Through a Mother's Eyes Page 5

  “She’s a bad girl. Julie’s well-known around here,” the clerk said.

  The amount of court records the clerk handed to me was a staggering surprise. I had never before ventured into legal research and was amazed at what was available for review by absolutely anyone. Originally, I saw it as a tremendous invasion of privacy. But a friend of mine, a criminal attorney, later explained to me that the reason why all of these intimate details of one’s life are open for inspection was not to pry but rather so that “We the people”, the general public, can keep an eye on the judicial system. The intent is to keep the courts honest and out from under a cloak of secrecy where if left unchecked the “system” could punish us without any outside review. With that understanding in mind, I proceeded with my research. Inside the thousands of legal pages were the facts. Emotions, and her words, were what were missing. That would come later.

  “Case Number CR 96-13616––Murder” was written on the top of manila folder number one. I opened the folder and handwritten a the inside cover was “State orally announces waiver of death penalty.”

  It was cold in the room where I sat and read the pages. As I read, I thought back to the day it happened. I remembered watching the news as she was being arrested, her being escorted away from the scene in handcuffs. I remembered the reporters relaying the few scattered details they had at the time and all of their speculations as to why it had happened. I recalled it was a beautiful, bright, Central Florida day. Inside that cold, courthouse room with all of those documents surrounding me I wasn’t watching television or the Movie of the Week. I wasn’t inside a theater with stadium seating and Dolby sound. In my hands was the journal of the taking of a human life––the execution of a little boy by his own mother.

  The interrogation/interview began at 3:14 p.m. Julie was Mirandized by Detective Parks. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Miranda Warning in Miranda versus Arizona (1966). The court said that before the time of arrest and any interrogation of a person suspected of a crime, they have: the right to remain silent, and the right to counsel. And that if they cannot afford counsel the court will provide counsel. Also, that anything he or she said can and will be used against them in a court of law. In addition, if the person confesses to the authorities, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant was informed of these rights and waived them.

  Julie, under the influence of the Hydrocodone, Benadryl, Lopressor, bourbon and coke waived her rights. There was no legal counsel at her side.

  PARKS: Has anyone threatened you or promised you anything to get you to talk to me?

  JULIE: No.

  By the time the interrogation inside CID ended at 3:36 PM, Julie had confessed to taking Charley’s life.

  Detective Jon Parks completed the Orange County, Orlando Police Department’s Charging Affidavit: Case Number 96-369593; Court Case Number CR96-13616. The specific charge was First-Degree Murder per Florida State Statute 782.04. The evidence block listed audio and videotape. A narrative of the crime as Detective Parks understood it followed. He signed the affidavit and it was appropriately notarized.

  The Report of Autopsy by Deputy Chief Medical Examiner William R. Anderson, M.D. would be available as evidence after November 8. The Crime Scene Technicians would document and catalog the other evidence.

  There was ample “probable cause” that a crime had been committed. There was no need for a search warrant as the law enforcement officers were invited into her hotel room because of her call to 911. A majority of the evidence was gathered under the “plain view doctrine” which states that an officer may make a search and subsequent seizure of evidence without a search warrant if evidence of criminal activity is plainly viewable. And after hearing Julie’s confession, detectives Parks and Jones had all they needed for a conviction. Julie was confined at the Orange County Jail in Orlando. On November 25, the Grand Jury Indictment was filed in open court.

  From Julie’s statements made during the interrogation, Detective Randolph conducted an investigation into charges of “Obtaining a Controlled Substance by Fraud”

  A detective spoke with the pharmacists who released the prescriptions on various occasions to Julie. He showed each of them a photo line-up with Julie’s picture included and each time she was identified as the suspect. He also contacted the doctor’s offices that Julie misrepresented she was from. Each of the office managers stated that they had received several complaints about Julie obtaining prescriptions by fraud. Sadly, and even unconscionably, no one had ever called and alerted the police.

  Detective Randolph completed Charging Affidavits for the following dates: September 12 and 24, October 4, and November 5 and 6 of 1996. Julie is charged with “Trafficking in 14 grams or more of Hydrocodone (Lorcet or Vicodin) (F1-L8)”, and “Obtaining or attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud.”

  Julie was officially arrested for the crimes while already incarcerated and awaiting trial for murder. Emaciated by the Vicodin and weighing only ninety pounds, Julie would stand before Judge Michael F. Cycmanick, Circuit Judge of the 9th Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida. Mr. Lawson Lamar, State Attorney led the state’s case with Assistant State Attorney Dorothy Sedgwick.

  Julie originally had a state appointed defense attorney, but Chuck insisted she use criminal defense attorney Mark O’Mara. He had previous experience with capital murder cases involving the death penalty. After repeated visits to the jail, Julie finally agreed.

  STONE: I was told that Chuck rallied to you after November 6.

  JULIE: Yes, he did, he sure did.

  STONE: And why would he do that?

  JULIE: Well, he... I think Chuck understood probably... Well, Chuck is the only one who came, I guess, fairly close to understanding maybe what was going through my head. And, uh, in his own way he felt responsible for a lot of it happening. Ultimately that, and he, uh, had a lot of guilt. And, he also knew that I loved Charley more than anything in the world. And, he knew that what I did was not out of any kind of anger, or meanness, or any, uh, reasons like that. He knew that there were some deep-seeded reasons that revolved around him. And, uh, so yes he did, um, as a matter-of-fact...

  Julie never contested her guilt. All she wanted to do was plead guilty and accept her punishment. All she ever really wanted was for Charley “to be safe.” In her mind he was in heaven and very safe. And she simply wanted to be with him. Nothing mattered to her anymore except Ashley who was only twelve at the time.

  A motion was put forth before the court on November 11 for Julie to be able to attend a private viewing at Baldwin, Fairchild Funeral Home in Goldenrod, Florida. Although an unusual motion under the circumstances and stage of a murder case, Judge Cycmanick realized the facts of the case supported the certainty that Julie’s taking of Charley’s life was not due to malice, or anger toward him. Judge Cycmanick allowed the motion.

  Sheriff deputies escorted Julie to the funeral home for the obvious reason but also to keep the media away which of course was nearly an impossible task. They also escorted her because there was concern at the time that it would be an opportunity for Chuck to exact revenge on her for murdering his son. That anticipated fear, however, was never realized. Both parents were kept separated during the viewing. Julie was allowed time alone with Charley while the deputies and her attorney remained at a distance within the room.

  On November 21, O’Mara, on behalf of Julie who was not present, entered a “Not Guilty” plea in Judge Cycmanick’s courtroom. A Notification of Exercise of Rights was presented. These requests grew out of our rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the first ten amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. In this particular case, references are made to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments.

  The above requests appeared academic as the police had already interviewed Julie and collected enough evidence to convict her. The police did request a handwriting sample so it could be compared with the notes she left that night in the room.
But the Notification of Exercise of Rights was presented because it was her legal right to do so and O’Mara was bound by the law and ethics to protect her.

  December 10, 1996, O’Mara attended Julie’s formal court Arraignment. Julie was in jail reliving the nightmares of what she had done and suffering the pains of addiction withdrawal. O’Mara entered a written plea of “Not Guilty.” A trial date was set for the 3rd day of March 1997.

  On November 7, 1997, Julie was placed on full suicide precautions in the jail where she was being held. Slashes to her left wrist from the previous night were dry and clean with no drainage noted. She is distraught over the death of Charley and is prescribed Prozac and Rispherdal for her depression. She is treated two days later for infections on her feet caused by the broken glass found inside the hotel room.

  By December 1997, while still in her jail cell, Julie reports to the jail psychiatrist that she hears Charley’s voice talking to her. The jail staff reports on March 15 that her eating habits are irregular, that she cries a good part of the time, stares into space, and she is not sleeping. She shakes uncontrollably. She is prescribed Prozac, Rispherdal, Depacote, and Desyrel. It is her birthday.

  In light of Julie’s deteriorating condition and the fact that she was under suicide watch, O’Mara petitioned the court to order a pre-trial psychiatric examination. Judge Cycmanick heard the motions and would later decide whether he was going to so order.

  Chuck visited Julie in jail during this time and reported her remarks to “be with Charley.” Her parents were at home desperately trying to piece together what went wrong with their daughter Julie. Donald’s health was severely failing. There was an ample supply of self-examination for everyone.

  O’Mara continued with his client’s defense despite the fact that she had no will to live. He filed a Motion for Insanity Defense on December 23.

  When the trial finally convenes, he will have to prove that Julie suffered a severe mental illness such that she could not distinguish fantasy from reality, suffered from uncontrollable impulsive behavior, or suffered from a psychosis. He will also be required to prove that her insanity is not due to mental deficiency because of age or some type of injury, or because of lack of intelligence.

  The court uses the McNaughten Rule as its guide to determine whether the defendant was legally insane or knew the difference between right and wrong at the time they committed the offense. The name references a notorious English assassin tried in English courts during the early 1800’s. If it is proven that the defendant was unable to distinguish right from wrong then the court has to find that there could not be criminal intent. As a result, the defendant would be placed in a psychiatric facility rather than in prison. A trial would take place if the defendant were once again declared sane.

  The Motion for Psychiatric Examination was so ordered by the court and the State supplied Drs. Robert G. Kirkland, Daniel Tressler, and Richard A. Greer. The examination report is ordered due by February 10.

  A Motion for Records to include in-patient drug treatments, drug abuse history, divorce records, normal medical records of the defendant, family history, domestic violence records/files, and criminal case history is made on March 31 by the defense. Also, a petition for a sequestered jury is made because of the amount of pre-trial publicity surrounding the case.

  March 26, O’Mara petitioned the court to consolidate the murder, child abuse, trafficking, and fraud cases. Judge Cycmanick orders a new trial date of April 4, 1997. Several Motions of Continuance are made throughout mid-year and are granted as the defense continues to prepare. A new date for trial is set for October 20.

  O’Mara finds that Julie’s defense, even on insanity, will be a mountain that may not be easily climbed. He has photographs of the severe beatings Julie endured from the domestic violence and photos of the bruises caused by Chuck’s spanking of Charley.

  In addition, he has defense investigators piece together a time line of Julie’s tragic life––the forced abortions, the forced nude dancing, the history of prescription fraud and abuse, statements by the witnesses of her disorientation and confusion after her failed suicide attempt. There were her statements about her deep rooted fears that she could no longer control her addiction and could not leave Charley behind to endure what she had with Chuck. He also had Chuck’s cooperation and deposition.

  O’Mara knew that the state and defense psychiatrists were evenly split over the fact as to whether or not Julie was insane at the time of the murder. It would be difficult to show the autopsy photographs of Charley’s wounds to a jury and convince them to free her in light of the fact that it took a minimum of an hour and a half for Julie to complete the act.

  But the question remained whether or not he had enough to keep Julie out of prison for the rest of her life. O’Mara never once doubted Julie’s love for Charley. He never once doubted her truthfulness or that in her mind she was doing the right thing as wrong as he knew that choice to be. He believed that psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Danzinger was correct in his finding that Julie was delusional and psychotic at the time of the murder. There was no doubt in his mind that Julie required hospitalization and not incarceration for what she did.

  It was a difficult juncture for Julie and her attorney. The dominant opinion was that Julie’s chances of being hospitalized were slim to none. After great soul searching it was decided that if Julie didn’t plea out she would almost certainly receive a life sentence without any chance for parole.

  I asked Julie if she agreed with the insanity defense strategy.

  JULIE: Well, I guess I looked at it this way. I don’t know if I really considered myself insane. I think it was more like I said; I was in an absolute blind panic. I was scared. I was scared for Charley. I feel that any mother does anything to a child like that, there has to be something dreadfully wrong. And, I guess it is an insane thing to do to somebody that you absolutely love. But like I said, I, uh, by the time that I was in jail I, I did not care if they gave me a life sentence, or if they never waived the death penalty. I just honestly, I didn’t care. I wanted to die. And I still want to die.

  It was decided that Julie plead guilty to second-degree Murder and to the trafficking and fraud counts. Julie adamantly refused to plea to the second count Aggravated Child Abuse.

  JULIE: That charge was dropped! I would never cop to that and I told him [O’Mara] never! I said I would go to trial and fry before I would ever allow that! So no, I wasn’t sentenced under that! Anytime a child killing takes place, everyone automatically assumes “abuse” or “child abuse.” I will assume full responsibility for drug abuse and for taking Charley’s life. But never would I let go any accusations of abuse! I never so much as spanked my children! I made a moral decision––a poor one––with a very distraught mind!

  On October 30, 1997, in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Court, in Orange County, Florida, defendant Julie stood with her counsel Mark O’Mara before the Honorable Judge Michael F. Cycmanick. She pled guilty to “Possession of a Controlled Substance” and “Obtaining a Controlled Substance by Fraud.” She was adjudicated guilty on both counts and received a sentence of thirteen months in the Department of Corrections with credit for 332 days time served.

  At 11:13 AM, on the same day and in the same courtroom, defendant Julie, born in Indianapolis, Indiana, thirty-three years earlier pled guilty to Murder in the Second Degree.

  There was no pleading of insanity or temporary insanity––a defense argument that states one is briefly insane at the time of the crime and therefore incapable of knowing the nature of their criminal act. And there was no claim made of diminished capacity, a psychological concept as well as a court term meaning that although one is not insane at the time of the act they are, however, incapable of comprehending the nature of their actions. Emotional distress, physical condition, or other factors affect their behavior.

  There was no contention of extenuating circumstances that would make the crime seem less serious or without criminal inten
t thus warranting a more lenient punishment. There was no need for a jury to decide reasonable doubt or beyond a reasonable doubt of Julie’s guilt. Julie did not need to be judged guilty by a jury of her peers. She accepted her guilt and punishment.

  Judge Cycmanick again adjudicated her guilty and then sentenced her to twenty-five years inside a female correctional facility in the State of Florida. The drug convictions were to run concurrently. He remanded her to the custody of deputies. The date of the sentencing was just seven days short of one year since Charley died.

  STONE: Is the sentence enough?

  JULIE: To me, I have a life––it’s a life sentence. I have a life sentence. It doesn’t matter where I do my time––inside or outside. I’m not going to feel any better or any different. Right now, I probably feel better here. On the outside, no, I, I couldn’t be there right now. I think it’s enough time because it’s when I’ve done my twenty-one years, or my twenty-five, I’m still going to be doing my time...until I’m where I want to be. Chuck said, “I don’t think there’s anything that anybody could do to her in the judicial process that would be any harder on her than she’s going to be in her own heart and mind.”

  On June 7, 1995, Julie sat on the witness stand in a Plea and Sentencing Hearing conducted by the Honorable Dorothy J. Russell for another offense. Before sentencing Julie, Judge Russell made the following statement:

  “I think the woman’s got a lot of ability and good future if she could stay off of these medications and drugs.”

  4

  Here, we look at the medical professionals directly involved with the case followed by current psychiatric and mental health information that is available on the subjects of depression and “filicide.”