Dear Judge Maney,
I work with Matthews & Jones in Destin and practice criminal law in Okaloosa County. As you well know, discovery in criminal matters is fundamental to our justice system. When a person is accused of a crime, being able to conduct discovery is essential to finding the truth. New language added to HB 667 forbids an alleged victim’s deposition in cases where the accuser is identified as a 1) child victim of a sexual offense or 2) any victim who is intellectually disabled.
I was a prosecutor of crimes against children in the 14th Judicial Circuit for many years. I have repeatedly sent information to Senator Lauren Book seeking to protect children in the criminal system then and now, as my pro bono work is solely in representation of children who are named victims of trafficking and abuse.
The depo amendment to HB667 fails to effectively protect child or intellectually disabled victims and would create additional barriers to judicial efficiency. The language of the amendment requires the Court, before allowing such a deposition, to make a determination of “good cause” and the Court to consider, among other things, the “willingness of the victim to participate” in a depo, and also requires the Court to make written findings of fact supporting its decision in the record.
I do not need to remind you that the sanctions in these cases, among others, include mandatory life (in capital sexual battery cases), life or 25 years minimum mandatory followed by life as a sexual predator probationer (in a molestation on a child under 12 years of age case.) In cases resulting in such significant penalties, it would seem that the showing of good cause naturally follows such a charge. However, this depo amendment would potentially require additional evidentiary hearings – requiring testimony of any named victim.
Attempts to drum up support for this bill by calling it a bill only “limiting depositions” and identifying “worst case scenarios” as fodder to promote blanket prohibition on depositions without evidentiary findings by a Court is disingenuous. These scare tactics should exemplify to lawmakers only that prosecutors are dropping the proverbial ball during depositions. The Florida Constitution and Marsy’s law have protections in place that are not being implemented. Additionally, the children’s advocacy centers and state attorney’s offices in Florida have victim advocates assigned to these cases. Attorneys ad litem can and should be appointed to named victims. This bill does not protect victims, it delays justice for victims.
Finally, an amendment to the depo amendment was filed at the Senate level, Amendment Barcode 738394:
(6) A deposition may not be taken of a victim under 18 years of age in a sexual offense case or of a victim who has an intellectual disability without the presence of a circuit judge, a judicial magistrate, a certified circuit court mediator, or other magistrate officer appointed by the court.
Unfortunately, the amendment was not adopted in the Senate. If protection of the named victims was truly the goal, the above amendment would have resolved the problem in a judicially efficient and unbiased way without causing additional delays or exposure to the system by virtue of additional public hearings just to get a necessary deposition. Yet, it was not adopted. This depo bill does not belong in our criminal justice system. We need to use the protections existing in the law, not ignore them and make new law that will only delay justice for the named victims and defendants.
Please vote NO on the Deposition Amendment in HB667.
Thank you – Christa Diviney