Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defense may Backfire for Motorist (Baby Airbag Alert)
Akron Beacon Journal ^ | August 8, 2003 | Ed Meyer

Posted on 08/08/2003 8:33:25 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats

Defense may backfire for motorist Husband takes stand for breast-feeding defendant, says she was driving, nursing and talking on phone By Ed Meyer Beacon Journal staff writer

RAVENNA - Hoping to prove she was doing nothing wrong when she was breast-feeding her infant daughter while driving on the Ohio Turnpike, Catherine Donkers called her husband to the witness stand Thursday.

His testimony, however, may have backfired on both of them as the misdemeanor child-endangering case entered its second day in Portage County Municipal Court.

Brad L. Barnhill, Donkers' husband, testified that he was talking to his wife on her cell phone, directing her every move, before she pulled off the turnpike with the lights of a state trooper's cruiser flashing in her rearview mirror.

When Donkers finished her questioning, Prosecutor Sean P. Scahill practically shot out of his seat to cross-examine Barnhill.

``So,'' Scahill said, ``she was nursing your child, she was talking on the cell phone and she was driving down the turnpike?''

Barnhill, 46, paused and said: ``That would be a fair characterization.''

Donkers, 29, who is defending herself in the case, could be sentenced to six months in jail and fined $1,000 if she is convicted of the child-endangering charge, a first-degree misdemeanor.

She also was charged with driving without a license, failure to comply with the order of a police officer and other driving infractions.

It is a case that has drawn international attention because Donkers and Barnhill have claimed in their voluminous court filings that their actions should be governed by their ``strict religious beliefs.''

The principal tenet of their beliefs, to which Barnhill also testified, is that ``there can be only one public voice'' in their family and that, as such, Donkers ``must do what I say.''

Closing arguments

Judge Donald H. Martell, who is deciding the case without a jury, scheduled closing arguments for 9 this morning.

The judge, who has guided two days of questioning and testimony by both sides, gave Donkers a warning before adjourning.

``Let's try to take this evening to make that closing argument as short as possible,'' he said.

Twice during Thursday's proceedings, Martell had to stop testimony so that the two court reporters could reload their transcribing machines with paper.

``I think we're into another tree,'' he quipped.

In the afternoon, Martell permitted Donkers to make a statement from the witness stand because, acting as her own lawyer, she could not call herself as a witness.

It took 10 minutes, alone, for Donkers to state that she would tell the truth. She refused to take the sworn oath that the bailiff tried to read to her, she said, because it would be ``repugnant to my faith to swear an oath.''

She eventually promised to tell the truth, without swearing.

Under cross-examination by the prosecutor, Donkers gave even more details of what she was doing when she was talking to her husband with the trooper trailing her.

Donkers said she was taking notes -- on a piece of paper on the steering wheel of her Chrysler Sebring convertible -- for an unrelated court case in which she and her husband are involved.

``I had a piece of paper on the steering wheel, and I was writing something down -- with my right hand,'' Donkers said.

When Scahill asked her where her child was as she was doing that, she replied that the baby was ``nursing on the nursing pillow'' in her lap.

``So,'' Scahill said, ``now you're going down the turnpike, writing on a piece of paper... with your infant in your lap?''

She said she was.

Donkers had said earlier in her statement that she didn't believe ``any substantial risk was posed to my child'' by anything she did before the trooper finally stopped her car.

The stop was at a toll plaza, according to testimony, three miles after Trooper Adam M. Doles left the median to pursue Donkers' car.

A New York truck driver testified on the trial's first day that he called 911 to report the incident after seeing the baby in Donkers' lap.

Trip recounted

Donkers corroborated that testimony when she answered another of Scahill's questions about the events of May 8.

After crossing the line from Pennsylvania, Donkers said she stopped at the first Ohio rest area and fed the baby some formula with rice.

After that, she said, the baby was still hungry, so she put the child in her lap and ``drove along.''

She estimated she drove with the baby in her lap for about 40 minutes before the trooper got involved.

What would she have done if she needed to take evasive action?

``Probably hit the brake pedal,'' she told the prosecutor.

In what may have been her strongest defense, Donkers said she did not pull over immediately after seeing the trooper behind her because ``I wasn't going to place myself and my child in jeopardy by going off on the side of the road.''

To bolster that argument, Donkers entered into evidence a magazine from the Geico insurance company, noting a section called ``Ticket Etiquette,'' which advised drivers to slow down and pull over to a safe area if they feel their safety is at risk.

Her husband testified she had been assaulted twice before by police officers. Donkers, too, said she was afraid to pull over immediately for Doles because she had been ``twice sexually assaulted, once while I was unconscious.''

When she started to describe in detail what happened on those occasions, the judge stopped her in mid-sentence and said he did not need the ``minute details.''

``The court does not disbelieve that you've had difficulties with other individuals,'' Martell said.

While all this was going on, Donkers' mother was taking care of the baby girl in the hallway outside the courtroom, feeding her and taking her for walks in a stroller.

During testimony, Scahill managed for the first time to get Barnhill to state the baby's name, Seren, and to establish her date of birth as Nov. 18.

Donkers said during the lunch break that the child's name was Welsh for ``star.''

Donkers says her home was Michigan at the time of the traffic stop, though Barnhill had been staying in Pittsburgh for work. The car she drove had license plates from Michigan, where the child-restraint law has a nursing-baby exception.

She testified she had no driver's license from any state, and couldn't get one from Pennsylvania because she refuses to get a Social Security number.

Barnhill said the family has just moved to Hollywood, where he works for a California firm that helps people get out of debt.

``We got in the truck and moved to Beverly,'' he said during a break.

He told the judge he makes ``25 ounces of gold per month'' in his new job and that the cash equivalent was about $8,500 to $9,000.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: allornothinglosers; arnoldwillwin; goarnoldgo; keysters; losers4mcclintock; mcclintockistas; vote4arnold; winners4arnold
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
Driving on the Turnpike, nursing a baby, talking on a cell phone -- marvelous.
1 posted on 08/08/2003 8:33:26 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
If you care about the law, which many who comment on this case apparently do not, the nursing baby exception in her home state controls in Ohio, and that the cop had no reason to pull her over. The rest is prosecutorial grandstanding.
2 posted on 08/08/2003 8:39:27 AM PDT by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
It took 10 minutes, alone, for Donkers to state that she would tell the truth. She refused to take the sworn oath that the bailiff tried to read to her, she said, because it would be ``repugnant to my faith to swear an oath.''

Couldn't she just affirm the oath -- I do affirm that I will tell the truth...

Hey, it's Constitutional...

3 posted on 08/08/2003 8:41:13 AM PDT by jae471
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
But won't it be weird if it turns out this wasn't against the law, because it never occured to the Michigan legislator that the DRIVER would be nursing, changing, or otherwise carrying for a baby while driving!
4 posted on 08/08/2003 8:41:39 AM PDT by Tax-chick (GUNS - the anti-liberal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
the nursing baby exception in her home state controls in Ohio

What is your basis for that statement? I very much doubt that is so. If she is driving on an Ohio highway, she is bound to follow the traffic laws of Ohio.

5 posted on 08/08/2003 8:46:20 AM PDT by blau993 (Labs for love; .357 for Security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
"the nursing baby exception in her home state controls in Ohio
I was unaware of that. Not trying to argue, just don't understand how that could be so. If it is then how can I be stopped in Maryland (where the speed limit is 55 I believe) for doing 70, when the speed limit is 70 in Alabama? What is the difference?
6 posted on 08/08/2003 8:47:11 AM PDT by CCCV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
That may or may not be the case, if it is this woman proves the old adage regarding having a fool for a client (or is it a fool for a lawyer?).

These folks sound pretty looney to me. If this fellow really earns as much as he says, he should, as head of the family, pay the fine and be done with it.

I only hope these people never grace the public stage again, I'm afraid if they do it will be truly bad news, not just this silly stuff.

I'm from NYC originally, I know from crazy.
7 posted on 08/08/2003 8:48:55 AM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Driving on the Turnpike, nursing a baby, talking on a cell phone -- marvelous.

You missed one:

Under cross-examination by the prosecutor, Donkers gave even more details of what she was doing when she was talking to her husband with the trooper trailing her.

Donkers said she was taking notes -- on a piece of paper on the steering wheel of her Chrysler Sebring convertible -- for an unrelated court case in which she and her husband are involved.

``I had a piece of paper on the steering wheel, and I was writing something down -- with my right hand,'' Donkers said.

When Scahill asked her where her child was as she was doing that, she replied that the baby was ``nursing on the nursing pillow'' in her lap.

8 posted on 08/08/2003 8:51:23 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
The principal tenet of their beliefs, to which Barnhill also testified, is that ``there can be only one public voice'' in their family and that, as such, Donkers ``must do what I say.''

I'm going to keep this defense in mind next time I need one.

"I'm sorry officer, but my wife told me to get home in a hurry. And I'm shaving cuz she doesn't like my stubble. And she told me to have a beer cuz it relaxes me and makes me more personable."

9 posted on 08/08/2003 8:53:14 AM PDT by ibbryn (this tag intentionally left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blau993
There was a long thread some time ago in which Mr. Donkers posted Ohio and Michigan law.

This is the thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/932228/posts

And here is the post, #49 on that thread:

______________________________________________

The question is not: Is she crazy?
The question is: Should she be charged for doing something that is lawful?

What does the LAW say? or should we care?

1st, we take risks every day. Do we live our lives in fear or do we take reasonable risks? Whether or not you feel this is too great a risk is irrelevant. It is what she feels is a reasonable risk. At interstate speeds, it is unlikely that the child would have survived an accident even if the child were in a restraint.

2nd, do we govern our conduct based upon public opinion, or do we base our conduct on the written law?

Here is the Michigan law:
http://michiganlegislature.org/law/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-257-710d&userid=

257.710d Child restraint system required; exceptions; violation as civil infraction; points; abstract; exemption by rules; alternate means of protection.

(1) Except as provided in this section, or as otherwise provided by law, a rule promulgated pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, or federal regulation, each driver transporting a child less than 4 years of age in a motor vehicle shall properly secure that child in a child restraint system that meets the standards prescribed in 49 C.F.R. 571.213.

(2) This section does not apply to any child being nursed.

Pretty unequivocable isn't it?
If you are the driver and I am in your car and the child is not in restraint, who gets the ticket? The driver.
If she is the only adult in the car and she is nursing, she is exempt. The statute above does not say '... by a passenger'

But she's in Ohio, so she should follow Ohio law!!!

Here is the Ohio law:
http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll/PORC/16f81/17778/179c2?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

Subsection (F) says that the troopers must look to the law of the state where she maintains a residence:

(F) If a person who is not a resident of this state is charged with a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section and does not prove to the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's use or nonuse of a child restraint system was in accordance with the law of the state of which the person is a resident, the court shall impose the fine levied by division (H)(2) of section 4511.99 of the Revised Code.

Now, I see from some people here that this is supposed to be negligence. Most all of the states have a statute akin to this one:

Subsection (D) The failure of an operator of a motor vehicle to secure a child in a child restraint system as required by this section is not negligence imputable to the child, is not admissible as evidence in any civil action involving the rights of the child against any other person allegedly liable for injuries to the child, is not to be used as a basis for a criminal prosecution of the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section, and is not admissible as evidence in any criminal action involving the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section.

Charging her for negligence is therefore improper.

The fact of the matter is that the troopers have a duty to know the law. They failed in that duty and stopped her for something for which she could not be found guilty.

Then they impounder her car and put her in jail.

Then they added two new unfounded charges a month later when she would not cop a plea.

Finally, I know that this woman has been assaulted twice by the police. I know that she has been raped at gunpoint while she attended the US Naval Academy. She does not pull over until she gets to a safe place with witnesses.

Your failure to be informed of the facts and law in this situation does not make her a wacko.

49 posted on 06/20/2003 7:50 AM PDT by RgnadKzin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
10 posted on 08/08/2003 8:56:55 AM PDT by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Good catch! I saw the article and skimmed it, then posted it before reading it through completely.

I feel for the judge, prosecutor, and court employees of Portage County. This is several days of their life that they'll never get back.
11 posted on 08/08/2003 8:58:44 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Yes, they'll never get it back. It's too bad that they're wasting their time in this way.
12 posted on 08/08/2003 8:59:53 AM PDT by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blau993; CCCV
An earlier thread on this case did say that Ohio allows out of state drivers to comply with the child-restraint laws of their home state. This actually makes sense; I don't think anyone (except the odd people involved in this case!) checks the car seat laws for every state they might drive in ... "Oh, look! To drive through Indiana, we have to buy two more car seats because Jim and Jane weigh less than 50 lbs.!" You just assume that if you're in compliance in your home state, other states will give you points for a good faith effort.

However, I don't think any reasonable police officer (or other person) would expect to find that ANY state allows the driver to nurse a baby. That's just nuts.
13 posted on 08/08/2003 9:02:30 AM PDT by Tax-chick (GUNS - the anti-liberal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CCCV
Michigan law has a specific exemption for out-of-state drivers with respect to child restraint laws, basically saying that the laws in their home state apply. I am not aware of a similar exemption for speed limits, etc. The text of the laws are in my long post, above.
14 posted on 08/08/2003 9:03:25 AM PDT by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Proves this woman can do more than one thing at a time.
15 posted on 08/08/2003 9:05:05 AM PDT by solo gringo (Always Ranting Always Rite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Ms. Donkers may claim Michigan residency, but when she produced her homemade ID card to the cops, it had a Pennsylvania address, not a Michigan address. 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/portage/1060335541303231.xml

When police pulled her over, Donkers produced a homemade identification card showing an address in Pennsylvania.

16 posted on 08/08/2003 9:06:55 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Driving while nursing a baby, writing notes, and talking on the phone?! Donkers is Bonkers!!!

Why are such people allowed to procreate?

17 posted on 08/08/2003 9:07:01 AM PDT by al_c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
However, I don't think any reasonable police officer (or other person) would expect to find that ANY state allows the driver to nurse a baby. That's just nuts.

Police have a duty to know the law, whatever it may be. The officer failed his duty in this case. She is being prosecuted as a result of his dereliction of duty.

18 posted on 08/08/2003 9:07:09 AM PDT by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Michigan law has a specific exemption
O.K. Didn't know that. Thanks for the update.
19 posted on 08/08/2003 9:10:30 AM PDT by CCCV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: solo gringo
Proves this woman can do more than one thing at a time.

So can her husband.  He's still married to his first wife.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/portage/1060335541303231.xml

Donkers and a man she says is her common-law husband - Brad Lee Barnhill - belong to an organization called the First Christian Fellowship for Eternal Sovereignty. The couple oppose forms of governmental registration, such as Social Security numbers and marriage certificates.

Donkers testified she and her husband had no wedding ceremony, that their relationship simply evolved about two years ago.

<snip>

Barnhill, in an interview yesterday, said his divorce from a woman he married years ago is not final. "I accept the consequences of my actions," he said. "It [the divorce] has been in process for years. I lack the will to force her to do it."

20 posted on 08/08/2003 9:11:10 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson