The Court recognizes that it very well may be impossible for the State to proceed to trial without presenting the testimony of the victim M.M. In order to establish the essential elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, the State would be required to delve into the details of the sexual relations between the Defendant and the alleged victim. Furthermore, the nature of the defense raised by the Defendant would require the victim's actions to be put at issue before the jury.
The Court also understands that the victim may be reluctant to testify at trial. Certainly, no 16-year-old male wants to be examined and cross-examined in a public forum regarding every minute detail of a sexual encounter, which very well may be viewed by some as entertainment. He would not want to discuss it with his parents, doctor, counselor, victim/witness advocate, or an attorney. In fact, this Court cannot comprehend any individual -- whether he is 15, 45, or 75 years old -- looking forward to discussing such an experience in public. Most likely no one who reads this order would voluntarily discuss a sexual experience that took place when he or she was 14 years old, especially if his or her partner was a former teacher. Indeed it would be strange if one were eager to discuss such an experience. Sex may sell books, movies, and magazines, but no one looks forward to discussing private sexual encounters in public. For most witnesses, especially victims of sexual offenses, testifying is an experience they would like to avoid. Rarely does one find a witness who enjoys testifying in a courtroom before a jury and being cross-examined by attorneys. The Court does not believe that the witnesses in this case are different from most witnesses in any other case. Moreover, the victim in this case is not a young child; he is now 16 years old. The effect a trial of this nature might have on young children (less than 12 years old) therefore is not a factor in this case.
The Court is not convinced that the parties have presented sufficient justification to accept the proposed plea agreement. The Court might have been more inclined to accept the proposed plea agreement if the Hillsborough County charges did not exist and the Defendant was facing charges only in Marion County. As it stands, the Court is unable to comprehend what is to be gained by a plea and concurrent sentence in Marion County. Likewise, the Court might have been more inclined to accept the proposed plea agreement had the parties presented additional evidence. First, it certainly would have been beneficial if the State or the defense had presented additional experts. Second, either party could have presented the testimony of a victim/witness advocate. There are victim/witness advocates available in the State Attorney's Office, the Ocala Police Department, and the Marion County Sheriff's Office. However, there has been no indication to this Court that any victim/witness advocate has worked with the victims or their families to prepare them for a trial in this case. Third, the investigating who interviewed the victim could have been called to testify regarding their impressions of his ability to give testimony, as could have assistant state attorneys Mr. Ridgway or Ms. Youmans. The Court has reviewed the probable cause affidavit and it does not appear that the victim had any difficulty describing the incidents in question to the investigating officers. Fourth, either party could have attempted to take the victim's deposition to demonstrate his difficulty in testifying. It appears that no depositions of either victim have been taken. Finally, the parties could have requested the Court meet with the victim in camera, as was done by the judge in Eversole v. Superior Court, 195 Cal. Rptr. 816 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).
Moreover, with the exception of Dr. Lazoritz (whose testimony is somewhat less than convincing), neither party has presented any testimony about the victim's need for professional counseling. When asked by the Court whether the victim M.M. needed counseling, Dr. Lazoritz stated, "[U]nfortunately, he is not the kind of young man who is a good candidate for verbal counseling. He is not a very verbal, talk-about-your-feelings kind of kid.... I don't know that he needs counseling right now. He needs to be able to play basketball in anonymity, and that's helpful for him." The Court might have been convinced to accept the proposed plea agreement if the State had offered the victim and his family professional counseling, in an effort to prepare them for trial, and such counseling was unsuccessful. However, that does not appear to be the case. Dr. Lazoritz's meeting with the victim for 90 minutes or less seems to this Court inadequate if the victim has in fact suffered mental damage as a result of the incidents in question.
