Florida attorney convicted for representing teenage victim under Marsy’s Law

Arrested for interference with child custody and tampering with victim / State took his client and interrogated her / Judge granted emergency shelter from parents because they hired her attorney

• Sheriff’s Office demanded to question teenage female victim without her attorney

• When she and her attorney refused their demand, the State declared emergency custody

• Attorney was arrested for interfering with child custody and tampering with a victim

• Detectives interrogated the girl about her attorney’s legal advice

• County Judge ruled it was neglectful for parents to hire attorney for their daughter

• DCF investigator made false claim that attorney struck her with his car

• State Attorney recommended arrest against his political rival and added a charge

PANAMA CITY, FL - A Florida Marsy’s Law attorney is scheduled to be sentenced Friday after being convicted on Jan. 30 for interfering with the lawful custody of his own client, a teenage sexual assault victim he was representing at a voluntary forensic interview.

Hoot Crawford was also convicted of tampering with a victim for advising his client not to talk with authorities without his presence. The case is in the 14th Judicial Circuit of Florida.

The girl’s parents had retained Crawford in 2022 after they grew concerned by the confrontational behavior of detectives from the Bay County Sheriff’s Office. 

Under Marsy’s Law, a crime victim has the right for an attorney to advocate for them at all times. Florida’s Constitution also applies protection to the victim’s attorneys so they can vigorously represent their clients. 

Article I, Section 16(e):

Background and context of events that occurred in 2022

The 16-year-old girl lived in Bay County with her mom, stepdad, and younger siblings. Her biological father went to prison for sexually abusing her when she was a little girl in Tennessee. 

On Thursday, April 28, she told her online therapist about an incident during the family vacation to Utah in February. The girl said that her 18-year-old brother tried to pick a fight and threatened to rape her. She also said that her brother had molested her when they lived in Tennessee more than seven years ago.

After her therapy session, she told her parents what she had just said. Her parents were shocked, but the girl didn’t want to discuss details. She was crying, and she left the house with her friend against her parents’ directions. Her parents got in their car and went looking for her. 

Her friend’s mom worked at the law firm that represents the Sheriff’s Office. She found out about the situation that afternoon and notified authorities. Patrol Deputy Chelsea Drexler was dispatched, and she questioned the girl for about an hour. 

When the deputy realized that all of the allegations occurred in other states, she called her supervisor, Corporal Angel Huyke. He explained to the deputy that it wasn’t in their jurisdiction. They could gather information and send it to authorities in Tennessee, but they weren’t legally authorized to do anything else.

Sheriff detectives took over and investigated anyway. Under deposition, Detective Jake Roberts said they never contacted anyone in Tennessee.

The girl had told Deputy Drexler that her brother was coming to visit for a week. She was distraught, and afraid to be alone because of suicidal thoughts. To prevent the girl from hurting herself, the deputy invoked the Baker Act and allowed her parents to take her to Emerald Coast Behavioral Hospital.

Four days later, on Monday, a doctor released the girl to her parents. On their way back, Detective Trey Fondren was already calling her mom on the phone.

When they arrived home, a deputy was waiting at the front door. He told the girl’s mom that she needed to call Detective Fondren right away. 

The girl was terrified. Her mom, who has four younger children and was struggling with a high-risk pregnancy, told the deputy she would call after she got everyone settled in.

The girl’s mother described the stressful situation in her deposition.

Within an hour, Detective Fondren was banging on their front door and began questioning the girl’s mom. He accused her of child neglect and threatened to arrest her and take all of her children.

When she began recording on her cellphone, Detective Fondren left and called the Department of Children and Families from his vehicle to report that he had just seen the brother enter the home, which was untrue. 

Confrontation at the Children’s Advocacy Center

The next day, on Tuesday, the parents retained Crawford as their daughter’s Marsy’s Law attorney. Crawford contacted the Gulf Coast Children’s Advocacy Center and scheduled a voluntary forensic interview for Friday.

The stated purpose of the interview was for the girl to feel safe enough to disclose any neglect, abuse, or abandonment she might be experiencing. Authorities also said they needed to provide therapy from the advocacy center in order to ensure her safety. 

When she arrived with Crawford and her parents, they were met by Chief Operating Officer Brent Patrick, a former detective with the Sheriff’s Office. He was with Victoria Hamilton, the case manager for the advocacy center’s Child Protective Team. Detective Fondren joined them.

They said Hamilton needed to interview the girl alone, according to the advocacy center’s handbook. Crawford had promised the girl he would stay by her side, and she didn’t want to be interviewed without him. She viewed him as a “grandfatherly protector.”

Under deposition, Hamilton acknowledged that the girl wanted Crawford present inside the interview room.

Frustrated, Detective Fondren began questioning the girl about what she had told Deputy Drexler the week before. The voluntary interview had morphed into a law-enforcement interrogation at the advocacy center, and the girl felt ambushed.

Crawford told them to stop frightening the girl, and he let them know that he didn’t appreciate the bait-and-switch. She had invoked her right to an attorney as a victim under Marsy’s Law, and Crawford refused abandon her.

The detective called his supervisor, Lt. Jeremy Mathis, who confronted Crawford in a room with a video-only camera overhead. Crawford began recording audio on his cellphone as the two men stood over him.

At this time, the girl was with her parents in a nearby room down the hall. 

Lieutenant Mathis scolded Crawford for not looking out for the girl’s best interest, and accused him of interfering with their investigation. When Crawford asked if the girl was obligated to answer their questions, Lt. Mathis replied, “In a child molestation investigation, it would be nice if she would answer questions.”

Increasingly aggravated, Lt. Mathis asked, “Do we need to call DCF to shelter that child? Remove y’all from the CAC, her parents, yourself included from the CAC? And then get an order to do an interview with her? Because we can do that all this afternoon if we need to.”

Under deposition, Lt. Mathis couldn’t recall if Crawford asked him what authority they had to force the girl to answer their questions. He also couldn’t recall asking Crawford if he needed to get a court order.

State declares emergency custody

The conversation ended as Lt. Mathis opened the door and they left the room.

The raised voice of Lt. Mathis had been overheard by the parents and the girl, who was now crying. Crawford conferred with the girl and her parents, and they all left the building. 

Lieutenant Mathis acknowledged under deposition that they were free to leave.

Lieutenant Mathis had already called DCF supervisor Beau Whitfield and urged the state to take emergency custody. While on speaker phone, the supervisor directed DCF Investigator Christine Revels to track the girl down and take emergency custody.

By the time Revels got to the parking lot, the parents were driving away to speak with their own attorney. Revels told Crawford that she was sheltering the girl into state custody immediately. This was the first time Crawford had ever seen Revels. 

Revels said she was transporting the girl to the local DCF office. Crawford agreed, and said he was staying with her. He and his client got in the backseat of Revels’ car.

Before Revels got into the driver’s seat, she received a call from a DCF supervisor directing her to keep the girl at the advocacy center so the detectives could do an emergency interrogation.

Revels opened the car door and explained the sudden change of plans to Crawford. Unbuckling his seatbelt, Crawford asked if she had obtained a court order to take the girl yet. When she said no, they got out of the car.

Crawford said, “I’m asking you very kindly to get a judge to order it. I’ll be at my office. She’ll be there with me.”

They began walking across the parking lot toward his car. Revels followed, insisting that the girl was now in State custody, and told them not to leave.

Crawford repeatedly told Revels that they would be waiting at his office located within a mile from the advocacy center.

In an effort to prevent them from leaving, Revels stood directly behind Crawford’s parked car. Crawford backed up a couple feet, stopped, and then drove forward over the parking curb and headed to his office.

Revels told authorities that Crawford had struck her with his vehicle. But that wasn’t true, as security video shows otherwise. As Crawford shifted into drive, she shuffled two steps toward the car. Showing no indication of being struck, she walked briskly in and out of the advocacy center while carrying a heavy bag. 

The next day, on Saturday, Revels attended the shelter hearing via Zoom to obtain the custody order. Two days later, she went to the emergency room claiming that she was injured. After that, Revels received worker’s compensation benefits for five months. 

Local news outlets reported that Crawford had kidnapped the girl and hit a DCF investigator with his car as he fled the scene. WMBB-TV’s Tom Lewis emphasized that Crawford had previously run for office, but didn’t mention his intentions to run against Basford for State Attorney.

Crawford commissioned a forensic survey showing Revels’ position in relation to his car. She was standing about three feet from his car.

Arresting the attorney and questioning the victim

When Crawford drove out of the parking lot, Lt. Mathis and Detective Fondren gave chase. They pulled him over just a few blocks from his office. Crawford was still recording audio on his cellphone.

He rolled his window up and asked Lt. Mathis for a supervisor. Instead, they were detained in the vehicle for an hour-and-a-half while waiting for the emergency court order.

That’s when Lt. Mathis called the prosecutors’ office and spoke with State Attorney Larry Basford who was with two of his assistant state attorneys.

The top elected prosecutor recommended Crawford’s arrest for interfering with the lawful custody of a child, leaving the scene of a crash with injury, and reckless driving.

Basford’s prosecutor later added the charge of tampering with a victim. It was known that Crawford had expressed interest in running against him for State Attorney.

When notified of the signed court order, Crawford told his client that it was time to get out of his car. He was arrested by Detective Fondren, and she was taken back to the advocacy center to be interviewed by Hamilton.

The girl denied her own previous allegations against her brother, telling Hamilton that she was “mentally unstable” at the time she made them to Deputy Drexler.

Meanwhile, Detective Roberts was down the hall watching a livestream of the interview. When Hamilton finished, he went in and began questioning the girl about her allegations and Crawford’s legal advice.

Under deposition, Detective Roberts admitted that he didn’t notify the girl about her right to an attorney.

That night, the State sheltered the girl at the same friend's home whose mom worked at the Sheriff’s law firm. Detectives Fondren and Roberts pursued the girl over the weekend. They showed up twice over the next five days and continued probing her without an attorney.

Neither her parents nor her attorney were notified of these interrogations.

Shelter hearing and Review hearing

The next morning, on Saturday, County Judge Joe Grammer granted the State’s shelter petition without any sworn testimony to support allegations against the parents.

Authorities accused her parents of failing to protect her, causing mental distress, and not ensuring her safety at home.

Though not part of the State’s allegations, Judge Grammer was visibly angry at the girl’s parents for hiring an attorney to represent her at the advocacy center. He called it “unacceptable.”

Judge Grammer blatantly disregarded Florida Statute 39.013, which governs the judicial branch’s proceedings relating to children.

It’s unknown if Judge Grammer had spoken with Lt. Mathis, who had mocked the idea that the girl was Crawford’s “client” during their confrontation at the advocacy center.

When deposed, Lt. Mathis said that hiring Crawford was an example of parental neglect.

Judge Grammer also prohibited the parents from having any contact with their daughter until after the following week’s review hearing. The Judge issued this order without required sworn testimony of parental abuse, which was never even alleged.

Six days later, on Thursday, Circuit Judge Russell Roberts reviewed and upheld Judge Grammer’s shelter order, again without any sworn testimony as required by law to support the allegations against the parents.

It wasn’t until June 30 that the State returned the girl home to her parents. She was kept under DCF supervision until December 16. 

Public records can be found by searching for case number 221938CF at the Bay County Clerk of Court website for State of Florida v. Billy Joe Crawford.

---

NEXT: Part two of this three-part series will cover The Trial.

The Judge, who scrolled Facebook on his cellphone and texted extensively during witness testimony, permitted the State to pierce attorney-client privilege for evidence to prosecute Count One: Tampering with a victim.

The Judge also refused to allow Crawford to question the legality of the State’s emergency custody for Count Two: Interfering with the lawful custody of a child. The jury was instructed to return a guilty verdict if they believed Crawford had heard the DCF investigator say that she was sheltering the child into State custody before he left the advocacy center with his teenage client, a victim under Marsy’s Law.

Lieutenant Mathis, who called DCF to take emergency custody of the girl, told the jury that he never thought the girl was in danger from the alleged suspect. His testimony contradicted the entire pretext of the case.

Ten days before trial, the Judge told prosecutors that he’d be happy to report a “Richardson violation” to the State against Crawford’s law license. This discovery violation only applies to prosecutors and defense attorneys. Crawford was the defendant in this case, having never represented his own defense. Furthermore, prosecutors had already received the evidence in question two months earlier.