Judge DeAnn Salcido Blames Other Judge for Decisions Leading to Murders by Released Predator

Judge Slams Other Judge Over Chelsea King, Amber DuBois Deaths
Judge DeAnn Salcido Says She 'Can No Longer Remain Silent'

By: LAUREN PEARLE
May 7, 2010—

A San Diego judge accused her fellow judges today of mishandling criminal cases and said the murders of Chelsea King and Amber DuBois might have been prevented if their killer had been kept in prison for a prior sex offense.

Superior Court Judge DeAnn M. Salcido, during a news conference today, put particular blame on supervising judge Peter Deddeh who approved the sentence of convicted sex offender John Gardner, who has since pleaded guilty to raping and killing the two young women. She provided ABC News with a copy of her prepared comments.

Deddeh "put two young girls on a deadly collision course with a convicted child molester," Salcido said of the tragedies she believes might have been prevented by a tougher sentence.

In 2001, Deddeh signed off on a plea deal that gave Gardner a six year prison sentence for molesting and beating a 13-year-old neighbor he lured to his house. He was released after five years despite a probation report that called Gardner a predator and risk to society.

While on parole, he committed several crimes, including marijuana possession, and violated his parole by opening a MySpace account and living too close to a school. Those offenses could have sent him back to prison.

Shortly after his release, Gardner raped and killed King, 17, and DuBois, 14. He has confessed to both murders and is scheduled to be sentenced next month.

Salcido announced today that she is taking the unprecedented step of asking a California appellate court to force San Diego judges to "follow the law" and stop harassing her for trying to do so.

She accused Deddeh and other colleagues of rubber-stamping too lenient plea deals and failing to impose mandatory probation conditions such as protective orders, firearm prohibitions, and anger management counseling that are designed to protect public safety.

"This pattern of behavior by Judge Deddeh and others shows a reckless disregard for human life," Salcido said.

"I can no longer remain silent," the judge said in a press conference.

Salcido said that from her first days on the bench, she was told by seasoned judges to "go along to get along" and quickly dispose of sex abuse and domestic violence cases by accepting hurried plea deals and ignoring mandatory probation conditions for violent offenders.

"Chevy Justice" Versus "Cadillac Justice"

When she complained to Deddeh, he told her to just "dispense of 'Chevy justice' and let the other courtrooms dispense of 'Cadillac justice,'" she alleged in court filings. Deddeh explained that they need to get through numerous trials with limited resources and save money and time for "more important" cases, Salcido said.

But Salcido said that even with misdemeanor domestic violence cases, "everyone is entitled to the same justice or it is not justice. The administration cannot tolerate such distinctions."

In an email Salcido included in her legal papers, Deddeh allegedly wrote: "As we discussed the other day, our goal in D-3 is to expeditiously move defendants through the calendar and resolve their cases with the fewest # of court hearings possible&.we need to do what we can to limit the # of times our staff has to touch a file." Salcido told ABC News that although her actions today might cost her her job, "public safety is the issue, not my career."

"I hope to increase judicial awareness and prevent judges from recklessly disregarding the laws as they have been," Salcido told ABC News.

Deddeh was not immediately available for comment.

Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures

Domestic Violence by Proxy

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence has promoted a new concept to distinguish mother's protective actions from what abusers do.  It is called Domestic Violence by Proxy.  You can download a 2 page memo on it from their web site at http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/DVP.html  or read it here:

Domestic Violence (DV) by Proxy: 
Why Terrorist Tactics Employed by Batterers Are Not "PAS"

September 16, 2009 
As more and more abused women lose custody to batterers in family courts, they are wrongly embracing the very ideas that enabled their abusers to gain custody in the first place. False accusations of “parental alienation" are often used by batterers to gain custody and to defend against accusations of abuse.
Some unfortunate women after years of enduring domestic violence have lost custody to the batterers who abused them. In these cases, batterers have made good on their threat to attack their ex-partner in the place she is the most vulnerable—by taking her children away from her. After separation, these batterers continue to wage their campaign of manipulation and abuse by attempting to convince involved children that their mothers never loved them. Looking for a way to describe their batterers' behavior, some mothers have called what their batterer is doing "parental alienation syndrome."
In reality, what these women are describing from their ex-partners is better termed Domestic Violence by Proxy (DV by Proxy), a term first used by Alina Patterson, author of Health and Healing. DV by Proxy refers to a pattern of behavior which is a parent with a history of using domestic violence or intimidation, uses a child as a substitute when he no longer has access to his former partner. Calling this behavior “parental alienation” is not strong enough to convey the criminal pattern of terroristic behaviors employed by batterers.
When his victim leaves him, batterers often recognize that the most expedient way to continue to hurt his partner is to assert his legal rights to control her access to their children. By gaining control of the children, an abusive male now has a powerful tool which allows him to continue to stalk, harass and batter an ex-partner even when he has no direct access to her. Moreover, by emotionally torturing the child and severing the bond between children and their mother, he is able to hurt his intended victim -- the mother -- in a way she cannot resist.
DV by Proxy includes tactics such as: threats of harm to children if they display a positive bond to the mother, destroying favored possessions given by the mother, and emotional torture (for example, telling the child the mother hates them, wanted an abortion, and is not coming to get them because they are unloved).
DV by Proxy may also include coaching the child to make false allegations regarding their mother's behavior and harming or punishing the child for not complying. DV by Proxy perpetrators may also create fraudulent documents to defraud the court in order to prevent the mother from gaining custody. Whether or not the child is biologically related to them is irrelevant to perpetrators of DV by Proxy. The perpetrator's main motivation is to hurt his ex; whether or not his own child is harmed in the process is irrelevant to him.
This is very different from "parental alienation syndrome" as described by the late Richard A. Gardner. Dr. Gardner described PAS as an internal process by which a child aligns themselves with a preferred parent to protect themselves from the divorce conflict. “PAS” is conceptualized as a psychological process of identification with a parent who, according to the theory, encourages this identification at the expense of the other parent.
PAS inducing parents, according to Gardner, are often unconscious of what they are doing to encourage the identification. In contrast, perpetrators of DV by Proxy are very conscious of what they are doing. Controlling, coercive, illegal acts often done by abusive and controlling people, usually men, are not subtle, and do not encourage an identification with a parent. Criminal, fraudulent, coercive acts are visible and obvious. These behaviors encourage compliance by threats and fear. Behaviors involved in DV by Proxy are deliberate and often illegal. These behaviors include: battery, destruction of property, locking children in rooms to prevent them from calling parents, falsifying documents, along with other similar overt behaviors.
The most dangerous aspect of Gardner's PAS theory is that that the alienating parent's behavior is theorized to be so subtle as to be unobservable. In other words, the behaviors that are supposed to cause the alienation are assumed to be happening without any proof that they have actually occured. As many women have discovered this makes a charge of "alienation" almost impossible to defend against.
While Gardner's theories regarding PAS have been shown to be overly general and have not been supported by careful research, behaviors seen in DV by Proxy can be readily observed. Behaviors involved in DV by Proxy are deliberate and planned; many are illegal, and if the child is given the freedom to talk, will be described in great detail by the child.
If the child's formerly favorable view of the victimized parent changes when exposed to tactics like this over time then it is more likely a form of "Stockholm Syndrome" or traumatic attachment to the abuser, rather than the alignment with one parent and negative reaction to the other that Gardner described as "alienation".
A recent and comprehensive article on PAS and its use in the court system, by Jennifer Hoult can be downloaded here.
For further information:

• Are Protective Parents Losing Custody to Alleged Abusers?Evidence shows that women who raise concerns about family violence during custody litigation run the risk of losing their children.
• Stopfamilyviolence.org: The people's voice for family peace. Stop Family Violence is a national grassroots organization with a mission to organize and amplify our nation's collective voice against family violence.
• CA3 -Children Against Court Appointed Child Abuse
• High-conflict divorce or stalking by way of family court?Massachusetts Family Law Journal, 2004.http://www.mincava.umn.edu/reports/linda.asp
• Hoult, Jennifer. (Spring 2006). The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy,Children's Legal Rights Journal, 26(1) pp. 1-61. (download PDF)

Crime Victim Notification, A Life or Death Responsibility

Advocates play many roles however one of the most critical is to facilitate offender information and status notification. Law enforcement agencies are required to provide victim assistance information to the crime victims they encounter. Advocates can help ensure that appropriate updated referrals are made by reviewing and updating LE agency's handouts to add notification numbers and information. Advocates can assist victims in registering for notification or do it for them. Advocates can also register themselves to relay or respond to changes.

In Michigan the William Van Regenmorter Crime Victims Rights Act requires jails and prisons to notify victims when their assailants are released. The Michigan Crime Victim Notification Network (MCVNN), part of the national VINE system, is a free tool available to all sheriffs that satisfies the statutory requirement.

VINE is available nationwide and was developed in Kentucky in 1994 after Mary Byron was murdered. Mary had been raped, assaulted, and stalked by her former boyfriend in late 1993. He was arrested and jailed for these crimes, but someone posted his bail and he was released. There was no way for Mary to know.After leaving work on the evening of December 6, 1993, Mary sat in her car as it warmed up. Her former boyfriend approached from the driver's side and fired seven bullets into her head and chest at point blank range, killing her. It was Mary’s 21st birthday.

In Jefferson County, Kentucky, where Mary lived, the community was stunned and outraged. County officials and software engineers worked long and diligently to design a system that would let crime victims know whether their offenders are in jail, where they are held, and when they are released. County Judge/Executive Dave Armstrong made this a top priority, and led the effort. Exactly one year after Mary’s murder, Jefferson County became the first community to institute automated telephone notification for crime victims and other concerned citizens

Across the country, VINE® gives crime victims and other concerned citizens access to timely and reliable information about criminal cases and the custody status of offenders 24 hours a day - over the telephone, through the Internet, or by e-mail.Victims can access offender custody status information and register to be notified immediately in the event of an offender's release, transfer, or escape.
BENEFITS:
Victims have free, anonymous access to critical data at all times
Around-the-clock support from live operators who assist victims and monitor all VINE systems
Saves taxpayers money by eliminating the need to manually notify victims, allowing staff to focus on their core responsibilities
V.I.N.E. Fact Sheet
VINE Spring Newsletter

VINE Courts:
Access to court information is available quickly and conveniently with VINE Courts, a fully automated service that provides victims and other interested parties with up-to-date information about their court cases via telephone or Web portal. Victims can obtain an update just by making a toll-free telephone call, and can register to be notified by telephone, e-mail or letter about a change in the status of their cases.
BENEFITS:
Public Web portal provides around-the-clock access to case status and hearing date and location
Notifies registrants about upcoming hearings, date and location changes, postponements, cancellations, and other court events
Can be implemented as a stand-alone service or seamlessly integrated into an existing VINE system
V.I.N.E Courts Fact Sheet

Hearings to Obtain or Continue Personal Protection Orders

Sometimes a hearing to obtain a PPO is required or the respondent may request a hearing to dispute a PPO. Advocates can assist by providing information about the court process and helping the petitioner organize the proofs available.It often helps to encourage the preparation of an easy-to-read list of points the petition wishes to make.

The following guide for petitioners is provided by www.womenslaw.org.

What will I have to prove at a hearing?

You must prove that the respondent has committed acts of domestic violence or stalking as defined by law against you or your children. You must convince the judge that you need protection and the specific things that you asked for in the application you filled out.

What should I do before the hearing to prepare my case?

Contact witnesses who saw the abuse or your injuries. Anyone can be a witness—a friend, family member, children, emergency room nurse, doctor, a stranger who saw or heard the abuse take place, a law enforcement officer, etc.

Some witnesses may not come to court unless they are given a subpoena that commands them to appear and testify. Ask the court clerk about the subpoena process. Let the judge know if the people you subpoenaed do not come to the hearing.

If your children witnessed the abuse you should tell the judge they were present. However, you should seriously consider not having children testify in court to avoid putting them in an uncomfortable position of possibly testifying against their other parent.

The judge may choose not to hear from a witness due to the short amount of time given to each hearing.

Get evidence and documentation to help your case.

* Evidence can include:
* Your statements or a witness’s statements about the incident(s).
* Medical reports
* Police reports
* Dated pictures of your injuries. If the police took photos during their investigation you may be able to request copies of them. You should consider taking your own series of photos to document any injuries you sustained or property damage.
* Household objects torn or broken by your abuser.
* Pictures of your household in disarray after an episode of domestic violence.
* Weapons used, Tapes of calls you may have made to 911
* Anything else to help you convince the judge you are a victim of domestic violence or stalking and need relief and protection from the court

The more evidence you have the greater your chances of being granted the protection order. However the judge will listen to your story even if you have no physical evidence or witnesses.

You may wish to make an outline or notes of the history of violence or stalking. You may take the notes to court with you to look at if you forget something, but if you read from them the judge may order that the respondent be allowed to see them.

Tell your story in your own words, tell the truth without exaggeration. Leave out details that have nothing to do with the domestic violence, threats or stalking and intimidation. Be specific. Rather than saying “he hit me,” tell the judge how and where you were hit and how many times.

Be sure to mention:

* The 2 most recent incidents
* The 2 worst incidents
* Whether the abuser has guns or weapons
* Whether the abuser has threatened to hurt or kill you
* Whether the abuser has guns or weapons
* Whether the abuser has threatened to hurt or kill you

On the day of hearing:

* Be on time
* Have your witnesses there and ready.
* Dress neatly
* Speak directly to the judge. Address the judge as “Your Honor”.

Be prepared to spend all day in court in case there are other hearings before yours.

Stand when the judge enters and leaves the courtroom, sit when the judge or bailiff asks you to.

Once your case is called you may sit at the plaintiff’s table which is on the your left side if you are facing the judge in Circuit and Probate court.

If the respondent comes to court with an attorney and you do not feel capable of representing yourself ask the judge for a “continuance” so you can look for a lawyer.

You will tell your side of the story first, The judge or the respondent may ask you questions, The respondent will tell his or her side which may be very different from yours. The judge may ask him/her questions and you may also ask questions.

Relax and remain calm. Take deep breaths if you feel tense. Never lose your temper in the courtroom. Always tell the truth, If you don’t understand a question, say so.

If you don’t know the answer to a question, just say so. Never make up an answer.

The judge will make a decision after hearing both sides and considering the evidence.

Asking the court to enter a Personal Protection Order is a very serious matter. A PPO will authorize law enforcement throughout Michigan and the United States to enforce its provisions. The court will expect both you and the party to be restrained to abide by the terms of the order.

Anyone who knowingly and intentionally makes a false statement on the motion for the PPO is subject to the contempt powers of the court.

You are acting as your own attorney when filing for a PPO.
Stalking Definition

A pattern of conduct consisting of 2 or more unconsented contacts that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed or molested.