As I posted earlier today, sentencing finally occurred in the case of Robert Hawkins, on charges of corruption of minors and child endangerment, based on an inappropriate sexual relationship with a 17-year old female student and supplying her with alcohol and marijuana. He had pleaded guilty on November 18th. Sentencing had been deferred for 60 days pending a pre-sentencing evaluation. Additional time was due to a scheduling request by the defense attorney and later for a scheduling conflict in the DA’s office.
The sentencing hearing commenced at 10:59 a.m. today in the courtroom of Judge Clyde W. Waite. Judge Waite began by ensuring that the delay in sentencing had not violated a 90-day rule, and was assured that this was not an issue, particularly since more than 22 of the 112 day interval had been due to a defense request.
Jennifer Schorn of the District Attorney’s office began by mentioning the detectives who were present, Wyant, Feo and McDonagh (spelling unsure, cannot verify at Northampton website), that Mark Klein was present as well as the victim’s parents whose names were withheld for the victim’s privacy. She said the parents would enter impact statements as would the superintendent.
She also mentioned two victim impact letters as well as a third by a concerned citizen, a parent — the defense was objecting to the admission of the third, since it was apparently simply submitted by an anonymous person stating he/she was a parent of a female student in Council Rock. Defense attorney Marc Neff contended it was inappropriate for any anonymous letter to be submitted. Judge Waite first challenged Mr. Neff’s assertion, asking whether this case impacted the general public which has an interest in entrusting kids to the school; but he then asked about allowing testimony from an unreliable source. Ms. Schorn mentioned that the court allows a variety of letters to support the defendant even though these had not technically been fully vetted and origin verified, so those aren’t really evidence. So this letter would similarly just go to impact, and since it had a return address in Newtown it was submitted by a resident. However, Judge Wait sustained Mr. Neff’s objection, assuring the prosecution that the need to protect the public would be made clear nonetheless.
Mark Klein was then placed on the stand to read a victim impact statement regarding how this matter had affected the District and the community. He discussed trust as an underlying message, and that this matter was inexcusable and violated that trust. He said we were all impacted. Mr. Klein said that in April 2009 they had begun an investigation and this had consumed many hours. Their investigation also showed three other teachers who knew of the affair, and that the result was that four teachers resigned or were dismissed.
He said that this is an issue that remains volatile, most particularly at Council Rock South.
He expressed frustration that any member of the Council Rock staff has submitted letters of support for Mr. Hawkins, focusing on his abilities as a teacher and not as a predator. He stated that they should be considered writing as individuals and not speaking for Council Rock School District. He said he feels most teachers in the District do not share the support in those letters.
He then requested that as part of the conditions of sentencing that they require Mr. Hawkins to give truthful testimony in arbitration hearings regarding the knowledge by other teachers. He asked that a condition be that a deposition be taken.
Mr. Klein went on, saying that every year there is communications directing teachers about appropriate behavior. He asked the court to take into consideration the significant harm done to the girl and to the whole community.
The parents of the victim then stepped forward to read their victim impact statements, first by the father and then by the mother. Both parents went on for some time and with great specificity and emotion. These were both very personal and heart-wrenching statements whose details do not need to be repeated here. They laid out not just the past and present impacts on the student involved and family members but also Mr. Hawkins’ actions and conduct toward the family to try and ingratiate himself with them.
After the statements were read, Mr. Neff reviewed some information from the pre-sentence report. He said an extensive memo had been filed February 17th, including many letters that go to the character of the convict. He disagreed with a characterization that students’ letters were because they were under his spell or that what he did wasn’t so bad. He claimed instead they were to communicate how Bob Hawkins had touched their lives, how he had been the first one at school in the morning and the last one to leave at night. He cited former students who wrote they had become teachers because of Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Neff said it was important to understand he is a multidimensional human being, with great qualities to teach young humans. He has lost that now. Mr. Neff said this quality was shown by his inspiration of young people.
He said this inspiration was demonstrated to a student would take the time to write a two-page single-spaced letter, saying that was an admirable thing. The fact that he would get kids to drive to Princeton on Saturdays to learn Math instead of sleeping in late should be considered. He urged the court to consider the lives he touched, He said many people hold him in high esteem because of his accomplishments. Mr. Neff said this should not be discounted because he did one thing wrong in his life.
Mr. Neff then discussed what was in the two psychologists’ reports. Both reports said Mr. Hawkins had an emotional disconnect, that he was not a pedophile and he was on the low end as far as risk to reoffend. He said Mr. Hawkins had been in therapy for over ten months, seeing Dr. William McClain since April 2009, learning to maintain boundaries.
Mr. Neff said he erred in that he blurred boundaries, that emotionally he and the victim were on the same level — that Mr. Hawkins was behaving as if this were the puppy love of an 18-year-old. He quoted letters that began “oh, my love” saying these were not the musings of a 43-year-old. Mr. Neff reiterated that was the level where he was functioning.
The defense attorney then moved on to discuss responsibility. He stated the defendant had taken responsibility: first in waiving his pre-trial hearing because he didn’t want the victim to have to testify and suffer; second by standing and pleading guilty; and third, by appearing here to take his punishment.
Mr. Neff then discussed sentencing guidelines, saying figures of 3-12 months +/- 6 months. He said that mitigated sentences are appropriate in cases where the defendant takes responsibility early. Mr. Neff said that nobody was saying that what he did was not so bad; he crossed a boundary he wasn’t allowed to cross. Then he asked the court to recognize the strides he had made in therapy and that he has done great things for the community. He asked the court to conduct that balancing test and see that Mr. Hawkins’ good qualities outweigh this incident. Mr. Neff asked for the court to consider non-custodial punishment (no jail time).
Ms. Schorn then began her points. She started by discussing restitution, saying the costs of the victim’s therapy thus far was $3,780 and would be about $540 each month going forward, for the duration of her education, another three and a half years.
Ms. Schorn said that teaching is a privilege and not everyone gets to do it. She said the select few are held to a higher standard, and the teachers who inspire kids are held to an even higher one. She said we trust them to protect and care for these children no matter what age. She said that everyone raved about him being inspiring and wrote letters to that. Ms. Schorn mentioned a letter from teacher David Jacoby (note: he is Department Chair/Coordinator for Social Studies at CR South) saying the he would not be surprised that students developed crushes on Mr. Hawkins and that he (Hawkins) was good at rebuffing them. Ms. Schorn expressed concern because the letter had been written in December 2009 after Mr. Hawkins’ guilty plea.
She referred to another teacher’s letter bemoaning his lost livelihood. Ms. Schorn said he had not lost his livelihood, he was working now and he had thrown his livelihood down the drain.
She cited another letter from an out-of-state teacher in Oklahoma with whom she said Hawkins had had a relationship who wrote she would be offended if her tax money went to incarcerate him. Ms. Schorn asked about all the tax money residents could talk about as far as paying for the proper handling of their children.
As far as the various letters submitted by students in support of Mr. Hawkins, she said those would have been from kids who had seen his inspiring side, not the ones who were victimized. She said the court should thus give them no weight.
Ms. Schorn then went on to discuss some letters by Mr. Hawkins claimed as never sent to other students. She called it a bold-faced lie. She said after he knew he was being investigated he used a best friend referenced by Mr. Neff to stay in contact. She said that he used Facebook to send messages to students for their support, saying that the truth will have to take a backseat. Ms. Schorn said this showed a sophisticated, calculated demeanor. He said he uses those to pursue his own agenda.
She mentioned a letter Mr. Hawkins had written to another girl, a sophomore in the defendant’s class (a female name was used and since I’m not sure if that’s the girl’s actual first name I will omit it here). He had composed word docs but said they would have to sit on his computer for three weeks until he saw her in person. She said this was because with the investigation he knew he could not send them by e-mail. So they had to sit on his computer while he was out-of-state. Ms. Schorn contended he is doing the same thing with this sophomore that he did with the victim.
Ms. Schorn said that he had had a previous relationship which had started as soon as a student had graduated, which was not criminal. However as circumstantial evidence, the aforementioned sophomore student had responded to this in her impact statement.
The prosecutor then went on to discuss the standard range of sentencing which had been proffered by Mr. Neff as well as mitigated non-custodial sentencing. She said that this is not your standard corruption case, that this took place for a year, under the nose of the parents. As far as the Math and Science days he held at Princeton, the parents thought she was there for studies not for sexual encounters.
She said that one day the victim will grasp how she was used for his pleasure. She said the sentence should be seen both as a deterrent and a punishment.
Robert Hawkins then spoke, reading a statement. He began saying that 14 years ago he had come to Council Rock as a proud new teacher. One year ago he had made choices that were wrong and reprehensible. Now he is ashamed and wonders how he was able to exhibit such poor judgment. He said he had let everyone down, made a terrible mistake and can only hope he will be able to rebuild trust.
He said he had suffered, had lost his job, trust and his teaching certificate. He has been a mess but said he deserves it. he said he is mortified by his behavior and said the choices were all his. He said he is speaking as a broken man and was pleading for forgiveness.
He then started a series of apologies. First to the family, saying not a day goes by that he does not feel the pain he caused, something they will carry for a long time. He said he meant no harm to their daughter. He was carrying a heavy heart and understood he violated their trust. But then he talked about where his heart was, saying he truly believed he had fallen in love, his feelings were out of control, that there was nothing ever evil or manipulative. He said he let his emotions get in the way of his personal judgment. he said there were boundaries he should not have crossed and said he hoped they could get closure.
To the Council Rock School District and the community, he said he had let them down.
To his students, especially the ones in 2009 where they had a teacher disappear the last three months and finish with a substitute. He was saddened even a single student had been let down. He was sorry for the impact on the victim those last three months and now.
To his colleagues and friends whom he had let down, he said he was scrambling to keep things together.
He apologized to the court, saying these actions were not representative of him, and that he wanted to work the rest of his life for the betterment of the world.
He said he is taking his therapy and again said he had remorse for the victim and the parents. he said he failed to live up to his code, that he was wrong and was terribly sorry. That concluded his written statement.
Ms. Schorn then said she had wanted to ask Mr. Hawkins some questions, but that Mr. Neff had indicated that allocution would not be answered. (Note: Allocution is the process of admitting guilt in open court as a formal statement. Often it is used to describe offenses in detail in order to receive the other side of a plea bargain.) During the trial November 18th, Ms. Schorn had asked Mr. Hawkins a number of questions about the knowledge of his actions by various other teachers, all of which were met with 5th Amendment claims. Since there had been references by Council Rock about wanting Mr. Hawkins’ truthful testimony at arbitration hearings, it is unclear if this attempt by the prosecution would have been intended to again try to elicit that kind of information.
Judge Waite then spoke. He began by saying that teachers occupy high positions, and they shape the future. He said that Mr. Hawkins had destroyed not just one student’s future but also destroyed the faith the community had in the school system. Judge Waite said that as far as the defense’s contention that his colleagues were shocked, that’s to assume they didn’t know about it — he said that doesn’t appear to be the case.
The judge said that Hawkins did know better. Judge Waite cited the fact that he manipulated the victim to do research on the age of consent to try and convince her it was not wrong, in effect making the victim a co-conspirator. He said he did not want to be crude, but the manipulation and isolation is pretty much what a pimp does. The judge said he did this not just with this child but with others as well.
Judge Waite said that the risks Mr. Hawkins took were increasing to the point where it was unclear where it would end. He said they wouldn’t end without the criminal justice system interceding, and there had to be consequences.
The judge said the psychologists say there was a low risk of recidivism, but he said that did not seem to match Mr. Hawkins’ behavior. Judge Waite said it suggests high risk, at least as far as collateral issues. The judge said Mr. Hawkins doesn’t fully appreciate it was wrong as the law says, as the community sees it, and that he still seems to think of it as something that can be dismissed as poor judgment.
Judge Waite said the behavior needs to be stopped and incarceration is necessary. He said the position does not make him comfortable, that he believes Mr. Hawkins possessed talent that could have been put to better use.
He also told Mr. Hawkins that he also believes he has to make a decision on whether he will cooperate by providing information on the other teachers involved.
Judge Waite said he had considered Mr. Hawkins’ age, the information he had submitted about himself, the pre-sentencing report, and letters from his colleagues. The judge said he believed the victim’s mother’s interpretation about those letters was valid. He said he had to accept the psychologists’ report about recidivism but that he had to take into account Mr. Hawkins’ behavior during the investigation and afterward.
He said the facts had been admitted and confinement is necessary. he indicated that there would be conditions which if met could be considered if a reconsideration was filed.
Judge Waite then pronounced the sentence to be not less than 11 1/2 months and then said 11 1/2 to 23 months at the Bucks County Correctional facility. He spoke of cooperating with the School District with the cooperation of the DA’s office. Restitution of therapy costs of $3,780 was to be paid within 45 days as well as payments of $540 per month for the next 3 1/2 years to the family to reimburse documented costs.
Judge Waite said that compliance (presumptively with the School District’s deposition needs) would be taken into consideration in the event a motion were filed.
The judge said the sentence has four aims: retribution, reconciliation, protection of society and deterrence. he said there is support in this level to meet those.
Ms. Schorn mentioned a no-contact provision directly or indirectly with the victim or the family, which was accepted.
At 12:11, handcuffs were placed on Mr. Hawkins, but the end took a couple of minutes longer. There was a sidebar with the attorneys and the judge which lasted about three minutes. Afterward, it was stated that the solicitor for Council Rock had indicated there was an arbitration hearing on Monday (so the need for a deposition was soon). The judge said there’s nothing more important than for the sentence to start immediately. Mr. Neff spoke of a condition that Mr. Hawkins would be eligible for the County Reentry Plan pending what happens. The judge assured that whatever programs are available would be considered. Ms. Schorn stated that the Commonwealth objects based on what she raised in the sidebar.
The judge finished by stating that Mr. Hawkins has ten days to file post-sentence motions, thirty days to appeal, the right to counsel at appeal. He said the sentence will be served immediately and that bail is revoked.
With that Mr. Hawkins was escorted out of the courtroom by the Sheriffs.
Filed under: Administration, Council Rock, Crime, Ethics, Law, Projects, Students, Teachers | Tagged: Administration, Crime, Ethics, Law, Policies, Students, Teachers | 2 Comments »
