Love Me or I'll Kill You

by Lee Butcher

  On July 6, Paula’s bags were packed and she was ready to go to New York. Who was always going to New York? Pruner asked. It was Paula. But she needed a big score to leave town. Who had the motivation to rob a bank? Pruner asked. Paula.

  Pruner debunked the notion that Paula was mentally ill and in such a disassociative state that she didn’t know what was happening on July 6, 2001. During the interview with Black, Paula was asked if she had done any other robberies in Tampa. She answered no. Pruner said Paula followed that by specifically denying involvement in the flower shop robbery. She denied it a third time to Detective Hevel.

  It was important to Paula not to be associated with the flower shop robbery, Pruner said, because that would show she had robbed before, and knew exactly what she was doing. This, Pruner said, struck at the heart of the defense claim that Paula was under duress.

  Pruner showed the videotape of the bank robbery and described Paula’s movements. “Look where she’s standing. Look where she’s looking. You know where she’s standing, ladies and gentlemen?” he asked. “She’s standing at the right apex, the only location in this bank where she can see the front door and where she can see Nestor DeJesus, who is robbing.”

  It was important for the jury to see that, Pruner said, because it didn’t jibe with the revised Paula. “If she was a downtrodden, abused woman who was forced by duress to do that,” he said, “as a timid, docile young puppy would do, wouldn’t you expect she would carry the gun and follow him directly to the teller window if there wasn’t any preplanning?”

  Paula staked out the only area where she could cover everything, Pruner said. He called it an orchestrated, takeover robbery that she knew was going to happen, and she intended to participate in it. She told Batista about the bank surveillance tapes before he knew about them. “Does that show you a level of sophistication and awareness of what was going on in the bank?” Pruner asked. “Sure it does.”

  He said Dr. Maher’s diagnosis of Paula was based on “sloppy science.” Maher didn’t have all of the facts, Pruner said, and he took what Paula said at face value. There was no critical investigation as to whether or not she told him the truth. Only Paula’s side of the troubled relationship was heard, Pruner said. “This trial is not a referendum on whether domestic violence is ever justified or is to be excused,” he said. “I’m not suggesting to you that any abuse she may have suffered at the hands of Mr. DeJesus should be minimized or excused, but it doesn’t rise to the level of duress, which excuses her criminal conduct.”

  Pruner said he was not suggesting that none of the abuse occurred, but, he said, nobody heard much about it until after Paula was told by a psychiatrist, who was there to help her and her attorneys.

  “Mr. DeJesus was the type of person that you would expect would kill a cop,” Pruner said. “I’m not going to portray him to you as anything but that.” But Paula, he said, saw something in him that she loved, and which offered her a better and safer life. That’s why she always came back to him.

  Pruner played part of the videotape recorded by the police when Paula and Chino were in Davis’s apartment. He said it would show the true nature of their relationship.

  “‘What do you want me to do?’ he (Chino) says to Paula. ‘Tell me, ’” Pruner quoted. “That was crunch time. That’s the true nature of their relationship.”

  Pruner said that when all the facts were studied, the only conclusion was that Paula was guilty as charged on each of the three crimes. He asked the jury to deliver that verdict. “The law allows it and simple justice demands it,” he concluded.

  Chapter 25

  Following the closing arguments, the judge gave the jury instructions on how to deal with the charges against the defendant. The instructions were hammered out through considerable debate between the judge and both sides. The defense objected to the instruction the judge would give on “collateral” crimes—in this case, the flower shop robbery.

  Padgett’s instructions took about twenty-five minutes and the jury retired to consider its verdict at 1:45 P.M. About 4:00 P.M., court was called back in session. The judge had received a note from the jury foreman requesting the testimony of Lissette Santiago. Her testimony took about an hour.

  At a bench conference Padgett told the attorneys he would deny the request, but he asked if the jury wanted particular portions read back. Padgett said he would reconsider the request then.

  Goins objected, for the defense, to having just portions of the testimony read to the jury. That would not give the jury an opportunity to view it in context with the entire testimony.

  “If they don’t need her whole testimony, then we’re not going to read her whole testimony,” Padgett said.

  Goins said she understood. “I’m saying if the court is going to allow read-back, then we would ask the entire testimony, not just the portion the jury is asking for, be read back.”

  “Why? Because you can, right?”

  “Because I can,” Goins said.

  “Because you can.”

  “Yes, Your Honor, I can. I think it’s true that if you try to portion up the testimony, the jury’s not going to have the opportunity to assess that in context with the entire testimony because many things can interrelate.”

  “We’ll let the jury decide that,” Padgett said.

  The jury returned to the courtroom and Padgett addressed Julie Gordon, who had been elected foreman. He declined the jury’s request, but said he would reconsider if only specific portions were needed. Padgett said that would be difficult because testimony was scattered between direct and cross-examination.

  Gordon said the jury also wanted to know if there were two video cameras in Isaac Davis’s room. The judge said there were two cameras, but only one recorded anything that was relevant. One camera did not record any people in the room, he said.

  The jury was sent back to deliberate and court was recessed, pending a verdict.

  “Were you going to say anything, Mrs. Athan?” Padgett asked.

  Athan looked surprised. “Was I going to say something?”

  “Yeah. You looked like you were getting ready to say something.”

  Athan replied, “I think I said enough.”

  Padgett called the court back in session at 6:00 P.M. There was still no verdict from the jury. When the jury entered the room, Padgett told them that if they were close to a verdict, they could continue to deliberate. If not, court would recess and they would continue deliberations at 9:00 A.M. the next day.

  “I would say we’re very close,” Gordon said.

  “Do you really? Fine.”

  Court was recessed again, pending a verdict.

  Deliberations went on inside the jury room for another forty-five minutes. The jury had not reached a verdict and wanted to go home. Padgett recessed court and said it would reconvene at 9:00 A.M.

  The next morning, a less than monumental decision had to be made regarding two jurors who were smokers. The attorneys huddled at the bench to consider this breathtaking issue.

  “I just want to tell you people what we’ve done,” he said. “We did it yesterday and we’re getting ready to do it now and want to see if you have any objection. Better safe than sorry, Padgett’s rule.”

  He said two jurors smoked. They were escorted out to a balcony, accompanied by a deputy, who stayed with them. “No talking about the case,” Padgett said. “They just smoked. Anybody got a problem with that?”

  No one did.

  Having solved the problem to everyone’s satisfaction, court was recessed, and the jury sent back to continue deliberations, after the two jurors had their smokes.

  At 11:00 A.M., word came that the jury had reached a verdict. Padgett called the court back into session and asked the bailiff to return the jury. Paula sat at the defense table, her hands knotted on the table, her features tense and fearful.

  Padgett asked Gordon if the jury had reached a verdict. She replied that it had and gave it to the clerk. Padgett ordered the clerk to pub
lish the verdict.

  Paula was found guilty of felony murder in the first degree. As she heard the first “guilty” ring out, Paula burst into tears and buried her face in her hands. She would spend the rest of her life in prison with no possibility of parole. The jury found her guilty of armed burglary and armed robbery, both in the first degree. Paula’s shoulders shook and a wail came from the gallery. A woman cried so hard that it took two men to hold her upright as she stumbled out of the courtroom.

  Padgett polled the jury and each one acknowledged the verdict of guilty. Padgett thanked the jury and discharged the members. The judge ordered a presentence investigation and set sentencing for June 23 at 9:00 A.M., just short of a month away.

  On June 23, 2003, Paula Gutierrez sat in the courtroom, flanked by her two lawyers, and waited to hear Judge Padgett pronounce sentence on her. Paula was obviously nervous and choked back tears on occasion. She would have a chance to speak to the judge before sentencing, but first the court heard from Lois Marrero’s life partner, then her sister.

  Mickie Mashburn, who had married Lois twelve years ago, was the first to speak. Mashburn had sat through every day of the trial. No matter how bad it had made her feel, she almost always had a kind word or a hug for Deeann Athan, the defense attorney.

  Mashburn said, “We spent the three weeks listening to how bad her day was on July 6, 2001. We are here today to speak on how bad Lois Marrero’s day was on July 6, 2001.”

  Mashburn said she looked at the case as a police officer, domestic partner, and a former domestic violence detective. She spoke of the painful loss, not just for herself, but for Lois’s friends, family, and the Tampa Police Department. Mashburn said it was especially wrenching for officers to investigate the case because so many of them were close to Lois.

  As for herself, Mashburn said: “Half of me died that day. All I’m able to do is either have the memories or go out to a plot of land that I look at that she’s not really there. Paula’s family is able to see her. I will never have that. Neither will the family. She (Brenda Marrero) has lost a sister. Her parents have lost a daughter.” Mashburn said she could not imagine the pain of parents who lose a child.

  Lois, Mashburn said, was a “very happy person” who loved to run, and who was bright and cheerful the moment her feet hit the floor in the morning. When they left for work in the morning, Mashburn said, she and Lois told each other they loved one another more than yesterday. “I’m not able to say that anymore.”

  Mashburn told Paula that she could have stopped the robbery, which led to the murder, at any time, but she chose not to. “I blame you for it and I do hold you responsible because you are guilty for those circumstances,” Mashburn said.

  The former domestic violence detective drew upon her experience in that field and told Paula that she was not a victim. “You may try to portray yourself as a victim, but you’re not. These are the victims standing here today,” she said.

  Mashburn asked the judge to sentence Paula to life in prison. “Every day when she gets up, I want her to be told when she can go to the bathroom, when she can eat, what she can do, what she can’t do,” Mashburn said. “We will never have peace from this brutal killing.”

  Brenda Marrero, Lois’s sister, was beautiful in spite of the grief that could be seen in her eyes. She told the judge that she was there as “the voice for all who knew and loved” Lois. Marrero told Paula that no matter how much she wished everything were just a bad dream, Lois’s loved ones wished it even more. She said there was only one real victim and that was “my sister, Lois, the person Nestor and Paula killed.”

  Paula was never a victim, Marrero said, insisting that Paula had made other people victims all her life. Marrero said that Paula was heartless. “I wish upon you years of sorrow, grief, and continuous unsettling of your soul.”

  Marrero asked for a life sentence. “We beg the court [to] put Paula where she belongs, away, away for the rest of her erratic and irresponsible life. . . .”

  Mark Ober argued for the prosecution, saying that the bank robbery was unique because the sole motivation was sheer greed. Most of the time, he said, such robberies were committed by people trying to support a drug habit.

  Paula lived beyond her means, Ober said, and wanted to keep doing it. The state attorney said she had alternatives to robbing a bank: “She could have asked her family. She could have sold the Nissan Xterra. She could have sold the gun or—perhaps, even the unthinkable—get a lawful job and not put this community at great risk.”

  Paula had choices that could have spared Lois Marrero’s life, Ober said. He said Paula had the ability to make sound decisions. She could have returned to New York. She could have told Chino no. She could have surrendered to Lois when the police officer approached. Paula could have warned Lois that Chino had a gun.

  “Her choices were endless,” Ober said. “Yet she chose to reunite with her beloved Chino, not only to terrorize Isaac Davis, but again to place a multitude of Tampa police officers and citizens of this community in great peril.” Ober added that the defense claim of Chino dominating Paula was not credible.

  “The state joins the Marrero family, Ms. Mashburn, the Tampa Police Department, Isaac Davis, and Pam Merin, of the Department of Corrections, in urging this court to sentence the defendant to life in prison on all counts.”

  Athan acknowledged that the judge had no choice but to sentence Paula to life in prison without the possibility of parole on the conviction of first-degree murder. She hoped that he would give her less than the minimum sentences for the other counts.

  Paula regretted Lois’s death, Athan said, but noted that Lois was killed by Chino, not Paula. It was interesting for Athan to hear excuses for Chino, she said. “He was a violent, despicable man. Judge, there is no question that Paula Gutierrez was a battered woman, and that’s not to gain the court’s sympathy. That is something the court should consider in determining the proper sentence.”

  The defense attorney pointed out that Dr. Donald Taylor, the psychiatrist appointed to examine Paula for the state, reported that Paula suffered some symptoms that go with battered spouse syndrome. Athan noted that the court did not allow her to explore battered spouse syndrome in her defense of Paula.

  “Your Honor, the battered woman syndrome . . . really does explain why Paula Gutierrez acted as she did . . . that cycle of violence,” Athan said. “Frankly, she is a textbook case. It explains why she stayed with Nestor DeJesus. It explains why she failed to call authorities. It explains why she didn’t feel that she had any options.”

  Athan noted that both psychiatrists agreed that Paula suffered from battered woman/spouse syndrome, which is a subcategory of post-traumatic stress syndrome. Again she criticized the police for taking a statement from Paula when she was under duress and had asked about getting a lawyer.

  “It’s his (Detective Black) [duty] to make his case and not to establish a defense,” Athan said. “But when she asks for a lawyer, he didn’t give her one.” Athan noted that Paula said she was happier, and felt safer, in an eight-foot-by-eight-foot cell than she had in the years before she was arrested.

  “What she means, Your Honor, is that she’s now free of Nestor DeJesus,” Athan said. “No matter how bad her life is, no matter how difficult it is, no matter what her punishment is going to be, at least she’s free of that monster. And he was a monster and there is no excuse for him.”

  Athan said the appropriate sentence for armed robbery and armed burglary was ten years, to run concurrently with the life sentence for first-degree murder.

  Melba Henoa, Paula’s mother, made a heart-wrenching appeal for leniency. She told the judge that Chino not only changed Paula’s life, he changed the entire family.

  “My daughter is not a bad child,” she told the judge. “My child, my daughter, she’s got a good heart, a clean and good heart. This man changed my life and my daughter’s life. I beg you under Jesus Christ to please feel mercy and compassion for my daughter.”

&nbs
p; Henoa said that Paula was terrified of Chino and that she, her husband, and two other daughters were also terrified of the man.

  “Your Honor, I beg you, I beg you, my daughter is not a bad person. She’s not a criminal. I beg you in the name of God have mercy on my daughter. I beg you humbly.”

  When Henoa took her seat, it was time for Paula to speak. Hers would be the last plea heard before the judge passed sentence. She sat at the podium, her shoulders hunched, hands folded in her lap. Paula’s voice was soft and she spoke with an accent.

  Paula apologized for the lost lives and pain inflicted, and said that Lois died a tragic death by Chino’s hands. “I suffer as a victim, too,” she said. “I didn’t take part in Officer Marrero’s murder in any way. I’m not a coldhearted murderer as portrayed.”

  Paula said she was angry that Chino killed Lois and that she understood the hatred felt toward her by Lois’s family, friends, and coworkers. “I repeat again,” she said, “I took no part in her death.”

  Paula said she knew women who were abused, including her aunt, and wondered why they never left the man who abused them. Having lived with Chino, Paula said, she now understood. Paula said she was immobilized by terror of what Chino would do to her and her family.

  “People say I should have stayed in New York. I believe he would have killed me and my family. I knew the rage inside him and I couldn’t take the risk, like my aunt did. She lived with her abusive husband and finally one day she left him. But, you know what? He kept his word. He kidnapped her and he tortured her to death. I know that was my fate if I stayed away.”