A Baltimore County judge has been reassigned after pausing the trial of an accused batterer to marry him to his alleged victim so she could avoid testifying against him.

Judge Darrell Russell Jr., the Baltimore County District Court judge assigned to the non-jury trial, performed the wedding ceremony in his chambers for defendant Frederick Wood and his girlfriend. Prosecutors say they were powerless to stop it.

“It’s very frustrating. We view very seriously the crime of domestic violence,” Deputy State’s Attorney Leo Ryan said. “We understand that very often the nature of this crime means the victims are reluctant to testify.”

As a parting comment, according to an audio recording of the proceedings, Russell left the new groom with these sentiments:  “Mr. Wood, I found you not guilty, so I can’t sentence you as a defendant in any crimes … but earlier today, I sentenced you to life married to her.”

A spokeswoman for the Maryland Judiciary Office of Communications and Public Affairs confirmed today that Russell has been indefinitely reassigned and will no longer be allowed to preside over domestic violence cases.

“Effective today Judge Russell has been reassigned to chambers meaning he will not be hearing any cases at all, and the work that he’ll be doing in chambers is reviewing motions and civil cases,” Angelita Plemmer said.  The reassignment was ordered by District Court Chief Judge Ben Clyburn.

Both Wood, 29, and his girlfriend, a 27-year-old mother of two young sons whose name is being withheld, were in court last week for Wood’s trial on a misdemeanor second-degree assault charge stemming from a Nov. 29 incident at their home.

According to police reports, the woman told police that Wood picked a fight with her at 4 a.m., smacking her in the face and kicking her in the side. As the alleged assault continued, she told police, Wood banged her head into the wall and dragged her though the house before she was able to flee.

Domestic Violence Bride Reported That New Husband Tried to Kill Her

The responding police officer “found several visible injuries to victim … including a bloody nose and a swollen left side of her face near her eye.” A long red mark was also photographed on the woman’s neck.  The officer also compiled a report called a “domestic violence lethality screen” in which the woman said she thought he might try to kill her and that he has threatened to kill her and/or her children in the past.

She also answered “yes” on several more questions, including whether he has access to a gun, whether he’s ever tried to strangle or choke her and whether he’s ever spied on her or left threatening messages.  The guns, she later told authorities, were hunting rifles kept in a safe.  The screen also noted that Wood is unemployed, controlling and has tried to kill himself.

She was also recorded telling police, “He said he wants to kill me.”  Neither Wood nor the woman could be reached for comment.  By the time the case made it to Russell’s courtroom, however, the couple was outwardly ready to get hitched.

Ryan said the trial began with Assistant Public Defender Phillip Heller calling for a postponement “for the explicit purpose to allow the victim and defendant to marry so the victim could invoke her marital privilege.”  Maryland law states that a spouse is not legally required to testify against the other spouse. District Public Defender Thelma Triplin declined to comment on Heller’s actions and Heller could also not be reached at his home or by e-mail.

Russell referred all comments to Plemmer’s office.

Ryan, who was not in court that day but has been brief by Assistant State’s Attorney Christina Cuomo, said the defense lawyer at one point asked Cuomo to put the case in a “stet docket,” which essentially renders a case inactive, but not decided.  Cuomo, he said, refused.  “She was adamant about prosecuting the case,” he said.

After Heller made his request, the judge offered to solve the defense attorney’s problem.  “He told the defense attorney that there was no need to postpone the case,” Ryan said. “That they could go to Towson, get a marriage license and come back and he would marry them that day.”

Judge Marries Alleged Victim, Puts Her on Stand Minutes Later

Wood and his betrothed were excused for the 25 minute drive to the Towson court to get a marriage license and were married back in Russell’s chambers a short time later.  Once the trial reconvened, his new bride was immediately put on the witness stand.  “She invokes her marital privilege so there’s no evidence in the case.  And the judge finds him not guilty,” Ryan said.

Whether anyone files a complaint against Russell remains to be seen. A spokesman for the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities said complaints against any judge are confidential until that judge is publicly charged.

There are no public actions on record for Russell.

By Eileen King
Silver Spring
Sunday, March 14, 2010; C05

The Maryland House Judiciary Committee has a reputation for being not only a place where good bills go to die but also where witnesses can expect little sympathy for having suffered from violent or sexual crimes. The committee’s worst tendencies were in evidence once again during a Feb. 25 hearing on a bill to help keep victims of domestic abuse safe from their abusers.

The bill, sponsored by Del. Sue Hecht (D-Frederick) and Sen. Jennie Forehand (D-Montgomery), would have changed the burden of proof from “clear and convincing evidence” to “preponderance of the evidence” for final orders of protection, the same standard in place for the vast majority of other civil actions in Maryland, including tort actions for large damage awards, child abuse determinations and custody decisions. Maryland hangs on obstinately as the only state to adhere to this high standard of proof.

Predictably, the bill was killed by the committee.

Our witness was Amy Castillo, a Montgomery pediatrician who did everything she could to protect her three children, including getting a temporary protective order on Christmas 2006 after her husband, Mark, told her that “the worst thing he could do to me would be to kill the children and not me.” On March 29, 2008, Mark Castillo followed through on this threat, drowning Anthony Castillo, 6, Austin, 4, and Athena, 2, in a hotel bathtub.

Amy Castillo came to Annapolis to tell the members of the committee about her unsuccessful attempts to get a final protective order against Mark Castillo. She told them about his behaviors, threats, mental health problems and refusal to get the help he needed, and about her grave fears for her and her children’s safety.

This testimony was met with something worse than indifference. Referring to a transcript of the final hearing on her request for an order of protection, Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-Montgomery) attacked the rationale for the bill, stating that Judge Joseph A. Dugan Jr. had substantial problems with Amy Castillo’s credibility. In tones that were anything but kind, Simmons declared that he wouldn’t read verbatim what the judge said because he didn’t want to “embarrass” Castillo. The exact nature of this “embarrassing” information — presumably the fact that she submitted to her estranged husband’s demand for sex, something not uncommon in such cases — was left to the imagination of those present.

In his zeal to discredit the mother of three murdered children, Simmons seemed to forget that Dugan had been tragically wrong when he disregarded Amy Castillo’s fears for her children’s safety and bought the arguments made by Mark Castillo and his lawyer. Simmons’s flawed logic: The judge found reason to question Amy Castillo’s credibility, so it was her fault that she didn’t get the protective order. Simmons expressed doubt that Castillo could have met even the preponderance standard, suggesting that changing the legal threshold wouldn’t have helped save her children. And this is why other at-risk or abused children should be denied protective orders?

Amy Castillo’s case illustrates a point made by Joan S. Meier of the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project at George Washington University Law School: “The higher the burden, the more the risk of error is placed on the alleged victim or protective parent. The burden is a direct reflection of whether you believe the majority of petitioners are lying, or not. If you don’t, this burden is inappropriate because it privileges abusers over victims.”

Feeling they have nowhere to turn, parents are condemned to wait helplessly for the next violent or abusive act. Try this thought experiment: Imagine that your child has met the preponderance standard for abuse but a judge says that is not enough for a protective order to keep the child from the abuser. Imagine what it would be like to live knowing that you or your children are at lethal risk but that you can get help only if you or the children are hurt badly enough.

This is not the first time that a House Judiciary Committee witness was treated in a manner that many observers found offensive. It is also not the first time the committee killed a bill that would have increased protection for victims of family violence and abused or at-risk children. From the questions they ask, the anti-victim positions they take and the bills they kill, it appears obvious that the committee’s most outspoken members are aligned with the defense bar.

It is high time for some review and oversight of this committee, its leadership and composition and its commitment to the public welfare of Maryland’s most vulnerable citizens: victims of crime and our children.

Eileen King is regional director of Justice for Children’s Washington office.

Also see:

Joseph F. Vallario Jr. (D-Prince George’s)

Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-Montgomery)

Curtis S. Anderson (D-Baltimore)

Benjamin S. Barnes (D-Prince George’s)

Jill P. Carter (D-Baltimore)

Frank M. Conaway Jr. (D-Baltimore)

Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel)

William J. Frank (R-Baltimore)

J.B. Jennings (R-Baltimore County)

Kevin Kelly (D-Allegany)

Gerron S. Levi (D-Prince George’s)

Tony McConkey (R-Anne Arundel)

Victor R. Ramirez (D-Prince George’s)

Samuel I. Rosenberg (D-Baltimore)

Todd L. Schuler (D-Baltimore County)

Michael D. Smigiel Sr. (R-Cecil)

AS EXPECTED, the Maryland House Judiciary Committee wrongly killed a bill on Thursday that would have made it easier for victims of domestic violence to obtain protective orders. H.B. 700 would have brought Maryland into conformance with the practices of every other state in the country. As an election-year service to voters, here is the 15 to 6 vote:

Chairman Joseph F. Vallario Jr. (D-Prince George’s) did not vote, as is the general practice.

Against:

Curtis S. Anderson (D-Baltimore)

Benjamin S. Barnes (D-Prince George’s)

Jill P. Carter (D-Baltimore)

Frank M. Conaway Jr. (D-Baltimore)

Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel)

William J. Frank (R-Baltimore County)

J.B. Jennings (R-Baltimore County)

Kevin Kelly (D-Allegany)

Gerron S. Levi (D-Prince George’s)

Tony McConkey (R-Anne Arundel)

Victor R. Ramirez (D-Prince George’s)

Samuel I. Rosenberg (D-Baltimore)

Todd L. Schuler (D-Baltimore County)

Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-Montgomery)

Michael D. Smigiel Sr. (R-Cecil).

For:

Kathleen M. Dumais (D-Montgomery)

Benjamin F. Kramer (D-Montgomery)

Susan C. Lee (D-Montgomery)

Susan McComas (R-Harford)

Kriselda Valderrama (D-Prince George’s)

Jeffrey D. Waldstreicher (D-Montgomery)

Amy Castillo testified at this hearing, as she tried to get a protective order in 2007, but was denied.  Her husband Mark Castillo had their three children on visitation after when he murdered all three in a Maryland hotel, drowning them in the bathtub.  At the protective order hearing, her husband’s lawyer questioned her (from the transcripts):

Douglas Cohn–Defense Attorney, Mark’s Attorney: “He threatened to kill your children and you, and you made love to him that night.”

Amy Castillo: “Yes, because I’m scared of him.  If I act scared or upset or emotional, he really reacts to that, and I didn’t want him to know I was trying to get a protective order.”

With this, the judge denied the protective order.   Judge Joseph Dugan ruled “There is not clear and convincing evidence that the alleged acts of abuse occurred.”  This left Mark Castillo the opportunity to murder the children.

Fast forward to the hearing on February 25th, where witnesses testified to the committee about this travesty.   Delegate Luiz Simmons took it upon himself during the hearing to further question Amy Castillo’s credibility because she had engaged in sex with Mark after being threatened.  Apparently Del. Simmons does not realize that abusive men often center their lives around their genitals and the need to have them serviced.  One can go on any of the many men’s rights forums and read them denigrating women, especially if they aren’t being serviced.  This is one from “Men Going Their Own Way“:

“I was driving back from a meeting this morning, thinking about my wife, and I really wanted to go home, and simply beat the living shit out of her. I have been supporting everyone for years, working my ass off, and my wife has not done one single fucking thing to make my life easier, to encourage me, or to help me with anything that’s bugging me. She’s on the PTA, the board of her preschool, she teaches art at the elementary school, is involved in a book club, and on and on and on. Her calendar is ridiculous. But I am some kind of fucking afterthought. I’m the engine that powers this entire thing, and I haven’t gotten laid in months.  She takes care of the children during the week, fine. But we have a housecleaner, because actually cleaning the fucking house is beneath her. We take shirts to the dry cleaner, because she couldn’t possibly iron them. Clean laundry is in piles in the garage, because she can’t be expected to fold it. On weekends, I’m apparently her assistant. I can’t wait for Sunday night to come, when I can get out and head back to the office. And every day there’s some new example of truly shitty behavior — a bad attitude for any human. For example, last night she was at her fucking PTA meeting, which ran from 7 until 11. I went to bed, and had just turned the light out when she shows up at the front door, and starts ringing the fucking doorbell. She didn’t have her keys. She then informed me that she never does. I pointed out that having keys to your own house might be a smart thing to do. And she acts like that’s some kind of major insult, and then launches into a description of what happened at this meeting. I stopped her, and said something like “You know, I was in bed and almost asleep, and you got me up.” It didn’t even occur to her that a) I would actually mind being jerked out of bed by the doorbell; b) I wasn’t interested in a blow-by-blow at that moment. Finally, after years of this, the truth is starting to sink in, and I’m devolving into this serious, angry person to be around. All the normal, considerate stuff I used to do I don’t. I don’t talk to her unless I have to, and not any longer than necessary. She catches me looking at her sometimes, and the expression she sees on my face frightens her, I think. Somewhere along in here, she’s going to ask me if something’s wrong, and I’m going to start screaming at her. I’ve tried marriage counseling. I’ve tried listening, and giving, and being nice. Now, I’m going to try fear and intimidation.”

Del. Luiz Simmons, Montgomery County

Do you think Amy Castillo saw that certain expression on Mark’s face (besides just outright being told he would kill her and the kids)? Do you think she had to have sex for her and her kid’s safety? You betcha. Nobody likes having sex with an abusive asshole. It’s like a submissive gesture to try and calm the savage beast.  You don’t think she had to fake it (think Meg Ryan in When Harry Met Sally)?  Many women have to given in to having sex to avoid being treated worse.  But this pig thinks it makes her less credible.  Del. Luiz Simmons and his John Edward’s haircut need to come out of the fog and look at all the children being murdered by fathers who are not happy with child support, not happy with shared parenting, or just want to punish their ex-wives by taking the children permanently from them (by murdering them).  Over and over again, many of these horrific deaths of children can be traced back to a judge who wouldn’t issue a protective order.

Delegate Simmons demonstrated his love and wish to protect batterers in the last session.  This is from Maryland Politics Watch:

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Luiz Simmons’ Abuser Expungement Bill (Updated)

Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17), who is a trial attorney, has introduced a bill enabling accused domestic abusers to expunge their court records. No, folks, we are not making this up.

This bill most likely won’t make it out of the committee, thanks to Delegate Simmons.  If you are from Maryland, how many more women and children are you willing to see murdered?  If you are from Maryland, you need to know who your employees are, the people you pay to speak for you, who are doing this to the children of Maryland, who questioned Amy Castillo’s credibility, and decide if you want them to work for you any more when you go vote in the next election.  Here are the Judicial Committee members….do they work for you?

Appointed by House Speaker:

Joseph F. Vallario, Jr., Chair (410) 841-3488, (301) 858-3488

Samuel I. Rosenberg, Vice-Chair (410) 841-3297, (301) 858-3297

Curtis S. (Curt) Anderson Benjamin S. BarnesJill P. Carter

Frank M. Conaway, Jr.

Kathleen M. Dumais

Don H. Dwyer, Jr.

William J. Frank

J. B. Jennings

Kevin Kelly

Benjamin F. Kramer

Susan C. Lee

Gerron S. Levi

Susan K. McComas

Tony McConkey

Victor R. Ramirez

Todd L. Schuler

Luiz R. S. Simmons

Michael D. Smigiel, Sr.

Kriselda Valderrama

Jeffrey D. Waldstreicher

Also see the Washington Post story on this:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030303476.html?referrer=emailarticle

UPDATE (3/01/10):  PLEASE SEE Attention Maryland: You Have Some Pigs Loose in the Legislature

Amy Castillo’s husband killed their 3 children

Updated: Friday, 26 Feb 2010, 12:26 PM EST
Published : Thursday, 25 Feb 2010, 7:15 PM EST
By Sherri Ly

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – When Amy Castillo’s husband, Mark, killed her three children nearly two years ago she knew he’d carried out his threat.  “He said well really the worse thing I could do is kill the children and not you so you have to live without them,” Castillo said.

Fifteen months earlier she told a Montgomery County judge the same story but he denied her final protective order because there wasn’t “clear and convincing evidence.”  Castillo says she was devastated.

The interim protective order had already angered her estranged husband, who suffered from mental illness and transcripts show had planned to violently end his own life.  “I think he would have had to have hurt them before, in the past, actually physically injured them. All along I felt that you have to actually hurt someone or prove you sexually abused them before you can get any help,” Castillo said.

It’s happened over and over to victims of abuse in Maryland. Victims try to get a protective order only to be denied sometimes with deadly consequences.  Yvette Cade, a Prince George’s County woman was burned four years ago by her ex-husband after a judge removed a protective order as well.  In Castillo’s case she said, “It went from threats to now they’re dead. There wasn’t anything in between.”

So today Castillo went to Annapolis to fight for the protection her children six-year-old Anthony, four-year-old Austin and two-year-old Athena did not get.  She testified during a House Judiciary Committee hearing in support of a bill that lowers the standard for protective orders to a “preponderance of evidence.”

Maryland is the only state that requires the standard of proof for a protective order be “clear and convincing evidence.”

At least three times previously, lawmakers in Annapolis have tried to lower this standard, making it easier for someone to get a protective order. Each time it failed.

“People are in dangerous situations and in Amy’s case, the dear children lost their lives because of our high standard of proof in Maryland. That’s unacceptable,” said Delegate Sue Hecht (D) Frederick County, the bill’s main sponsor.

Historically, the judiciary committee has been hesitant to change laws.  It took Hecht seven years to get a child sex abuse crime of violence law passed and expects another tough fight on this one.  She ran a domestic violence center for 12 years.  “We had a woman shot in the face of my home county. This year she had been denied a protective order in two counties before she got shot in the face,” Hecht said.

No word on when the committee will vote, but the Frederick lawmaker, is hopeful she’ll have the votes to get the bill out of committee this time. Even with a protective order critics say enforcement is sometimes lacking but at least it gives victims another tool.

“You have to have something in place where not only the woman feels like she’s being back up but there’s teeth behind that,” said Eileen King, Regional Director for Justice for Children-DC, an advocacy group for children and families.

“I never tried to get a protective order again,” Castillo said after failing the first time, “because I felt like not only was it not helpful, it was useless.”  By seeking the protective order, “it made him much more angry,” Castillo said and without it she had nothing to stop him.

Castillo says she can look back now and say “I told you so” and wonders if she got the protective order would her children be alive.

See the Washington Post story on this:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030303476.html?referrer=emailarticle

Also see: Attention Maryland Legislature: Someone Needs to Get Laid and Attention Maryland: You Have Some Pigs Loose in the Legislature