Former Hawkeye basketball star Pierre Pierce narrowly escaped spending four months in jail on April 29 after he violated a no-contact order more than 80 times in an 17-hour period. Instead, Pierce was ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device and to abide by a curfew until his Aug. 16 trial. The 21-year-old, who had previously been restricted from consuming alcohol, must now stay out of bars as well.
How'd he violate the order? Well, it wasn't as simple as picking up a phone and dialing:
On March 25, Pierce was standing behind a woman he did not know in "a very famous bar in Iowa City" when she realized her phone was missing. Between 2:46 a.m. and 7:18 p.m., "81 phone calls originating from the stolen/missing phone were placed to the victim's cell phone," according to court records.
Now, by my count on Iowa Courts Online, he's been charged with some rather serious things:
Case: 05251 FECR028426 (DALLAS)
Defendant: PIERCE, PIERRE ANTOINE
Charge: 713.3-3
Description: BURGLARY 1ST DEGREE - 1983 (FELB)
Offense Date: 01/27/2005
Charge: 713.3-3
Description: BURGLARY 1ST DEGREE - 1983 (FELB)
Offense Date: 01/27/2005
Charge: 709.11(B)
Description: ASSLT. TO SEX ABUSE/INJURY - 1983 (FELD)
Offense Date: 01/27/2005
Charge: 716.6(1)
Description: CRIMINAL MISCHIEF 4TH DEGREE (SRMS)
Offense Date: 01/27/2005
Charge: 708.2A(2)(C)
Description: DOMESTIC ABUSE ASSAULT W/INTENT OR DISPLAYS A WEAPON (AGMS)
Offense Date: 01/27/2005
Charge: 708.2A(2)(B)
Description: DOMESTIC ABUSE ASSAULT WITHOUT INTENT CAUSING INJURY (SRMS)
Offense Date: 01/27/2005
Charge: 710.7
Description: FALSE IMPRISONMENT - 1978 (SRMS)
Offense Date: 02/17/2005
The evidence against Pierce on these counts consists of records from the victim's phone and emails, physical evidence such as the trashed apartment and stolen laptop, but most importantly, testimony from the victim/survivor herself. The perpetrators of such crimes generally know that victims are essential to the case, as they can choose to downplay what happened and try to pass it off as harmless, to play it up and hit the jury's hot buttons, or to simply tell the truth and let the justice system do what it will.
Because these types of cases generally happen in the home and without witnesses - most perpetrators aren't stupid enough to pop the victim/survivor in public - there is a phenomenal amount of pressure on the survivor as the sole witness: "Come on, it's not like you're dead or have any broken bones or anything. It was a stupid mistake, do you really want to ruin their life? It's never going to happen again, you know that. Besides, there was alcohol involved, no one was thinking straight. And it's not like you didn't do some pretty nasty things yourself to set this all off. . . . "
It's worse if kids are involved, particularly if the perpetrator was the breadwinner. Note how the excuses go: minimizing, denying, deflecting the blame for the behavior onto alcohol, circumstances, the victim, when no one but a perpetrator chose to commit the crime. Not a "mistake." A crime.
The victim "made you" do it? I see, so they must have picked up your arm, held it to their own throat and squeezed to the point of passing out? They held a gun to your head and said "punch me repeatedly or I'll shoot?" Hmmm. . . I don't think I buy that.
Every excuse in the book is used to make the charge seem stupid, pointless, or just a darn bad idea. Breaking up? You shouldn't testify because it was just a bad, volatile relationship, the chemistry between you was explosive. It'll never happen again, why don't you just move on with your life?
Staying together? Well, they love you now. They've really learned the lesson this time. See? They're going to get counseling, stop drinking, send you flowers. It's never going to happen again. Why not just let us move on with our lives? Do you really want to spend the next year being tied to the court system, paying hundreds of dollars for batterer's classes? With the money we save on fines, I'll take you on a nice cruise, babe.
What's worse is that this attitude is amplified and repeated by society at large. What did the lawyer say about Pierce's admittedly stealing a cell phone and making 80 phone calls to the survivor/witness in order to "fix" the situation?
"When Pierce finally arrived, Parrish admonished him for violating the no-contact order.
"Why the hell would you engage in this?" Parrish said he asked Pierce, calling the act "juvenile" and "stupid." But Parrish asked Hulse not to restrict Pierce, a "fine young man," from finishing his junior year of college.
"I think he should be given an opportunity ... to take his finals," Parrish said."
Yeah, sure, you might think, but that guy's his lawyer. He's paid to make Pierce look good. It's typical for the lawyer to downplay the criminal nature of the charges by making his client out as "juvenile" and "stupid," read: harmless. Nothing to see here, folks. This couldn't be a batterer. He's just stupid.
But of course, the Judge, the courts, the rest of society takes domestic violence issues very, very seriously. Right?
Uh-huh. Okay, so explain to me this: according to Iowa law, a violation of a no-contact order results in a mandatory minumum seven day sentence:
236.14 Initial appearance required - contact to be prohibited - extension of no-contact order.
Violation of this no-contact order, including modified no-contact orders, is punishable by summary contempt proceedings. A hearing in a contempt proceeding brought pursuant to this section shall be held not less than five and not more than fifteen days after the issuance of a rule to show cause, as set by the court. If held in contempt for violation of a no-contact order or a modified no-contact order, the person shall be confined in the county jail for a minimum of seven days. A jail sentence imposed pursuant to this paragraph shall be served on consecutive days. No portion of the mandatory minimum term of confinement imposed by this section shall be deferred or suspended. A deferred judgment, deferred sentence, or suspended sentence shall not be entered for violation of a no-contact order or a modified no-contact order, and the court shall not impose a fine in lieu of the minimum sentence, although a fine may be imposed in addition to the minimum sentence.
This is mandatory. It is not negotiable. If you're a prosecutor with a crap case and want to try for a plea deal, the best you can do is try to fudge an amendment into the statute on a civil no-contact order violation, which arguably doesn't require the seven days. It's not really accurate, some judges won't let you do it, but it can sometimes be done if you've got a very shaky case.
Here, you've got an admitted violation, from what I understand. Not contested, admitted. 80 times. In one day. On a stolen phone. No evidentiary problems, even if he did try to contest it. A clear violation of the law. The underlying case isn't some misdemeanor slap with a slight reddening as the injury. It's a freaking class B felony. But somehow, the court, the prosecutor, and apparently the press have decided it's no big deal. What do they give him? An ankle bracelet, a freaking curfew, and an order to refrain from going into bars. As if it was the bar's fault. Yep. Didya ground him from TV, too?
WTF????
Why weren't witness-tampering charges filed? Why was he not found in contempt and sentenced to at least one seven-day stretch? I know it was a bond review hearing, but I don't see any contempt hearing being set on these, and the paper implies it's done.
I don't know whether it was a plea deal or the judge's idea, but it smacks of political posturing at its worst.
Of course, this is also fitting:
Why do I get the feeling he'll fit in rather well in his chosen career?
NOTE: I'm aware I've grammatically murdered this post by using "they" as a singular pronoun. But it was simply too cumbersome to use he/she or his/her that often, and I want to avoid gender stereotyping pronouns in discussing the issue. Besides, I think we should just canonize the whole use of "they" as singular and be done with it. Easier, and we can all just move on.
No comments:
Post a Comment