The Judy Hartwell Case

On March 16, 1976, a Wayne County jury of eight women and four men acquitted Judy Kay Hartwell, 28, of murder charges stemming from the fatal stabbing of her husband, Freddie Angelo Hartwell. Mrs. Hartwell had claimed that the killing was in self-defense: she had feared that her husband was about to forcibly perform anal intercourse upon her or to tie her to the bed and whip her—both of which she found painful, humiliating, and contrary to her religious beliefs.

The case may have established an important legal precedent, for Circuit Judge Victor Baum instructed the jury that a married woman has a legal right to forcibly resist unwanted sexual advances by her husband. Baum's instruction was a somewhat unexpected positive step toward legal recognition of women's right to control their own bodies.

WOMEN AS PROPERTY

Although Michigan appellate courts have never addressed the question of whether married women must submit to their spouses' sexual demands, Michigan's new Sexual Assault Act implies that they must. The new act, which contains many progressive provisions-—including its prohibition of cross-examining rape victims about their prior sexual experiences as a means of discrediting their testimony—retains the archaic and disturbing provision that men cannot be convicted of raping their wives.

Feminists have charged that this aspect of the law perpetuates the historical function of rape laws: the protection of male property rights—i.e. the right of men to exclusive possession of their wives and daughters as sexual commodities—rather than the protection of a woman's right to choose whether or not to engage in sexual relations on any given occasion. Statutory rape laws also reflect this property orientation toward rape, since a father may seek redress for the "violation" of his young daughter, regardless of her willingness to participate in sexual relations.

Laws which refuse to recognize that rapes can, and do, occur within the marital relationship continue women's legal status lis as the property of their husbands. These laws assume that a man cannot "steal" what is lawfully "his."

Hence the significance of Judge Baum's instructions: although a husband cannot bc convicted of raping his wife, she has a right to refuse and resist what may in fact be a rape by him.

TERROR IN MARRIAGE

As valuable as the Hartwell case may be in creatingl aw protective of the bodily integrity of women, to speak of it only in legal terms is to obscure the human dimensions of the case. Judy Hartwell's acquittal was, in a sense, a hollow victory: had the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office been functioning intelligently and humanely, charges would never have been filed against Judy Hartwell, and she would not have been subjected to the anxiety and public exposure of extensive legal proceedings culminating in a week-long trial.

"The Wayne County Sheriffs and prosecuting attorneys responsible for bringing the case to trial never had a real reason to doubt that the killing was in legitimate self-defense," says Mark Weiss, Mrs. Hartwell's attorney. "Mrs. Hartwell's statements to the police, statements of neighbors, and circumstantial evidence all pointed to her innocence."

Judge Maitwell explained the events leading to Fred Hartwell's death both in her testimony at trial and in her "confessions" to the police. These statements described long years of terror, humiliation, and isolation in a marriage to a man who freely gave vent to a penchant for violence and sadism.

Mrs. Hartwell's neighbors readily corroborated this characterization of Fred. Each one affirmed that they feared Fred when he was drunk, that they'd seen him playing with guns and knives, and that they'd seen him abuse Judy and threaten to kill her. Horrifying anecdotes emerged: Fred once held a loaded gun to Judy 's chin and cocked the trigger; Fred once struck his pregnant wife with a sledgehammer; Fred once shot off a loaded gun in the living room where his small children played, leading the older boy to cry, "Is daddy gonna kill me?"

On the day of his death, Fred drank steadily throughout the afternoon and evening. Neighbors' testimony that they 'd seen Fred drunk that day was hardly necessary: the autopsy report indicated the alcohol content of Fred's blood to be .19-nearly twice the legal limit for drunk driving. Neighbors did sec the six-foot, 200-pound Fred holding Judy in a hammerlock earlier that day, and heard him threatening to kill her.

Judy returned home that evening to find Fred gone. Noting a half-empty bottle of Seagram's on the table and two missing knives, Judy knew Fred had continued drinking in her absence. As was her custom when Fred was out drinking, she gathered up all the sharp knives and other objects which might be used as weapons and hid them under the bed so that Fred would awaken her if he tried to get at them.

Fred wakened Judy as he entered the trailer, and announced that they were going to have sex "his way." Judy, knowing that this meant any one of a number of humiliating and painful acts—including being spread-eagled, tied to the bedposts, and whipped with a rubber hose—became extremely frightened. Fred ordered Judy to undress herself and him and perform fellatio upon him. Judy was willing to comply, hoping to relax him so that he'd fall asleep. While she was kneeling at the bedside, Fred picked up a butcher knife and hurled it in her direction, but it missed and bounced off a closet. When Judy complained that she was in an uncomfortable position, Fred said, "I'll make you comfortable," and left the room. Judy heard him rummaging in a closet where she knew he kept a whip, straps and ropes.

Hoping to scare Fred away and flee the trailer, Judy found a paring knife under the bed. As she was about to run ' for the door, Fred obstructed her passage and lunged at her. Judy _pnkked and stabbed him.

A SEXIST PROSECUTION

An unanswered question: why was this case brought? The investigation was perfunctory; for example, detectives did not bother to search the Hartwell trailer for the whips and other weapons which would corroborate Judy's story. The complete insensitivity displayed by the men who presented the case suggests more sinister explanations: a male chauvinistic perception of the facts of the case (Prosecutor Andrew Telek commented during the trial that, after all, Fred was only seeking "a little satisfaction") or, worse still, that these men obtained some perverse satisfaction from forcing Mrs. Hartwell to publicly expose the details of the sexual humiliations she suffered with Fred.

One thing is clear: the prosecuting attorney had no expectation of winning the case. During the course of the trial he remarked, "l'd have to be Jesus Christ to win this case." Even more unnerving were Telek's comments as Judy, her friends and attorneys anxiously awaited the Jury's return. Defense attorney Weiss said to Telek, "Tough case, eh?" Telek replied, "Not really. After all, I didn't exactly have a lot of evidence."

STARTING A NEW LIFE

Although the not-guilty verdict has brought the legal proceedings to a close, the ordeal has not ended for Judy Hartwell. She must anticipate the day when her young sons are old enough to wonder about their father and his death. "I've saved all the newspaper articles about my case," she explains, "so when the boys ask me about it, they can read for themselves. That way, they won't have to take my word as to what happened."

Judy also finds people's reactions to her and to the case to be rather unsettling. "Some people have said, "Your case means that women can kill their husbands whenever they want and call it rape. This upsets me, because that's not what this whole thing was about."

Despite the inevitable heartache incidents this will cause for Judy, some positive things did come out of the trial for her. At the outset of the trial, Judy had very little self-esteem. She had tried to hide the fact that she was beaten by Fred from others, feeling that no one else had ever been in her position. But Weiss and the defense team considered

Many women like Judy Hartwell, trapped in marriages in which they are chronically beaten, are embarrassed or afraid to seek help. When help is sought, it's typically not available. Mrs. Hartwell had often called police when her husband was assaulting her, but they refused to help.

continued on page 32

Hartwell continued from page 3

part of their job to be to increase Judy Hartwell's acceptance of what she had done as having been justified and correct, and to support and encourage the strength she was beginning to acquire.

The trial brought Judy much support from friends, neighbors, court spectators, and representatives of womens' groups. After the verdict was announced, jurors hugged Judy and told her they'd been with her all along. By the time the trial was concluded, Judy was beginning to acquire a sense of dignity and self-worth, and began to feel strong and positive about the future.

WHERE CAN WOMEN GO?

A final point: Judy's case dramatically brings home a common plight of women trapped in marriages or other relationships in which they are chronically beaten. Many, like Judy, are embarrassed or afraid to seek help. Attorney Weiss adds, "When help is sought, it is not available n 'family trouble situations."

Judy Hartwell had called the police in the past when Fred was assaulting her, but they refused to assist her. The previously-mentioned beating with a sledgehammer followed a phone call to the police in which help was refused. In her tape-recorded "confession" to the police, Judy expressed her feelings of helplessness and of having nowhere to turn for protection from Fred, which led to her panic and ultimately to the stabbing.

In Washtenaw County, a domestic violence wife assault task force has been established by the National Organization for to provide help for women in this type of situation. No such program exists in the Detroit area.

Hopefully, Judy Hartwell's story will force the police and public to recognize the fact that women who are beaten by their husbands are victims of crimes who need and are entitled to protection, if for no other reason than to prevent more tragedies like the Hartwell family's.

Margie Cohen is a free-lance writer and a legal assistant who lives in Ann Arbor.