In The News

There’s no restraint:
Statistics reveal growing problem of violated restraining orders in Bay State
By Laurel J. Sweet/ Special Report
Boston Herald
Monday, June 25, 2007 - Updated: 07:20 AM EST

Startling new statistics show one out of four restraining orders issued in Massachusetts was violated last year, a problem that will come into sharp focus this week when accused stalker Lawrence “Ricky” Mathis goes on trial.

It took prosecutors two years to persuade the courts that Mathis, arguably a poster boy for the failings of restraining orders, needed to stay behind bars.

During that time Mathis, 46, allegedly called his ex-girlfriend, Mary Rieves, at her job in South Boston, warning her, “You’re going to become a statistic. I’m going to kill you.” Seven months later, police say, he tried to crush her new beau, Isaac Dave, under the tires of a Honda Accord.

It’s bad,” said Rieves, 46, who has been taking out restraining orders against Mathis, the father of her 15-year-old daughter, since 1993. “I just wish (the courts) would try to do more for the victims and stop being so lenient with the offenders.”

Last year, 7,114 of 28,076 restraining orders were defied, according to the Office of the Commissioner of Probation.

The reality of life and of restraining orders is that if a person is intent on harassing someone, just because a judge has ordered them to stay away, doesn’t mean they’re going to do that,” said former prosecutor David E. Frank, a reporter for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

Are restraining orders “100 percent guaranteed? Unfortunately,” Frank said, “the results speak for themselves.”

No one needs to tell Rieves, who will face Mathis at trial for the very first time tomorrow when jury selection begins in Suffolk Superior Court on indictments charging him with stalking in violation of a restraining order, five counts of violating a restraining order, aggravated assault and battery, assault with a dangerous weapon and malicious destruction of property.

“There’s a lot to this and I look forward to trying the case,” said Mathis’ defense attorney, Derege Demissie. “My client looks forward to his day in court.”

Mathis has been held on $10,000 cash bail since May 23, 2006, when he pled not guilty to the indictments. For Rieves, who carries a copy of her restraining order on her person always, it was a long time coming.

Good thing I’m a strong person,” she said. “I have a daughter I have to take care of and I’m not going to let anyone defeat me. No way. I’m going to be there to see her grow up.”

Mathis’ adult criminal record dates back to 1981 and includes time served for making threats and stalking.

After Mathis allegedly issued the death threat to Rieves on Aug. 10, 2005, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley’s office, citing Mathis’ decade-long history of restraining orders, asked Boston Municipal Court Judge Robert P. Ziemian to revoke his $350 cash bail. Ziemian said no.

On March 1, 2006, Mathis was allegedly waiting for Rieves when she came out of work and, according to court documents, “forcefully placed his hands on (her) body.”

Her friend, Isaac Dave, got between them. Mathis allegedly tried to run Dave down with his car, but hit Dave’s Ford Taurus instead. One hour later, according to prosecutors, Mathis was “repeatedly calling her (Rieves) home and ringing her doorbell.”

Again, Conley’s office fought to keep Mathis locked up. Instead, Ziemian set bail at $2,500 cash, only to reduce it two days later to personal recognizance on the conditions Mathis go on a probation electronic monitoring ankle bracelet and stay away from his victims.

Mathis, however, did not comply and allegedly continued to harass Rieves. Finally, on March 27, 2006, Ziemian revoked Mathis’ bail. That, too, was short-lived. Three days later, Judge Rosalind Miller set a new bail of $5,000.

Ziemian declined to comment because he is ethically prohibited from doing so. A judicial source, however, said restraining orders are “fraught with problems” because judges need to see physical evidence of abuse or have a second witness testify that danger is imminent.

Toni K. Troop, spokeswoman for Jane Doe Inc., the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, understands judges are “overburdened, overtaxed with cases.” The courts and law enforcement have come a tremendous distance in addressing these issues,” Troop said. “We urge people not to lose sight of the fact that in 75 percent of the cases, the restraining order has been an effective tool.”

Rieves agrees. “In the long run,” she said, “it will help.”

Troop thinks we could all learn something by Rieves’ example. “If she can do it,” Troop said, “my God, can’t society find the resources, the strength and the courage to stand up for every victim?”