Judge’s actions questioned

Couple with history of domestic disputes got married at his suggestion, then wife was arrested on new charges

When Common Pleas Judge Joseph K. Williams III suggested to a defendant before him on domestic violence charges that getting married might help her with her legal troubles, he likely didn’t expect her to be arrested again on similar allegations.

But Quenesia Castaphany, who returned to the judge’s courtroom to be married three days after she pleaded to charges of reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct, was arrested on Tuesday on new charges that she assaulted her husband and endangered two of their young children by discharging a fire extinguisher in their Duquesne home.

Ms. Castaphany, 27, was released on $15,000 bond on charges including multiple counts of harassment, recklessly endangering another person and simple assault.

At her original hearing before Judge Williams on March 18, Ms. Castaphany admitted to pouring lighter fluid on her boyfriend’s clothes and threatening to set them and him on fire. Her actions, defense attorney Tricia Henning said, were driven by the belief that the man, Andre White, was cheating on her.

Ms. Castaphany explained to the court that the couple had three children together and were expecting their fourth.

“Why won’t he marry you?” Judge Williams asked. “He keeps you pregnant.”

Then the judge called Mr. White to the front of the courtroom.

“How long have you been with Quenesia?” he asked.

Eight years, Mr. White responded.

“Why won’t you marry her?” Judge Williams asked. “I love her.” “So if you love someone, you don’t marry her?” the judge continued. “Your lives are inextricably intertwined, but she is getting in trouble over your lifestyle, and now she is getting whacky because she thinks that you are not committed to her because — she probably has a good reason.”

"[I]t is really her being insecure about being 27 and having done probably what her parents didn’t want her to do by taking the road she has taken. ... Why wouldn't you

add some stability to her life?“

“I have been trying to,” Mr. White answered.

“It is real easy. Do you want me to marry you? Get a license,” Judge Williams said.

“Let’s do it,” Mr. White responded.

The judge explained that getting a marriage license would take three days.

“Go over there now and I’ll hold off the sentencing, and if you get married we might be able to work this out better.”

The couple returned with their license the following Monday, and Judge Williams married them. Although sentencing is set for June 23, the original plea agreement called for one year of probation, as well as no violent contact, batterer’s intervention and domestic abuse counseling classes.

Following the wedding, Judge Williams’ actions were criticized in the courthouse, and prompted a letter from the Women’s Center & Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh.

Lorraine Bittner, the legal director there, said the letter expressed concerns about the judge’s actions and was also sent to the president judge and administrative judge of the criminal division.

“We look forward to working with them for improved case processing,” she said.

Judge Williams said he would not comment on a case before him. President Judge Jeffrey A. Manning called his colleague “an excellent judge.”

“I believe Joe Williams did what he thought was in the best interest of the parties,” Judge Manning said. “Sometimes we have to make controversial decisions, and sometimes we just make mistakes. I’m sure he’ll deal with it appropriately.”

He said he was not calling Judge Williams’ actions in the Castaphany case a mistake.

Ellen Kramer, the legal director for the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said there likely was an alternative to offering to preside at the couple’s wedding.

“What we know from research and best practices since the 1970s is that forcing people in a domestic violence relationship to spend time or go to therapy together is just dangerous,” Ms. Kramer said.

The American Bar Association has issued a checklist for courts handling domestic violence cases, and it notes with regard to criminal cases, “Any program requiring the parties to communicate or spend time together is dangerous and ill-advised as it provides an opportunity for further abuse, manipulation and retaliation.”