All language subtitles for Justice.on.Trial.S01E01.1080p.WEB.h264-EDITH

My God!

Terrence, are you okay?

Terrence.

Oh, my God.

Terrence, was there a fight?
'Cause you're pretty swollen here.

It's okay. You're safe here.

Who did this to you?

My father.

Not again.

We need to get Child Protective
Services in here right away.

I'm Judy Sheindlin.

Before I was a judge on TV,

I was a judge in New
York City for 15 years.

And a lawyer for 17
years before that.

While serving on both
sides of the bench,

I learned that justice doesn't
always end up feeling...

just.

Sometimes, the impact of one decision
by a police officer, a lawyer,

or even a judge, can change
the way justice is delivered.

We're going to demonstrate this

by taking landmark
cases from actual crimes

committed by real people.

And we'll recreate them
with our trial lawyers,

and yours truly as
the trial judge.

While we're not going to
recreate the trials verbatim,

the court's ultimate
decisions are accurate.

It will be up to you to decide
whether the case was fair

and the outcome just.

Real
cases, actual lawyers,

surprising verdicts.

Justice on Trial.

This case is personal to me.

That's because I actually touched on
it as a family court judge in 1988.

When I thought about cases we
should profile in this series,

this one was first on my list.

The legal issue here
is diplomatic immunity.

You see, the little boy in
this case, Terrence Karamba,

was the son of a member
of the diplomatic mission

from the country of Zimbabwe.
According to international law,

high-level diplomats are
not subject to the laws

of the foreign country
where they serve.

So, they cannot be prosecuted
for the crimes they commit.

But what about the rights
of a child from Zimbabwe

living in America and
being abused by his father?

After Terrence Karamba was
placed into protective custody,

and removed from his parents' home,
the first hearing on the State's demand

that Terrence be released
from protective custody

was heard by a Family
Court Judge in Queens,

where the Karambas lived.

That judge agreed
with the State,

and ordered the child immediately
returned to his father.

The child's lawyer asked me
to reconsider that ruling

in New York County
where I worked,

strongly suggesting that the child might
be harmed or even killed if returned.

I reluctantly agreed.

Even though New York County technically,
technically, had no jurisdiction.

But I thought the optics
of the risk to the child

were worth rattling the cage.

Let's watch and see how
the forces of justice

and the rule of law collide.

Counsel, note your
appearance, please.

For the Petitioner,
Terrence Karamba

and the Child Protective
Services, I'm Dan Mentzer.

Good morning, Your Honor. Larry
Bakman on behalf of the government,

specifically, the
State Department

and by virtue of
diplomatic immunity,

-the father in this case, Floyd Karamba.
-Thank you.

This is a Child
Protective proceeding

under the Family Court Act
of the State of New York.

Terrence Karamba is
a nine-year-old boy

who has allegedly been
abused by his father,

who happens to be a diplomat
from the country of Zimbabwe.

Child Protective Services
removed the child from his home

and placed him in foster care.

The State Department, on behalf
of the United States government

as well as Mr. Karamba, demanding
immediate return of the child,

alleging that this court has no
jurisdiction to hear this case

based upon the Vienna Convention
and diplomatic immunity.

Once I determine whether
the child is an abused child

and likely to be further injured
or worse if returned to the family,

I have to make a determination
whether or not the law mandates

that I return the
child to his father,

or I can continue him in
placement in foster care

until an entire trial
is able to be held.

So, that's where we are.
Am I correct, counselor?

-That's correct, Your Honor.
-Yes, Your Honor.

All right. Counsel, do you wish
to make an opening statement?

-I do, Your Honor.
-I'll hear you.

As Your Honor noted, the
reason we are here today is

because a nine-year-old boy was
brutally beaten by his own father.

In this courtroom, you're
about to hear graphic testimony

as to the nature of
these vicious assaults.

You're gonna see just what this man
did to his own nine-year-old boy.

In this courtroom, you're gonna
see those scars on his back,

which someday may heal.

But you're also going to hear about
those scars that may never heal.

Those are the
psychological scars

that were inflicted on
this boy by this man.

Now, the fact that the
perpetrator of these assaults

happens to be a diplomat that
works for the Zimbabwe mission

doesn't change the fact that
this young child's safety

is in imminent danger if he were
to be brought back to his father.

So, what we're asking
Your Honor to do

is to maintain the current
system where he's in foster care

until at such time where
he can get the therapy

where it's safe to
return to his home,

and this man will be
prosecuted for what he's done.

-Thank you, Your Honor.
-Thank you. Mr. Bakman?

Yes, thank
you, Your Honor.

The problem with this case is
this court has no jurisdiction.

There's something called
separation of powers.

The Judiciary branch doesn't get to
determine foreign policy considerations.

That's soley within the discretion of the
Executive branch and the State Department.

Diplomatic immunity is the
cornerstone of diplomacy.

We don't set that aside, even
for the welfare of one child.

As cold and as callous
as that sounds,

it protects 13,000 diplomats
of the United States

that are scattered around the globe.
This court does not have jurisdiction.

I would move right now for this
court to dismiss this action.

Thank you. I'm gonna hold
your motion in abeyance, sir,

and start to take
witnesses. Counsel?

Thank you, Your Honor.

The Petitioner calls
Darren Bronson.

-Swear the witness, Kevin, please?
-Yes, ma'am.

Raise your right hand, please.

Do you swear to tell the
truth in these matters today?

-I do.
-Thank you. Have a seat.

-You may inquire.
-Thanks, Your Honor.

Now, Mr. Bronson, were
you working as a teacher

at P.S. 178 on December
first of last year?

Yes.

Mr. Bronson, did anything
unusual happen on that day

with respect to one
of your students?

Yes. One of my
students, Terrence,

came into the classroom
that morning looking hurt.

He had a bruise on his forehead
and his face was swollen.

Hey, hey, stop running.

Stop running.

Good morning, Mr. Karamba.
How we doing today?

Hi, Mr. Bronson.

Hey. You okay, little man?

What happened, Terrence?

Did you get in a fight
before school today?

It's cool, you can
tell me. I got you.

I promise.

It was... my father.

Now, what did you do
when you saw him in that condition?

I immediately took him
to the nurse's office.

And were you met with
anyone in the nurse's office?

Yes, we were met by the
school's guidance counselor.

Did anyone ask Terrence how
he got in that condition,

bruised and cuts on his face?

Yes, the nurse asked him what
happened and how did he get hurt.

What did Terrence say?

He said his father beat him.

Now, I'm gonna call your
attention, Mr. Bronson, to December 11th.

Did anything again happen that brought
your attention to Terrence Karamba?

Yes, yes, it did.

I saw a bruise and a
cut, and he looked hurt.

Oh, my God!

What did
you do with Terrence?

Well, I took him back to the nurse, and
she called the Child Welfare office.

-Thank you, Mr. Bronson.
-Mm-hmm.

You may inquire, sir.

Yes. All right, Mr. Bronson, as I
understand it, sir, you're a teacher?

-Yes.
-And you have received training

with respect to mandated
reporting for child abuse, yes?

Yes.

When you saw the
injuries for the first time,

did you comply with your mandated
reporting obligations and call CPS?

No.

And then, when you received
the child's statement,

"my father beat me,"

did you call CPS?

No, not the first time.

You didn't call CPS and you didn't
call law enforcement, did you?

No, that's not my job.

All right. So, let's switch
gears to December 11th.

You observed Terrence
injured again, yes?

Yes.

This time, you took
him again to the nurse,

and more injuries were
discovered. Is that right?

Yes, that's right.

And this time,
CPS was called. Yes?

Yes.

And the school called
CPS in an effort

to avoid civil liability on
your part. Is that right?

No, we did it because it
was the right thing to do.

But you didn't do that on December
first, the right thing, did you?

That's argumentative,
counsel. Let's move on.

Witness is excused.
Thank you very much.

Call your next witness, sir.

The Petitioner
calls Taylor Neal.

You may inquire, sir.

Thank you, Your Honor.
Miss Neal, are you employed?

-Yes.
-And where do you work?

I'm a school nurse at
P.S. 178 in Queens.

Could you please describe
for us the circumstances

under which you
first met Terrence?

His teacher brought him
in on December first

because his face was bruised.

Did you ask Terrence
how he got bruised?

Yes, I did. He said
his father hit him.

And what did you do?

I immediately called
the guidance counselor,

and they called the parents.

Were you present when
the parents came to school?

Yes.

Mr. Karamba, thank you
for meeting with us today.

It's attaché Karamba, actually.

Of course. Representing the
Country of Zimbabwe, I believe.

That is correct.

We're here to talk
about your son.

What has he done this time?

It's what you did, Mr. Karamba.

This morning, Terrence
came to school

with a noticeably
bruised and swollen face.

And he indicated to a teacher that
the person who inflicted these wounds

was his father.

And what of it?

What of it?

So, you admit it, then.

Yes. I admit to
disciplining my son.

That is what a parent
is supposed to do.

When a child needs correction,

it is a parent's
responsibility to provide it.

Striking a person repeatedly in the face
is considered assault in this country.

And it's our responsibility at this school
to protect the children under our care.

Assault? No, this is
not assault. It is love.

This is what a parent does who cares
about their child in my country.

You see, you do not
understand our ways.

This is how my father raised me.

And instead of becoming a
criminal or a drug addict,

like you are teaching
him to be in this school,

I became the diplomatic attaché
to the United States of America.

Well, here in America,
sir, it's child abuse.

And if this ever happens again,

we will immediately call
Child Protective Services,

and they will remove
Terrence from your home.

Was there a time that you
saw Terrence Karamba again,

later on that month?

Yes, I saw him about
ten days after that.

And what happened when
you saw Terrence Karamba?

His teacher brought him in again
because he had bruising to his face.

As I took him to my office,
I put my hand on his back

and he visibly winced. That's
when I knew something was wrong.

And I asked him to remove his
sweatshirt and his t-shirt.

And I was absolutely
horrified by what I saw.

Miss Neal, if you can
try and tell the judge

exactly what you saw when
you removed Terrence's shirt.

He had scars and
welts on his back.

After observing
those scars on his back,

what did you and the
guidance counselor do?

-We immediately called CPS.
-Thank you, Miss Neal.

-Counselor?
-Now, Miss Neal,

-December first...
-Yes.

...that's when you first
saw Terrence. Is that right?

Yes, sir.

And there were
bruises about his face?

-Yes.
-And when you saw the bruises,

you then asked the
child how that happened?

And the child said, my father
beat me, or my father hit me?

Yes.

And of course,
as a mandated reporter,

you called CPS, did you not?

Not the first time, no. I
called the guidance counselor.

So, nobody at the school,
as far as you knew,

on December first,
called CPS, correct?

Correct.

And you all sent the child home
with the abuser on December first.

Do I have that right?

Yes, sir. His father said he was a
diplomat and there was nothing we can do.

And on December 11th,

the child was brought
in again with injuries?

Yes.

Any reports that you wrote to
forward to CPS on this day?

-No.
-No further questions.

Witness is now excused.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Call your next
witness, Mr. Mentzer.

The Petitioner
calls Jaime Gilbert.

-You may inquire, sir.
-Thank you, Your Honor.

Miss Gilbert, where
are you employed?

I am a social worker for
the city of New York.

And what does a social worker
for the city of New York do?

First, we investigate allegations
of child abuse in the home.

Then, if we think
it's warranted,

we remove the abused children from the
home and place them into foster care.

Miss Gilbert, I want
to call your attention

to December 11th
of this past year.

Did you get involved
with the investigation

into an allegation of abuse involving
an individual named Terrence Karamba?

Yes, I did.

And what did you observe, if anything,
as to the physical condition of Terrence?

Terrence had
bruises on his face.

He had about 15 to 20 scars in
various stages of healing on his back.

Miss Gilbert, did you ask Terrence
how he got those injuries?

Yes, I did.

And what did Terrence tell you

as to how he got those
injuries you're talking about?

Terrence told me that his dad had
been beating him on a regular basis.

I'm sorry. I'll eat all
my dinner next time.

This is the consequence of
disrespecting your mother.

Stop!

Did Terrence tell you any other
places that he had been hit

by his father other
than on the back?

He said he would
sometimes hit him in the head.

He would hit him with his
fists and sometimes a belt.

It's just that I
don't like cabbage.

What do you have to
say for yourself?

I can't hear you!

I'm sorry.

Did you
examine Terrence's body

with an eye toward
recording those injuries?

I examined his body
and I took pictures.

Your Honor, if I may approach?

You may
approach the witness.

I'm going to show you what's been
previously marked Petitioner's A, B and C.

Three photographs. And I'd ask
you just to take a look at it.

When you're done,
please, look up.

Miss Gilbert, do you
recognize those pictures?

Yes, I do.

What do you recognize
those photographs to be of?

They are of Terrence's body.

Miss Gilbert, when Terrence told you
that his father had bound his wrists,

prior to hanging him from
this pipe in the basement,

did you see any physical
evidence of that on his wrists?

Yes, there were
scars on his wrists.

When Terrence told you that he
had been choked by his father,

did you see any physical
evidence of that?

Yes, I did. There were
marks on his neck.

Now Miss Gilbert,
after you spoke with Terrence,

did you make a determination as to
Terrence Karamba's safety and well-being?

-I did.
-And what was that?

I determined that Terrence was
in imminent danger to his welfare

if he stayed living
with his parents.

Thank you, Miss Gilbert. I
have no further questions.

-Cross.
-So, Miss Gilbert,

that's the standard, isn't it?

Imminent risk of serious
bodily injury or death.

That equates to removal.

Yes, absolutely.

Now, you made
this determination

based upon your observations
of the child's injuries, yes?

Yes.

And you are aware that Terrence's father
had diplomatic immunity. Is that right?

I was informed.

When you
were informed of that,

you made the conscious decision
of not calling law enforcement

because of the
immunity. Is that right?

I had him removed from his home
whether he was a diplomat or not.

My obligation is to remove
the child out of danger,

and that is what I did.

No further questions.

Thank you very much.
The witness is excused.

Mr. Mentzer?

Petitioner calls
Dr. Riley Hills.

You may inquire, Mr. Mentzer.

Dr. Hills, what type
of work do you do?

I am a board certified
child psychologist.

And what does a board
certified child psychologist do?

I treat children who have been removed
from the home due to allegations of abuse.

Have you, during
the course of your employment,

-treated a boy named Terrence?
-Yes.

Did Terrence describe for you any
abuse he has received by his family?

He did. He said that his father
would beat him with his fists,

with belts and electrical cord.

Now, did Terrence tell you what
the rest of his family was doing

while his dad began to whip him?

He told
me that his father

made his mother and his
sisters watch and ridicule him.

Is the physical damage that
you observed in Terrence

the most important thing to
you as his treating therapist?

No, it's the
psychological damage.

And what do you mean by that?

Well, he believes that
his family hates him.

Now, at some point,

you had to tell Terrence
that he had to go back home.

-Yes.
-Now, when he actually went back

to have this meeting to
go back to his parents,

did he react in any way
in the car ride over?

He did. He tried to jump out
of the car while it was moving.

And when he got to the building

where he was supposed to be turned over
to his parents, did he do anything?

He attempted to jump out
of a second story window.

-To avoid seeing his parents?
-That is correct.

And did you make a
determination as to whether it's safe

for Terrence to return
to his parents now?

-Yes.
-And what is that determination?

That it is not
safe to return him.

Thank you, Dr. Hills.

You may inquire, sir.

Now, in terms of your duties,

you treat children of abuse and
you attempt to protect them.

-Is that right?
-Yes.

And in this case, would
you say that removal from the home

is equally damaging to the child

as is the physical trauma
inflicted by the father?

I mean, it depends
on the relationship,

and we deal with it on a
case-by-case basis, so.

And what specifically
have you done

with respect to reunification
therapy for Terrence and the family?

We've made attempts to reunite
Terrence with his mother,

but he's still in fear of her.

-How many attempts?
-Two attempts.

And in your opinion,

given the circumstances,
that's sufficient?

-Yes.
-No further questions.

I The witness is excused.

Is that your final witness, sir?

Yes, Your Honor, the
Petitioner rests.

Do you want to renew your
motion to dismiss, counselor?

I would, Your Honor,
at this point in time.

Now it's denied.

The government's demand
that the case be dismissed

because the father and child were
protected by diplomatic immunity,

was just denied by me.

The State, which was
demanding the immediate return

of the child to the father, was then
forced to continue with the hearing.

Please call your first witness.

Yes, Your Honor. At this time, I would
call Kirby Davidson to the stand.

-Mr. Bakman, you may inquire, sir.
-Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Davidson, if you would,

can you please tell the court your
current profession or occupation?

I work with the United
States State Department.

And with respect
to that profession, sir,

tell the court, if you would,

what kind of training you've
received and what it's encompassed.

I've received extensive training in
the areas of diplomatic immunity,

uh, as it was afforded in
the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

Can you explain what that is?

Well, diplomatic
immunity was established

so that sending states could send
their diplomats and be assured

that they would be free from criminal
and civil prosecution in those states.

How many diplomats
and their families do we have abroad

representing the United States?

Upwards of 13,000.

And we are concerned with upholding
the provisions of the Vienna Convention

for protection of those
diplomats. Is that right?

That is correct.

Now, in
this particular case,

the nation of Zimbabwe itself
has sent the State Department

a request to have the child
returned to the father

and returned to the country
of origin. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Does diplomatic immunity
trump this court's decision

to keep this child in
protective custody?

-It does, yes.
-Why is that?

Well, because the things we need to
protect are diplomats around the world.

So, hypothetically, if our
foreign diplomats were say,

in a country that enforced
headscarves for women,

and one of our diplomats
or their family members

were to go out without a headscarf,
they could be arrested and prosecuted.

And we don't want that. So, we
have to afford the same here.

We can't break the rules.
This was agreed to in 1961

in the Vienna Treaty and
we need to adhere to it.

No further questions.

Any questions?

-Oh, yes, Your Honor.
-Okay.

Mr. Davidson, you first
got involved in this case

by receiving a call from
the Zimbabwe mission

notifying you that the son of one
of their diplomats was abducted.

That is correct.

And you of course, as a representative
from the State Department,

wanted to find out what happened.
Why was this child removed?

Yes.

You conducted your
own investigation, right?

That's correct.

And you found that he
was removed for his own safety

because the boy had accused his
father of stripping him down naked

and beating him over the naked
back with an extension cord.

You learned that to
be the case, right?

Yes, I did.

And you found that those
child protective workers

felt that his life was in danger if
he continued to live with his father.

-Yes.
-That's why they removed him.

-Yes.
-And you further found

that the mission of
Zimbabwe demanded

that we immediately release
him back to his family.

And if he didn't, they reserved the
right to retaliate against our diplomats.

-That is correct.
-You got a crisis on your hands.

Yes, we do.

Your job, how
do we deal with this?

And you found out
you had options.

One of those options was
you can expel the diplomat.

The problem is with that
option, you expel the diplomat,

you gotta send the child back to the home
of the man who had been brutalizing him.

-Right?
-Yes.

You had another option. You
could have simply asked Zimbabwe

to waive immunity in this case.

Yes.

Had you asked,
and they gave you immunity,

you could have kept this
child in foster care.

-Right?
-That is correct.

So, we never even asked them
to waive immunity, did we?

No.

In fact, the representative from
Zimbabwe was specifically asked

what would happen if this judge
gives them what you're asking for

and returns the
child to Zimbabwe?

What the representative from
Zimbabwe said when specifically asked

whether Terrence would go back to the
man who hung him up and whipped him,

-they said, "no comment."
-Correct.

The truth is that if this court
gives you what you're asking for,

and sends this boy
back to Zimbabwe,

you really don't know
what's gonna happen to him.

-No.
-Thank you.

-Witness is excused.
-Thank you.

Next witness, please.

I would call Floyd Karamba
to the stand, Your Honor.

You may inquire, sir.

Thank you, Your
Honor. All right. Mr. Karamba,

what is your current
profession or occupation, sir?

I am a diplomat representing
the Republic of Zimbabwe.

Do you have children?

-I do.
-How many?

-Three.
-And their ages?

I have a nine-year-old son and two
daughters, ages seven and three.

Your boy and your older daughter
go to school in Queens. Is that correct?

That is correct.

And tell me, on December first, were
you called to come down to the school?

-Yes.
-And when you got to the school,

-were you questioned?
-Yes.

And what kind of questions
were asked of you?

They asked me if I knew how my son
got these, uh, bruises on his face.

And they asked me
if I beat my son.

And what was your
response to that question?

My response was "no."

And did they in fact tell you
that Terrence stated to them,

my father beats me.

Yes.

Do you discipline your son?

Yes. I spank my son

on his rear-end,
above his clothing.

So, they let you take the children
home with you. Is that right?

Yes, they did.

Now, ten days later,
did you get another call?

Yes.

And on December 11th, were you
again confronted by the school

with allegations of
additional child abuse?

Yes.

And what did you say?

I told them that I
did not beat my son.

And no one, between
December first,

when the school allegedly heard
Terrence say, my dad beats me,

and they saw
bruises on his face,

no law enforcement, no police
officer came knocking and saying,

we are here to investigate
child abuse allegations.

No.

And CPS didn't come
down either, did they?

No, they did not.

On December 11th, did things change?
Was your son taken away from you?

Yes.

Have you since demanded
the city of New York

-to return your son to you?
-Yes.

Now, in
your culture, sir,

does that culture allow and permit
corporal punishment of a child?

-Yes.
-In what way?

You can do a number of things, but
spanking a child above the clothing

is one of those methods.

And were you in fact disciplined in
that manner by your father growing up?

Yes, I was.

And when
you discipline him,

do you tie him up to a
pipe in your basement

and then whip him with
an electrical cord?

No.

Do you believe, sir, that if
Terrence is returned to you

he is in imminent danger of
serious bodily injury or death,

-if he's returned to you?
-Not at all.

No further questions.

You may inquire, sir.

Mr. Karamba, did I hear that
right? That you did nothing more

than spank your son Terrence
over the clothes on the behind?

Yes, this is where
he was struck, yes.

So now, you've heard
the testimony of his teacher

who said that he observed cuts
and bruising to his face, right?

Yes.

You've heard the
testimony of Taylor Neal,

who testified that Terrence said you
caused those injuries to his face.

Yes.

And you've also heard the testimony
of Miss Gilbert, the social worker,

who testified that Terrence told
her that you strung him up naked

down in the basement and beat
him with an extension cord.

-Right?
-Yes.

But that's all a pack of lies?

I believe it to
be all lies, yes.

So, your nine-year-old son lied to
his teacher when he said you beat him?

Unfortunately,
Terrence does lie.

Now, you talked to this court
about corporal punishment.

You said, in your country, this is
a method for disciplining children.

Yes.

So, you believe that
this corporal punishment,

this method of discipline
worked for you, right?

Yes. My father would
use corporal punishment.

He would spank me with a belt
and I turned out just fine.

When you say you turned out just fine,
you're a successful diplomat, right?

-Yes.
-But you're also a man

who beats his own
children, aren't you?

-I discipline my children.
-Step back, counselor.

You're also a man whose own kid
would rather jump out of a moving car

than come back and
live with you, right?

I have never seen my son jump out of a
car and I do not believe this behavior.

Now, as somebody who
has only spanked his son

over a clothed behind with a belt.
Your Honor, can I please approach?

Absolutely.

Can you tell me, Mr. Karamba,
how your son got those?

At this time, I would like to
invoke my diplomatic immunity.

Counselor?

Your Honor, I believe he has a right to
do that at any stage of the proceedings.

Well, Mr. Bakman, he
does have that right.

He chose to waive that right
when you called him as a witness.

If he now chooses, as a result
of evidence that he has seen,

to invoke his right, that's fine, but
I'm going to strike his entire testimony.

In that case, Your Honor, I'd like
to ask for a five minute recess.

Allow me sufficient time
to talk to my client.

-Absolutely.
-Thank you.

Let me explain what
just happened here.

Floyd Karamba declined to answer
certain questions on cross-examination,

invoking diplomatic immunity.

But the law doesn't allow
you to pick and choose

what questions you will
and will not answer.

If he decides to invoke diplomatic status,
his entire testimony would be stricken.

Let's see what he decides.

Counselor?

Your Honor, I've spoken to
my client at this point.

He advises me out of the
love for his children,

and the fact that he
wants his son back,

he is waiving his diplomatic status
so that he can get his child back.

Fine. Mr. Mentzer, you want
to ask your question again?

-Yes. You've seen the picture?
-I have.

I ask you again, Mr. Karamba, how
did Terrence get those whip marks?

What happens in my
house stays in my house.

Are you now owning
up to what you did?

What happens in my
house stays in my house!

You did whip that boy!

Sir, what happens in my
house stays in my house!

Terrence wasn't lying, you are!

Objection, argumentative.

The last part is stricken. All right.
Mr. Karamba, you can take a seat.

Mr. Mentzer, would you like to
make a closing argument, sir?

Thank you, Your Honor.

The reality here is there really
is no dispute over what happened.

This man, Floyd Karamba,
battered his child,

he abused his child, he placed
his child's life in danger.

His health and safety are in jeopardy
were he to be sent back to Zimbabwe.

And the State
Department knows this.

Yet, the State Department would rather
maintain their cozy relationship

with the country of Zimbabwe by not
even asking for a waiver of immunity.

That's all we're asking here for,
is for them to start doing their job

and ask Zimbabwe for a
waiver of immunity here

so that this man can be
prosecuted, and more importantly,

that this child
can be protected.

Because if he's sent back,
his life will be in danger.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you. Mr. Bakman?

Quite frankly, Judge, I find
counsel's argument offensive.

The implications are
that the State Department

does not want to protect this child.
That couldn't be further from the truth.

The State Department wants
this child protected.

Just not on U.S. soil. The protection
has to come from the sending state.

That's Federal law and because
of Separation of Powers.

As callous as it may sound, protection
for this child must take place in Zimbabwe

given their demand for
the child's return.

This court is divested of
jurisdiction. Submitted.

The scope of this hearing is a limited
one to determine whether or not

the immediate future of this child's
life would be at risk of further abuse,

either physical or psychological,
if he were returned home.

It seems to me that this
country has failed this child.

Not once, but twice.

The city of New York failed
the child on December first.

There were visible
signs of abuse.

And rather than doing a full evaluation
of the child in the nurse's office,

the nurse, the social worker
in school, and the teacher

chose to bring father in, without
examining the child further,

which would have shown clearly

a pattern of consistent abuse
over a long period of time.

Because those scars, some
are fresh, some are old.

They were certainly
there on December first.

Failure number one of a governmental
agency towards this child.

Some ten days later, the child was
in fact beaten again by his father,

who for all intents and purposes
acknowledges that in his outburst here

because he considers
whatever happens in his home

inviolate from
inspection of authority.

The government of the
United States of America

has the obligation, in my
view, to at least attempt

to reach out to the
government of Zimbabwe,

show their representative
these photographs

and say, we would like some time to ensure
that the child, if returned, is safe.

The government of the United
States chose not to do that.

Two failures. I think that it is
the responsibility of the government

to do exactly what
Mr. Mentzer is requesting,

which is to ask the sending
state, and that is Zimbabwe,

to take a fresh look at these
fresh welts. In the interim,

I find that the child is in fact at risk
of being further abused and neglected.

We will pick a trial date for
a full trial on this date.

Until that time, the child remand to
Child Protective Services is continued.

Well, believe it or not, my
ruling caused a bit of a firestorm

when I continued the child
in protective custody.

The United States State
Department immediately appealed

and the case was heard
in federal court.

This time, the key legal concept

was called the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution

which establishes that federal laws and
treaties made under federal authority

supercede any laws
made by a state,

and state courts must defer to
those federal laws and treaties.

But the question
for me remained:

What about the issue of a little boy who
everyone now admitted had been abused?

Here's how it went.

Counsel, note your appearances.

Good morning, Your Honors.
Larry Bakman on behalf

of the government representing the
United States Department of State.

Good morning. For the
Respondent Terrence Karamba

and the city of New
York, I'm Dan Mentzer.

Mr. Bakman, you may proceed
with your opening statement.

Thank you, Your Honors. Floyd
Karamba is a diplomatic envoy

from the nation of Zimbabwe.

As such, he has absolute
diplomatic immunity,

precluding him from being either
criminally charged or civilly charged.

And the Supremacy Clause prevents
the state or the city of New York

from attempting to
dictate in foreign policy.

And the only entity that can
waive diplomatic immunity

is the sending country,
the nation of Zimbabwe.

And because they refuse to do that,
there is no waiver of immunity,

and Floyd Karamba and his
child Terrence Karamba

are not subject of the city
of New York. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bakman.
Mr. Mentzer, please.

Thank you, Judge.

If you give the State Department
what they're asking for,

and send Terrence
Karamba back to Zimbabwe,

his life will be in danger

because Floyd Karamba doesn't
think he did anything wrong.

So, what we want this court to do
is to compel the State Department

to do what they haven't done
yet, and that is to ask Zimbabwe

for a waiver of immunity so that
we can prosecute Floyd Karamba

for what he's done to his
son. And more importantly,

with a waiver of immunity, Terrence
Karamba will continue to receive

the therapy he so
desperately needs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mentzer.

We will now recess
to deliberate.

We are not a unanimous court.

Judge DiMango and I
are in the majority.

And Judge DiMango will
present the majority opinion.

And Judge Acker will
then give the dissent.

The essence of this appeal involves
the issue of diplomatic immunity

as it pertains to child
protective proceedings

conducted pursuant to
the Family Court Act.

The alleged abuse suffered
by the child Terrence

at the hands of his father
in the name of discipline

indeed offends even the
hardest of sensibilities.

But the question
presented here is,

did the Family Court have the
authority to exercise jurisdiction

over the parties to hear the
case and to reach a decision

on the merits in light of the
assertions of diplomatic immunity

by both the United States and
the sending state, Zimbabwe.

The answer to the question
is a resounding no.

Diplomatic immunity is considered
the cornerstone of diplomacy.

It is intended to protect the
diplomat and their families

from the service of civil
process, criminal prosecution

and the jurisdiction
of the courts

of the foreign states of
which they are stationed.

Were we to affirm the
decision of the Family Court,

our decision could be viewed as
condoning this misapplication of the law.

And so, based upon
the foregoing reasons,

it is with a heavy heart that the
lower court's decision is reversed.

My colleagues are right to
point out the importance

of the doctrine of diplomatic immunity,
and how critical that doctrine is

to our diplomatic services and
international interests around the world.

But they make a false
and unnecessary choice.

The City's request won't
compromise our diplomats.

The City simply seeks a stay

so that all of the various interests
at stake here may be heard.

Diplomats and their families
have a right to immunity,

but diplomats and their families
also have a right to asylum,

and to have those claims fairly
and properly adjudicated.

That is the law too.
Here, in this country,

a child endures this, and we
can't maintain a simple stay

that would permit him to
complete a request for help?

And to satisfy the legal requirements
of properly hearing an asylum claim?

If the State Department's commitment
to human rights is to mean anything,

if it cares to send a message
that this will not be tolerated

in these United States,

it has the duty to try to
bring this abuser to justice.

It has the duty to ask.
I respectfully dissent.

Terrence Karamba was removed from his
foster home and returned to Zimbabwe

to live with his family.

His father, Floyd Karamba was
never prosecuted for child abuse.

How could our government place this
child in harm's way without protection?

Even though Terrence Karamba was
ultimately sent back to Zimbabwe,

my ruling, which was to have the
child remain in protective custody,

caused the case to delay as it wound
its way through the court system.

This enabled certain
safeguards to be put in place

for the child's protection when he
was ultimately returned to his family.

The complex issue of diplomatic immunity
continues to plague the justice system.

Every year, it seems, a
new case of a diplomat

committing a horrendous crime is
protected by diplomatic immunity.

Sometimes, the rule of law,
when you factor in common sense,

just doesn't equal justice.

JUDGE JUDY PRESENTS
JUSTICE ON TRIAL