By Monica Velez
On the night of August 28, 2014, the defendant, Armando Ortega, got into a dispute that led to alleged physical altercations with his wife regarding text messages that made him believe she was having an affair. Ortega’s wife was called to the stand to testify, having already been called once before and having refused to testify.
The morning in the courthouse on February 9, 2016, started off with Judge Janene Beronio giving Ortega’s wife another chance to testify, after she had ordered her to see counseling, warning her she could be held in contempt if she chose not to testify.
Ortega’s wife was still not prepared to testify and refused to answer any questions. Judge Beronio clearly explained that she was standing in direct violation of the court orders, and made sure she understood she could be penalized for it. After a long pause, the judge explained that she had no other choice but to hold her in contempt, giving Ortega’s wife a fine of $500 and 50 hours of community service.
Similarly to Mrs. Ortega, two of her children, who witnessed some of the events that led up to the 911 calls on August 28, were called to testify. They both refused to answer some questions, the judge having to order them to answer because they refused to answer.
Their son had seen the incident happen in their home, hearing his dad yelling at his mom in the living room about text messages. As Ortega started to yell, his wife began backing up, ending in the kitchen, where Ortega pushed her aggressively.
The son said he felt scared because he did not know what to do and was looking for the phone to call 911. He said he saw his mom trip over a chair and fall to the floor, and that is when Ortega backed off and the fight ended.
Their daughter only got through two questions, which the judge ordered her to answer, before she made it clear to Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays she was not going to testify.
The judge suggested that the daughter talk to counsel, and, after a few minutes with Deputy Public Defender Dave Muller, she still did not want to testify or be a part of the trial.
The judge, not having had a minor refuse to testify before, decided that her testimony would be relevant to the case despite Defense Attorney Erica Graves’ efforts to argue that her testimony would have no relevance. The judge ordered the daughter to attend counseling at least twice before the trial starts and to appear on the trial date – if she still decides not to testify, she will have to go through contempt proceedings.
Mrs. Ortega, her son and her daughter were all ordered back to court the first day of the trial, March 7, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. A trial readiness conference will be on March 2, 2016 at 8:30 a.m.
First, my thanks to Monica for covering an issue I see as of major importance ….. domestic violence and how best to address it.
I have a question and a comment.
Is it true that Judge Beronio “ had no other choice but to hold her in contempt, giving Ortega’s wife a fine of $500 and 50 hours of community service.” or does she have some judicial discretion in whom to charge with contempt ?
If she has discretion in whom to charge with contempt, then I would posit that she is using poor judgement in punishing the clear victims in this situation, the wife and children.
If it is true that she has no choice, and that this lack of discretion is the true cause of punishment for the wife and children, then we have a systemic problem of judicially further victimizing the victims. Not being sophisticated with regard to our legal system, I do not pretend to be able to offer a solution but am merely pointing out an issue that I feel needs to be addressed.
I don’t know the law well enough to answer your question Tia. My understanding is that for a long time prosecutors wouldn’t try DV cases because the woman once she was out of immediate danger wouldn’t want to testify. To remedy that, they have ways to put pressure on women to testify. On the other hand, maybe this was a one-time issue and she simply didn’t want to get teh police involved. These are tough balancing acts and of course the prosecution wants to go all in whenever it’s a DV case as many women end up unprotected and vulnerable – but justice is rarely one-size-fits all.
Thanks Pugilist,
“These are tough balancing acts and of course the prosecution wants to go all in whenever it’s a DV case as many women end up unprotected and vulnerable – but justice is rarely one-size-fits all.”
Having lost a colleague to domestic violence a few years back, and having extricated myself from a marriage in which the emotional abuse escalated to one episode of involuntary detention in my own home leading to the abrupt termination of the marriage, I am keenly aware of the complexities of the issues involved. What I am not aware of is how to protect the victims without re-victimizing them.
Wish someone with the legal creds would weigh in on this one.
I only lived it, but you live after the first error in judgement by letting them back in. the first time should be the last, and the real victims are the children. the fact they testified, should be an indicator their parents are not good enough to walk them through life’s lesson, but will instead create another generation, cycle of violence. The parents have no courage to face their problems, fix them and be an example for the family, instead, the wife lies, or does not testify, and all of them go back to the Happy Home.
The fact this is a former CHP officer is testament that anyone can be stressed to this point, and he needs professional help instead of hiding it.
Take the kids out, forever. Don’t ever let them back. Or they will be the next victim, or perpetrator. Don’t give them to relatives, either. They usually have the same problem.
This is an example of the reasonableness and complexity of our laws, because the judge is ordering one spouse to testify against the other, which is only allowed if the spouse or children is/are the alleged victim(s). Some unscrupulous prosecutors might try charging a defendant with spousal abuse in order to elicit otherwise protected testimony relative to other charges.
“The fact this is a former CHP officer is testament that anyone can be stressed to this point, and he needs professional help instead of hiding it.”
Most studies show that cops beat their spouses at two to three times the average rate.
http://womenandpolicing.com/violencefs.asp
http://www.abuseofpower.info/Article_FBI.htm
Domestic violence is always complicated and difficult, and I think it is tragic how many women are hurt each year and how little protection is often provided. However, no matter what “the law” has to say about it, fining and enslaving (community service) a victim is a stupid call.
Napoleon Pig IV wrote:
> However, no matter what “the law” has to say about it, fining and enslaving
> (community service) a victim is a stupid call.
I agree and wonder why they are just going after DV victims since I have never heard of a fine for any of the people that night after night”dinseenuttin” and don’t “snitch” when they are crime victims…
Well, there is the presumption (as I recall) that a spouse cannot be compelled to testify… don’t know if that applies if the spouse is the complaintant…
Hi Napoleon….
Nice to hear from you.
“no matter what “the law” has to say about it, fining and enslaving (community service) a victim is a stupid call.”
I agree that the fining is stupid and punitive. I have mixed feelings on the community service. There are few better advocates and mentors for abused women than women who have themselves been abused. If community service helps even one woman save herself and/or her children, it is a small price to pay for declining to help by testifying.
Hi Tia,
You make a good argument about the value of women who have been abused working as advocates and mentors for women undergoing abuse or trying to escape from abuse. But, don’t you think such community service is likely to be far more effective when it is performed voluntarily? I can see certain types of community service making sense as a punishment designed to also help the community when someone has been convicted of a crime (picking up trash along the side of the road comes to mind), but the kind of service that requires sensitive and caring interaction with another person seems to be in a different category.
I suppose my strongest objection was the idea of re-victimizing the victim. My secondary objection is broader and applies to any and all attempts by government to compel a citizen to perform non-voluntary labor – such as a military draft or any other compulsory service. But, that’s beyond the scope of the current topic, so I’ll let it lie to be resurrected at some more appropriate point in the future.
If you consider the benign intervention of the State being “enslavement” and “re-victimizing the victim” then why not let these people alone? After all, he was a CHP officer, so he could just “take care of” a problem he is trained for, right?
Most people who get together and unfortunately make children met under less than optimum circumstances. When one of them gets sober, or matures somewhat, they often have problems like this. But many legal problems are sublimated by the desire to keep the child support coming, and the real victims continue to be victims, because they are not taken away from the morons that gave birth to them.
To anyone who is familiar with these situations, it is common to see this. If the officer lost his CHP job, then we will appear again as a local cop or a mall cop and who knows, your kid may be next for his violent tendency?
Note to VG: What Court? Family court? Criminal Court? I just wonder how children are called as witnesses against parents unless they are in their twenties. No ages are given either.
“… he will appear again as a local cop…” or a mall cop and who knows, your kid may be next for his violent tendency?”
Too true.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-fired-police-officers-often-end-up-back-on-the-job/
and this charming tidbit
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/01/143-mph-in-a-55-zone-while-dui-cops-union-want-him-rehired/
“Derrick Curtis Saunders, an off-duty Denver police officer with a passenger in his car, was stopped by the Colorado State Patrol in June of 2010. Troopers said Saunders was doing 143 mph in a 55 mph zone and they measured his blood alcohol content at 0.089, just over the legal limit of 0.08. One must wonder what would have happened had he been stopped by a fellow member of the Denver PD. Since it was the State Patrol, though, his home PD couldn’t ignore it. Saunders doesn’t deny he was drunk or that he was speeding excessively. In May of 2011 he plead guilty to reckless and impaired driving, paid a $300 fine, got 5 days in the county jail, and had to do 100 hours of community service. Subsequent to his conviction, the Denver police chief fired him, calling the officer’s actions “shocking”, “egregious misconduct”, and that they showed “a serious lack of character” and “a willful and wanton disregard” for department values.” Still, as shocking, egregious, serious and wanton as Saunders’ actions were, Denver Manager of Safety Alex Martinez, waited seven months after Saunders’ guilty plea and a full year and a half after his original arrest on DUI charges to fire him.
Now I could be wrong but I suspect that in most private sector jobs, if your employer found out that you got arrested for driving over 140mph drunk, you just might get fired and if you did get fired, you’d probably have no recourse through the courts. Most people are employed at will. If you did have a legal case, you’ll probably have to pay for your attorney out of your own pocket, and you certainly wouldn’t be on the payroll for 18 months while your boss decided whether or not to fire you.
Despite the fact that he admits he was triple digit speeding drunk, Saunders and his fellow cops, through their union, think he should be back on the job so he can potentially give you tickets for DUI….This is not the first time that Saunders had to be disciplined. In 2009 in he was suspended from the force after he was charged in Aurora, CO, again, by a police force other than his own, with felony menacing, prohibited use of a weapon, reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct, after he dropped the race card, flew into a rage and brandished his police firearm when a McDonald’s restaurant apparently took too long serving his order. Saunders was eventually acquitted of those charges….
His current appeal of his firing over the DUI arrest and conviction…argues that disciplinary action against Saunders was “unfounded and/or unsupported by the facts”. His firing, the appeal claims, was “disproportionate to the offenses alleged and/or is excessive so as to be punitive rather than corrective in nature.”
Next time you get a ticket, be sure to tell the cop who cites you and the judge who convicts you that any fine should be corrective in nature rather than punitive.