When the charges against Debra Lafave were filed, it was the opinion of all concerned that prison was the only appropriate sentence for her. This opinion was held by this office, the state attorney of the 13th Circuit, the parents of the victim and the victims themselves.As the prosecution of the case continued, the constant media attention began to wear on the victims and their families. The families began to express reservations about exposing the victims to publicly testifying in the matter.
As the first of the two trial dates approached, Court TV indicated they were going to broadcast the trial and would not agree to requests that would assure the victims' names were not made public. This caused great concern to the victims and their parents.
At about the same time, B.B., the secondary victim in the case, had his deposition taken (one of several factual errors in the court's order.) This experience, together with the decision of Court TV, caused the victims to approach the state attorney of the 13th Circuit with a request that a trial be avoided at any cost.
After extensive consultation with the victims, their families and this office, it was decided to make an offer to the defense that would avoid a trial. The only offer that was acceptable to the defense was a sentence that avoided prison for Ms. Lafave. The final offer included a lengthy list of conditions which provided protection for the public against any further criminal behavior by this defendant.
The plea was presented to a circuit judge of the 13th Circuit, along with an explanation of why it was being offered. This judge was aware of the case pending in Marion County and that a similar resolution of that case would be sought. This judge approved the agreement and accepted the plea and imposed the agreed upon sentence.
Expert Testimony
A hearing was scheduled to present the plea to Judge Stancil. In a meeting in his chambers before the hearing, Assistant State Attorney Stacy Youmans informed the judge of the proposed disposition. She also informed the judge of her meeting with victim M.M., and that he had a very difficult time even talking to her and expressed her concern about his ability to testify (a second factual error in the court's order.) Judge Stancil indicated that he did not see reason to depart from the guidelines, but indicated he would make an announcement in open court. After the meeting in chambers, the judge approached counsel for both sides as we were talking in the hallway and stated that if we had expert testimony to offer in support of our position, that the vicitms' best interests dictated this disposition, that his ruling would likely be different.
Media Publicity
The judge did not suggest that testimony from victim/witness advocates or others was necessary. In open court, with a large number of the media present, the judge announced that he would not accept the plea. After the hearing, the judge's decision received much media attention.A few media representatives, none of whom knew anything about the facts of the case, or the risk to the victim of proceeding with trial, congratulated the judge for his decision. There were two or three letters to the editor published in the local paper with a similar theme. Judge Stancil has made remarks making it clear that he is aware of this publicity.
Continue to Part Two of Statement
