, may take up the issue of whether mentally retarded people should get the death penalty in a case scheduled for October, McClain said.

- Information from the Associated Press, the New York Times and Times researcher Dierdre Morrow was used in this report.

Man sentenced to life in prison for murder of elderly neighbor

The jury decided that he did not intend to kill victim when demanding money for crack cocaine.

By WILLIAM R. LEVESQUE

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 13, 2001


LARGO -- Annie Mae Stockton trusted her former neighbor and treated him like a grandson. So she let him into her St. Petersburg home without hesitation.

Reginald Bernard Coleman returned that trust, prosecutors say, by beating the 87-year-old woman to death with a Coke bottle so he could steal her money for a crack cocaine binge.

The jurors who convicted Coleman of first-degree murder last week took 15 minutes on Tuesday to recommend to a judge that Coleman didn't deserve to die for the killing.

Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Phil Federico, who must give the jury recommendation great weight, then sentenced Coleman to life in prison without parole for the June 14, 1997, murder.

"We didn't think he intended to kill her when he went into her home," jury foreperson Magdalen DiGesare said in an interview, explaining why the jury rejected the death penalty. "He went in for money. And things got out of hand."

"I'm very happy," said Coleman's mother, Letha Gray. "I know my son didn't do this. But he'll be fine."

Coleman, 32, and his family were neighbors of Stockton for years before he moved to Atlanta. But Coleman returned to St. Petersburg in 1997 to turn himself in after learning he was wanted for a probation violation.

Coleman wanted one last crack binge before going to jail, prosecutors Thane Covert and Bill Loughery told jurors. Broke and unable to buy any, he went to Stockton's home on 13th Avenue S, tied her up and beat her to death.

At some point, Stockton's 70-year-old nephew, Willie Woodard, arrived with groceries. Coleman, prosecutors said, knocked him unconscious.

Woodard survived the blow but did not see who hit him. Coleman was convicted of attempted second-degree murder for hitting Woodard and sentenced to a concurrent 15 years for the charge.

Coleman escaped with up to $3,000 before eventually surrendering on the probation violation and getting a 15-year prison sentence.

Meantime, the murder went unsolved for two years. While in prison, Coleman bragged to a fellow inmate that he had gotten away with a murder. Later, he told his sister he was in the house when Stockton was killed but said an accomplice did it, the sister testified.

Defense lawyers Michael Schwartzberg, Sonny Im and Richard Watts said Coleman wasn't involved in the killing, pointing to unidentified fingerprints in the house.

By MIKE BRASSFIELD

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 13, 2001


ST. PETERSBURG -- A SWAT team accidentally started a fire Tuesday night in a house that police were raiding in a search for drugs.

No one was hurt, but flames and smoke caused significant damage to the two-story house at 1341 19th St. S, southwest of Campbell Park.

The fire started about 9:30 p.m. when SWAT officers set off a "flash bang" distraction device inside the house, said St. Petersburg police spokesman Rick Stelljes.

The device, which causes a loud noise and a bright flash of light, is intended to disorient criminal suspects and give officers an advantage.

The device also emits a brief burst of heat, and officials say it set fire to acoustical tiles in a makeshift recording studio in the house.

Neighbors said the first floor of the house doubled as a studio for reggae and rap artists.

A crowd of about 50 neighborhood residents gathered in the streets around the cordoned-off scene, complaining that police had set a fire with a tear gas grenade.

"They just shot a grenade in the house," said a man who gave his name as Don Johnson and said he worked in the recording studio. "Rastas hang out there. The police may have had a problem with that." Rastafarians are members of a Jamaican religious sect known to use marijuana.

Police say the SWAT team and narcotics officers were executing a search warrant, looking for suspects in a drug investigation.

"Upon entering the house, they found suspects scrambling, attempting to flee," Stelljes said.

Police say they used no tear gas. Officers threw the "flash bang" device into a dark room to protect themselves because they weren't sure whether anyone was inside, Stelljes said. He said it was unusual for the device to start a fire. Fire officials said the blaze spread quickly.

Police arrested two people in the raid.

The Cabinet move helps ex-cons get voting rights restored. Some say it's not enough.

By JULIE HAUSERMAN

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 15, 2001


TALLAHASSEE -- With little advance notice, Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida's elected Cabinet changed the rules Thursday to make it easier for some felons to get the right to vote.

The action comes as Florida's longtime policy of banning felons from the voter rolls is under attack on several fronts, including three lawsuits against the state.

Critics said Thursday that the state's new rules don't go far enough, and that Florida should give all felons who have served their time the right to vote automatically, which is how it works in most other states.

The rules passed unanimously by Bush and the Cabinet affect people who have served their time, are non-violent and aren't classified as a habitual offenders. Those felons will be able to get their civil rights restored, including voting rights, without having to go to a hearing of the state's Executive Board of Clemency, a cumbersome and lengthy process.

The clemency board, made up of the governor and Cabinet, still has to sign off on the list of felons who want their civil rights restored, but the process will be faster. The state will also shrink a 12-page questionnaire that felons have to fill out to four pages, cutting back on paperwork.

The new rules also let people who still have outstanding court fines or costs of $1,000 or more to get their voting rights restored without a hearing. Felons who haven't paid restitution to their victims, however, won't be able to use the new streamlined process.

"We've seen people who haven't paid $48 in court costs not be able to get a nursing license," said Attorney General Bob Butterworth, the clemency board's only Democrat, who supported the changes. "I think this is going to do a lot to make sure people who can rehabilitate themselves can do so more quickly."

Repeat offenders could also use the new streamlined process, as long as their crimes were non-violent.

"A lot of the people who come here (to the clemency board) are drug addicts. They commit a whole multitude of offenses, yet, they get their life together," Bush said in explaining why multiple offenders should be allowed to use the new streamlined process.

It is unclear how many felons might be affected by the new policy. From 1998 to 2000, 36,450 people were released from Florida prisons, and 3,484 got their civil rights restored, said Bush spokeswoman Katie Baur.

"A large percentage don't even apply," Baur said.

Florida is one of just nine states that prohibit all felons who have served their time from voting. And the policy is drawing criticism.

During November's election, elections supervisors purged a list of felons from voting rolls, only to find out that some people -- mostly African-Americans -- were inaccurately labeled as felons and prevented from voting in the closest presidential election in history. Some elections supervisors found the list so untrustworthy that they refused to use it. In some cases, felons ended up voting illegally.

Two lawsuits -- one state and one federal -- are pending against Florida, charging that the state hasn't done what it is required to do to help felons restore their voting rights. The NAACP is also suing over the flawed voter list, saying it disenfranchised black voters.

The Legislature's black caucus tried this year to restore felons' voting rights, but the legislation died.

According to The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit group, Florida is home to the largest group of disenfranchised felons in the country -- some 400,000 people.

"When felons are released from prison, Florida continues to make them second-class citizens," said Randall Berg, executive director of the Florida Justice Institute, which is one of the groups suing the state. "It affects their ability to make a living, to get certain licenses and vote. They pay taxes, but they don't get representation. The governor and Cabinet should change this policy. We need to get in step with the rest of the nation and the rest of the world."

A judge orders the release of a retarded inmate in the face of DNA evidence and doubts.

©Associated Press

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 16, 2001


MIAMI -- A judge on Friday lifted the murder and rape convictions of a retarded man sent to prison 22 years ago, ordering his immediate release.

Miami-Dade prosecutors asked the judge to vacate Jerry Frank Townsend's convictions even though they believe he committed at least one of the two murders and the rape.

"Given the preferred deficiency in the state's evidence, a lack of trust in its evidence including the obtained confession, and in some cases what may very well be Mr. Townsend's outright innocence, it is abundantly clear that he is the victim of an enormous tragedy," Judge Scott Silverman said.

He said the release order would be faxed immediately to the Department of Corrections. DOC spokeswoman Debbie Buchanan said Townsend would be released from Polk Correctional Institution shortly after it receives the order.

A Broward County judge already had set aside four murder convictions after DNA evidence cleared Townsend of two of the crimes and a review of his confession left the other two in doubt.

Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle said Thursday that even though she believes Townsend is guilty of rape and one of the Miami-Dade murders, the convictions have to be set aside because he agreed to plead guilty only because of the Broward convictions.

She said she cannot retry the cases because evidence has since been destroyed and the rape victim and witnesses cannot be found.

Townsend, 49, was arrested in 1979 and charged with raping a pregnant woman in daylight on a downtown Miami street. The victim and two witnesses, including a woman who said she hit him on the head with a bottle during the rape, pointed Townsend out to police a few blocks from the scene.

Detectives investigating the rape asked Townsend about the Miami and Fort Lauderdale murders. Townsend, who has the mental capacity of an 8-year-old and an IQ between 50 and 60, told detectives he committed the crimes.

Defense attorneys say he only told detectives what they wanted to hear to please them.

Miami police Assistant Chief James Chambliss said his department is no longer sure of its case against Townsend.

"It appears there's a possibility that the same person committed those crimes," Chambliss said. "If that's the case, if you find he didn't commit one, he didn't commit the other. . . . There are enough questions present that he may in fact be innocent."

But he does not believe the two detectives working the case, Bruce Roberson and James Boone, intentionally took advantage of Townsend's mental disability to get him to confess to crimes he didn't commit.

"Both of them have good reputations and are well thought of as good investigators. I think they thought they had the right guy. I don't think they did anything deliberate to railroad anybody," he said.

He agreed that the problem with the cases was questioning that led Townsend and Townsend's desire to please the detectives.

"Mr. Townsend liked these guys. He liked the cops, he wanted to be with the cops. They were his buddies and frankly that's a great tool if you get suspects to like you -- that's a good thing," Chambliss said. "He was trying to be helpful to them. . . . That's where the problem came up.

The law requires that a commission help train officers on how to better deal with minorities.

By Times staff and wire reports

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 21, 2001


TALLAHASSEE -- Sheriffs and police agencies will have to develop plans for making sure their traffic officers don't profile motorists by race under a bill signed by Gov. Jeb Bush.

According to a 1999 national survey, blacks and Hispanics are stopped more often than white drivers and are more than twice as likely as whites to be searched or have their vehicle searched after being pulled over.

The bill signed Tuesday by Bush passed the Senate and House unanimously and was supported by the Florida Highway Patrol, which has a program to keep troopers from engaging in racial profiling. It was pushed by Sen. Kendrick Meek, D-Miami, who is black and a former state trooper.

The bill requires a state commission to develop a training program for officers on how to better deal with minorities. By Jan. 1, police agencies must have anti-racial profiling policies in place.

The FHP last year began tracking the race and ethnicity of motorists it stops in an effort to head off racial profiling.

In January, the last month for which statistics are available, 15.8 percent of motorists stopped by the FHP were black, slightly higher than their percentage of the state's population: 14.6 percent.

The FHP data do not track Hispanic motorists.

In Pinellas County, police chiefs signed a resolution in May banning race-based stops and searches. Administrators said they hoped the resolution helps change a perception that discriminatory enforcement actions occur.

The resolution urges each Pinellas police agency to adopt a policy ensuring that officers do not make decisions based on gender, sexual orientation, race, creed or national origin. A month earlier, the Tampa Police Department had implemented a policy barring officers from targeting someone based on race or ethnicity.

T-shirt jury tucks a jab in with verdict

Yes, she shouldn't have worn a SHERIFF shirt. Yes, she's technically guilty. But jurors ask: What are we doing here?


Kim Sult got in trouble for wearing this T-shirt into a convenience store last month.


By WILLIAM R. LEVESQUE

© St. Petersburg Times, published July 19, 2001


LARGO -- After five hours of deliberations Wednesday, six jurors found a St. Petersburg woman guilty of a misdemeanor for wearing a Pinellas sheriff's T-shirt and displaying an old sheriff's ID card to deputies.

Minutes later, outside the courthouse, jurors said their verdict didn't speak the whole truth.

"In our collective opinion, this case should never have been prosecuted by the state of Florida," said jury foreman Jeffrey Coleman as other jurors stood behind him.

"We feel there is a problem with this case ... " he said. "If the sheriff doesn't want these T-shirts on the street, then they need to clamp down" on those who sell them.

But jurors thought instructions on the law read by the judge left little choice but to convict Kimberly Sult, 24. Coleman, a civil attorney from Clearwater, refused to elaborate.

Moments before, Pinellas County Judge Michael Andrews sentenced Sult to one of the most lenient penalties available: He imposed $300 in fines and court costs and withheld a formal finding of guilt.

He gave her no probation and ordered no jail time, though she faced a maximum of one year on the misdemeanor charge.

"I do believe in displaying that ID card she specifically intended that the deputies who saw it would think she worked for law enforcement," Andrews said in sentencing Sult.

Sult is a former civilian detention employee at the Sheriff's Office who was fired in late 1999 for failing to report to work 39 straight days. She insisted she didn't wear the T-shirt to fool people into thinking she was a deputy.

"Be careful of what you wear in public or you'll end up in court," she said. "Hopefully, people will learn from this. I don't think everybody understands you can't walk around wearing this stuff."

It was June 14 when two Pinellas sheriff's deputies noticed Sult walking into a St. Petersburg convenience store. She was wearing shorts, sandals and a black T-shirt emblazoned with 5-inch letters: SHERIFF.

The T-shirt also was marked with the sheriff's star emblem and is something, prosecutors said, that is part of the uniform worn by many deputies.

Inside the store, Deputy Jerry Davis asked her, "Do you work for us?"

Davis said Sult lied to him by saying she still worked at the jail, even though she didn't any longer. Then she opened her wallet, he said, and showed her old sheriff's ID card.

Sult testified that the officer asked her whether she had ever worked for the sheriff. She said she never indicated to deputies she was still employed by the office.

Her attorneys, John Trevena and Patrick Calcutt, said the T-shirt is widely sold to the public by a local uniform store and at local flea markets. And the ID didn't identify Sult as a sworn deputy, they said. Deputies have a separate ID and badge.

Deputies charged Sult with wearing items that might fool a "reasonable" person into thinking she worked for law enforcement, leading to one of the most widely publicized trials in recent Pinellas history.

Over the past three years, only the racketeering trial of the Rev. Henry Lyons attracted more publicity.

Prosecutors didn't handle the case like any other misdemeanor, Sult's lawyers said.

Prosecutor Lydia Wardell, a misdemeanor supervisor for Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe, tried it and aggressively sought a conviction.

"She knew it was part of a uniform," Wardell told jurors of the T-shirt. "Even a 5-year-old would know that suggests she's a member of law enforcement."

Trevena said he might appeal the case to test the constitutionality of the state law under which Sult was convicted.

He said the judge's jury instructions didn't clearly explain to jurors that, in order to convict, they needed to find that Sult intended to deceive deputies.

"The instructions erroneously said that all she need do was wear the shirt to be convicted," he said. "But she had to have criminal intent."

Coleman, the jury foreman, said the Sheriff's Office needs "to take a look at itself" and review its policy about uniforms and sheriff's T-shirts and their availability to the public.

After jurors first stepped into the jury room to begin deliberations, Coleman said, "We all looked at each other and said, "Why is this case being prosecuted?' "

"I think (Sult) exercised bad judgment," he said. "But I don't think it was criminal in nature, and we're very happy to hear she's not getting jail time."

Jurors said charges never should have been filed against a man who said he just wanted to stop where he felt safe.

By WILLIAM R. LEVESQUE

© St. Petersburg Times, published August 3, 2001


LARGO -- Marcellus P. Morris was driving a short distance from his St. Petersburg home on Dec. 14 when he noticed a police cruiser behind him with its emergency lights on.

He didn't stop immediately.

Morris, 44, said he didn't feel safe. It was 6 p.m. and already getting dark. He slowed his 1989 Volvo and turned onto Juanita Way S. He drove by five houses at about 10 mph before pulling into his own driveway and halting.

To St. Petersburg police and Pinellas prosecutors, Morris committed a felony: fleeing and eluding, punishable by up to five years in prison.

On Thursday, a jury deliberated 15 minutes before acquitting Morris. Afterward, jurors criticized prosecutors for bringing the case to trial.

"We're sorry it ever went this far," said juror Len Dahlvik. "It was bad judgment on both sides. But I think the state shouldn't have taken it to trial."

Said juror Ken Hill, "This case was a waste of time and money."

Morris, an air-conditioning repairman for the University of South Florida, said, "I would have to be perfectly insane to flee a cop I know is behind me."

Morris said he simply thought it more convenient and safer to bring his car to a stop in his own driveway, where there is more light.

After the traffic stop, St. Petersburg Officer Meri Andrews testified that Morris needlessly escalated matters.

She said Morris yelled at her and accused her of wanting to shoot him. Morris yelled that Andrews, who is white, was only stopping him because he is black.

Andrews said Morris resisted handing over his wallet. Then he refused to hand over his insurance card and registration. Morris' wife, Ola, got them for officers.

Andrews accused Morris of hitting her hand as he tried to grab his license back. He denied doing so.

Finally, the officer told Morris to get out of his car. He refused. Andrews and another officer reached in to pull him out.

Andrews said Morris tried to move away from them. During a scuffle, Andrews said, she sprayed him with Mace.

Assistant Public Defender Robert Tager said officers overreacted.

"This law is about people willfully fleeing from officers," Tager said. "He did none of that. He drove 10 mph. That's his crime. . . . What kind of country is this that you can't drive five extra houses without being arrested and Maced?"

Prosecutor Rob McLaughin said the refusal to immediately stop was a "criminally unacceptable delay."

"No, he wasn't going 40 or 50 mph," the prosecutor said. "But what he did was cross the line. The officer was just trying to do her job."

By KATHERINE E. FINKELSTEIN


On the fourth day of yelling and pacing in the small, drab deliberation room, the jurors in a routine trial of a man charged with selling a $10 bag of heroin sent yet another note to the judge. Because of one holdout juror who was impervious to reason, the note stated, "tension is high, nerves are frayed and all minds are not sound."

Five minutes later, the holdout juror, who favored acquittal, sent the judge a note complaining that, in her view, jury duty seemed "worse than a prison sentence" because at least someone in prison gets three meals a day and a free education.

How had things gotten so bad, so quickly, in Room 1523 of State Supreme Court in Manhattan? Social views played a role. So did the inevitable personality conflicts. And the close quarters didn't help.

Of course, jury rage and distress of this nature are nothing new; consider the 1957 courtroom film "12 Angry Men." The court system has tried in recent years to relieve some of the tension by improving the trappings of jury duty, with shorter waits to be selected and more courteous clerks.

Despite those and other measures, New Yorkers who have deliberated on several recent juries say they have emerged feeling personally attacked, outraged and disillusioned. Court officers mention fistfights they broke up, chairs hurled out windows and jurors who screamed so loudly they were heard on other floors. In some cases, the officers say, jurors simply stroll off and have to be brought back; one juror leapt from the jury bus to get out of deliberations.

Some judges and lawyers who see increasing conflict in the jury room attribute this to several new factors, from longer trials and heavier sentences facing defendants to more intense news coverage and increased cynicism after the O. J. Simpson acquittal. One Manhattan judge said that as more educated professionals are required to sit on juries and can no longer get exemptions, the social and political views in the jury room have become more varied and the rancor during deliberations has increased accordingly.

In the drug trial last March in Room 1523, the jury forewoman, Elaine C. Cora, described an atmosphere of personal attacks in which even the quietest person in the room blew up, shouting "shut up" at the holdout juror. "It was such a bad experience that I don't ever want to go through it again," said Ms. Cora, a secretary for a community board in the Bronx. The case ended in a hung jury, and the judge declared a mistrial.

Similar scenes are surfacing in many parts of the country. Actual data on juror conflict is scant, in large part because jury deliberations are private and viewed as sacrosanct, and few studies have been done. But in recent trials across the nation, jurors have complained about being bullied and humiliated during deliberations.

Legal experts say that more jurors are now being reprimanded or dismissed by judges for ignoring evidence or not following rules. In an extreme case, five black jurors gouged the eye of a holdout white juror and accused him of racism, according to a judge in a 1996 survey on juror conduct, the most recent one conducted.

That sort of conduct has led courts around the country to give jurors booklets on how to debate while being courteous and even-tempered. Other courts are focusing on reducing juror stress, using suggestions laid out in a 1998 study by the National Center for State Courts. These include giving jurors helpful hints on how to deliberate and making them more physically comfortable.

Another source of conflict comes from jurors who increasingly allow their politics or their consciences to enter the deliberations, legal experts say. That practice has led to open warfare in a number of jury rooms.

One case in May involved a juror in Las Vegas at the trial of Margaret Rudin, charged with murdering her husband, Ron Rudin, a real estate developer. The juror, Coreen Kovacs, told fellow jurors that she did not believe that the laws in the case were just and urged the jury to ignore them, said John J. Momot, the defense lawyer in the case.

The jurors then sent out angry notes to the judge. The foreman, Ronald Vest, a special-education teacher, asked that Ms. Kovacs be removed, contending that she "isn't thinking clearly, rationally or logically. Please help!" Mr. Momot later received a statement from Ms. Kovacs, who described the conflict in the jury room.

After the jury sent back a unanimous guilty verdict, Ms. Kovacs stated publicly that she had been coerced. Several other jurors then denounced her publicly. 

Neither Mr. Vest nor Ms. Kovacs returned several telephone calls seeking comment.

Like many defense lawyers, Mr. Momot likes conflict in the jury room. He says it can help to sharpen differences and flush out potentially exonerating information. "The positive side is that everyone is paying attention," he said. "They're not just like a herd of sheep."

Experts say tension in the deliberation room is particularly high in cases involving controversial statutes, like death penalty laws, California's "three strikes" laws for repeat offenders and New York's Rockefeller-era drug laws, which mandate long prison terms. The weight of these deliberations can greatly increase jurors' stress, the experts say, and some refuse to convict in cases where they believe the punishment exceeds the crime.

The Manhattan jurors in Room 1523 were grappling with the Rockefeller drug laws as they battled over the fate of the defendant, Calvin Baker, who was facing a sentence of four to nine years in prison if convicted as a repeat drug seller.

After a mistrial was declared, the holdout juror, Paula Thomson, posted $10,000 in bail for Mr. Baker, who is to be retried this fall. She also befriended him, retained a new lawyer for him and took him to rallies to protest the Rockefeller drug laws.

Ms. Thomson said she had not heard of the Rockefeller drug laws at the time of the trial, but believed generally that drug laws were not equally enforced along racial lines. She said that while she had stuck to reason, other jurors had personally attacked her, asking if she had any friends or could hold a job. "They spent a lot of those three days talking about what was wrong with me," she said. 

By JOANN LOVIGLIO .c The Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (Aug. 10) - What if they summoned a jury and nobody came?

As judges across the nation increasingly face that question, scofflaw courts are being set up to punish no-shows with fines and even jail time.

``People have all kinds of excuses, including 'the dog ate my summons,''' said Philadelphia Common Pleas President Judge Alex Bonavitacola, who presides over the city's year-old juror scofflaw court and metes out fines from $25 to $250 and community service sentences.

``When we summon you, we're not being capricious; we need you and you better show up,'' he said.

Judges say the shrinking turnout for jury pools sometimes delays trials. Courts have long had statutes that permit fines and jail time for no-shows, but the rules have largely not been enforced.

There are no clear figures on turnout rates nationwide, but many communities report that between 30 percent and 50 percent of people summoned actually appear for jury duty.

``We've had a lack of interest in civic responsibility for some time, and it's growing,'' said Temple University psychologist Frank Farley. ``I think the decline in civic engagement points to a growing disconnectedness people feel to their community and to each other.''

In Baltimore and Idaho, some scofflaws have been sent to jail for a day. No-shows are called in to remind them of the importance of jury duty.

A high juror scofflaw rate prompted Milwaukee court officials last fall to seek criminal prosecution of the no-shows.

Similar measures have been taken in Dallas, Denver, Albuquerque, N.M.; Raleigh, N.C.; and Brockton, Mass. And it appears that scaring scofflaws into civic responsibility is working, at least in Philadelphia.

``Right after the two sessions we had last year, we did get an uptick in response,'' Bonavitacola said. ``Then it starts to slide off a bit, so we need to have scofflaw courts on a regular basis to keep it fresh in people's minds.''

To get 300 people to appear daily for jury duty, Bonativacola's court issues about 1,500 summonses. In Lancaster County, about 3,000 of the 10,000 people who are called annually fail to appear.

Every week, as many as 30 people are called before Lancaster County Common Pleas President Judge Michael Georgelis to explain why they haven't responded to their jury summonses.

He said 99 percent have ``unacceptable'' excuses - like ``I forgot.''

``Some even have the gall not to show up to explain themselves,'' he said. ``That's when a bench warrant is issued.''

This month, Georgelis found nine people guilty of contempt of court and sentenced them to two days in jail and $300 in fines. He also ordered them to report for jury duty next month.

University of Pennsylvania law professor Edward Rubin believes people don't shirk jury duty out of disrespect.

``It's more pragmatic: This is a big economic burden for lower-income people who don't work for a big company that pays them when they're on a jury,'' he said. In Philadelphia, for example, jurors receive $9 a day compensation - not enough to park their car for the day - and no reimbursement for child care or other expenses.

Farley also pointed out that people are busier than ever with work and family obligations, and the speed of cyber-society makes the idea of jury duty boring.

``There's a sense that courts are clogged and move slowly so people are thinking, 'Oh, I can't just sit around in a room all day for nothing,''' he said. ``People feel that they have too many obligations - so they don't vote, they don't want to be jurors, they don't get involved in their
communities.''

A commission created to investigate Washington state's high no-show rate found that driver and voter databases used to glean juror addresses were often outdated and inaccurate.

Many who claimed they never received a jury summons were telling the truth, said David Brody, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Washington State University and a commission adviser.

``Updating lists, paying for parking or providing child care can run into a lot of money over time,'' Brody said. ``So the question is, is it worth the money or not?''

AP-NY-08-10-01 1432EDT

The challenge would go before the judge who threw out Pinellas Park's juvenile curfew in 1998.

By ERIC STIRGUS

© St. Petersburg Times, published August 14, 2001


LARGO -- The days of the controversial juvenile curfew in Largo may be numbered.

An attorney representing a teenager arrested for violating the city's curfew and other charges is seeking a hearing to argue that Largo's curfew is unconstitutional, city officials have learned. What has city officials concerned is that the hearing would be in front of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court Judge Peter Ramsberger, who struck down Pinellas Park's juvenile curfew in 1998.

City officials declined to discuss details of the arrest because it involves a juvenile. The attorney representing the teenager did not immediately return a telephone call for comment.

Largo's curfew is patterned largely after the one in Pinellas Park, which, in 1997, became the first municipality in Pinellas County to enact such an ordinance. Pinellas Park's curfew is on hold while it's being appealed.

"I assume it is going to be the same challenge," Largo City Attorney Alan Zimmet said of the hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for Sept. 5.

Although city commissioners voted 6-1 in favor of creating a curfew in April 1998, City Manager Steven Stanton thinks as many as five commissioners would now vote against the ordinance.

"I don't think the majority of the commissioners would want a legal challenge," he said Monday afternoon. "I suspect there's not enough support among the majority of the commission today."

The ordinance may be discussed at tonight's 5 p.m. commission meeting, Stanton said.

Two of the commissioners who voted in favor of the ordinance, Thomas Feaster and Jim Miles, are no longer on the city commission.

Largo's curfew has been hailed by its supporters as a powerful tool in curbing youth crime and protecting children. Juvenile crime has dropped by 40 percent in several categories, according to police department figures.

"I think it has been pretty useful," said City Commissioner Jean Halvorsen. "A lot of our problems have been solved by it."

The curfew prohibits anyone younger than 18 to be in a public place between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. during the week or between midnight and 6 a.m. on weekends. The curfew also allows police to round up unsupervised young people during school hours. A teenager caught violating the curfew for the first time is given a warning and usually performs some community service. Multiple violators are charged with a second-degree misdemeanor. If convicted, they must pay a fine of up to $500 and can be sentenced to as long as six months in jail.

Some opponents of the curfew argue it is discriminatory toward young people. Others say it should be parents' responsibility to monitor their children, not the government's.

"The government is not the solution to everything," said City Commissioner Mary Laurance, who voted against continuing the curfew in January 2000. "The more you take from parents, the more you lean on government, and that concerns me."

Police say they caution their officers to act responsibly when it comes to the curfew. For example, officers are strongly discouraged from looking for violators at 11:02 p.m. Many of the violators are performing other criminal acts, they say. Each case is reviewed by a supervisor.

Andy Hill, a Largo police sergeant who is in charge of the department's office of youth services, thinks the curfew has worked well.

"We don't see them in the malls," he said. "We're not picking them up for retail theft. Obviously, that's accomplishing what it needs to do."

-- Information from Times files was used in this report.

After a rape victim was arrested on warrants, Chief Goliath Davis changes how such cases are handled.

By MIKE BRASSFIELD

© St. Petersburg Times, published August 15, 2001


ST. PETERSBURG -- Two months after police arrested a rape victim wanted on minor criminal charges, the St. Petersburg Police Department is taking steps to prevent the same thing from happening again.

On June 4, a 29-year-old woman told police that a stranger surprised her from behind as she walked on 49th Street N shortly after midnight. The woman said the stranger knocked her to the ground, raped her in some bushes and tried to strangle her with a cord.

A police detective who interviewed the woman found she was wanted on three outstanding arrest warrants. The woman had not paid a fine for driving under the influence, and she had not appeared in court to face charges of not having a dog license and not having her two daughters attend elementary school.

Police took the woman to jail. The way police officials saw it, the detective had no choice but to arrest her. But the incident prompted a re-examination of how police handle such cases.

St. Petersburg police Chief Goliath Davis III has instituted a new policy for officers and detectives who encounter victims who are wanted on warrants.

Now, the officer or detective must notify a high-ranking police supervisor who will relate the facts of the case to a prosecutor with the State Attorney's Office. The prosecutor will then notify a judge, if such a step is deemed necessary, so the judge can decide whether the crime victim should go to jail. Another option would be to release the person on their own recognizance, with the warning that he or she should deal with the arrest warrants soon.

Pinellas Circuit Judge Brandt Downey III, the administrative judge for the judicial circuit's criminal division, said he had no problem with the new policy.

"A circuit judge is on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year," Downey said. "There isn't any problem with contacting a judge at 2 in the morning."

In the case of the rape victim who was wanted on minor charges, Downey would have told police not to take her to jail. Downey added that such cases are exceedingly rare.

"If the warrant was for a felony charge, my feeling on it might be different," Downey said. "If the person was wanted for a robbery or burglary, I'd have to say, "Gee, I'm sorry, but you'll have to take that person into custody.' "

Recent coverage

Victim of rape sent to jail on warrants (August 10, 2001)

Investigators heard complaints from people who said they were terrorized by the pair, now out on bail.
By CARY DAVIS