Judge scrolls Facebook, rules that authorities obtained lawful custody of teenage girl "whether they did or not did it." Then judge violates attorney-client privilege to convict her lawyer.

See previous article in this three-part series: "Florida attorney convicted for representing teenage victim under Marsy's Law"

PART 1: “Florida attorney convicted for representing teenage victim under Marsy’s Law”

PART 2 - Florida attorney Hoot Crawford’s defense strategy was strong and simple for the charge against him: The State had never obtained lawful custody of the child.

Count One: Interference with the lawful custody of a child

The child was his 16-year-old client. She was a sexual assault victim he was representing at the children’s advocacy center when detectives demanded to question her alone.

Frustrated at the girl’s lawyer, detectives convinced the Department of Children and Families to declare emergency custody of the girl and they arrested Crawford.

Crawford was prepared to show the jury that the State never obtained legal custody of the girl. But he never got the chance.

At the evidentiary hearing 10 days before trial, Judge Kelvin C. Wells refused to rule on the legality of the State’s custody.

Judge Wells ruled that the State had obtained lawful custody of the girl simply by doing it. He would not consider or allow evidence to the contrary.

“…just whether they did it or not did it.” - Judge Wells, Jan. 18, 2024

Crawford was prevented from showing the Court or the jury that that the State violated the law by taking the girl from her parents’ legal custody without imminent danger or a signed pick-up order from a judge.

The next day, County Judge Joe Grammer granted the State continued custody by sheltering her from her parents without sworn testimony required by law. The judge angrily said that hiring an attorney for their daughter was parental neglect.

Five days later, Circuit Judge Russell Roberts reviewed and upheld Judge Grammer’s ruling, again without sworn testimony to support allegations of parental neglect.

None of Crawford’s evidence was permitted in his defense because Judge Wells didn’t want to hear it during the evidentiary hearing. And he prohibited any mention of it during trial.

Judge Wells instructed the jury to find Crawford guilty if the following three conditions were met: (1) Crawford took the girl without lawful authority from the advocacy center; (2) The girl was under 18 years of age; and (3) The girl was in the lawful custody of the State. 

The six-person jury returned a guilty verdict in the two-day trial.

Count Two: Tampering with a victim

The jury also found Crawford guilty of tampering with a victim - his own client.

Though never naming the victim, prosecutors accused Crawford of talking over the girl when detectives questioned her at a voluntary interview at the children’s advocacy center.

Under deposition, Lieutenant Jeremy Mathis from the Bay County Sheriff’s Office explained his frustration at Crawford about two hours prior to arresting the girl’s attorney.

As evidence that Crawford tampered with an unnamed victim, prosecutors used audio snippets from Crawford’s cellphone when he conferred with his client at the advocacy center and later while they were in his car together.

Judge Wells cited a hearsay exception in order for prosecutors to pierce attorney-client privilege. They used out-of-context excerpts of Crawford’s conversations with his client as evidence against him during the trial.

The jury heard Crawford’s own audio recording of him talking with his client in the advocacy center’s parking lot. The DCF investigator told Crawford that the state had taken custody of the girl. Crawford said he was taking her to his nearby office where they would wait for a signed court granting emergency custody.

Merely hearing the DCF investigator’s declaration of state custody was sufficient for a conviction, according to Judge Wells’ jury instructions. 

Judge scrolled Facebook and exchanged text messages during witness testimony

Courtroom security video shows Judge Wells constantly grabbing his cellphone throughout witness testimony. He sends and receives text messages during the trial.

The judge even taps on pictures while scrolling Facebook and enhances them to get a better look. Several times, Judge Wells sustains or denies objections without missing a beat.

Here’s a sample of the judge on social media while Deputy Chelsea Drexler is answering questions from Crawford’s defense attorney.

When not on his cellphone, Judge Wells had trouble staying awake throughout witness testimony. The judge is seen dozing off when Crawford’s defense attorney is questioning Detective Trey Fondren.

Crawford is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Wells tomorrow in the Bay County Courthouse. The case is in the 14th Judicial Circuit of Florida.

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.

See Part One of this three-part series for background and context.