Local man convicted of voyeurism

Eustan J. Lampkins was convicted of voyeurism Tuesday after he allegedly videotaped his mother-in-law showering and undressing for bed while she was visiting him and his wife last December. \nAccording to a police statement filed by Officer George Connolly of the Bloomington Police Department, Doris Jones, mother of Audra Lampkins, came to Bloomington to visit her daughter's family just before Christmas 2002.\nAfter spending the night, Jones decided to take a shower. Her son-in-law, Eustan Lampkins, interrupted her, asking if he could use the bathroom first to get ready for work. Suspecting nothing, she told him to go right ahead.\nAfter Lampkins left the bathroom, Jones took a shower and then began trying to find a hamper or dirty clothes pile where she could put her wet towel, police said. Instead, she found an eight millimeter video camera recording her from beneath her grandson's shirt.\nShe removed the videotape from the camera and confronted Lampkins, who she said was waiting just outside the bathroom as she came out. He denied that he was attempting to record her while she was showering.\nWhen Jones returned to her own house, she decided to view the videotape, police said. It showed her showering that morning, and also included footage of Lampkins and Jones' daughter having sex, several men doing drugs and Jones undressing for bed the previous night and sleeping. In addition, the video showed Lampkins setting up the video camera in the bathroom before Jones' shower.\nIn the statement, Jones said that family members had not been in favor of her daughter's marriage, but that prior to the incident, they thought their relationship with the Lampkins family had been improving.\nThe trial was held in Circuit Court 4 and began at 8 a.m. Oct. 21. According to jury coordinator Lisa Abraham, there were no major disputes between the attorneys regarding jury selection.\n"We had no trouble getting a panel," Abraham said. "We brought them in 18 [citizens] … and from the 18 they picked six. There were people left over."\nAbraham added that although trials can take longer, this one was relatively concise.\n"We got it done in a day," she said.\nProsecutor Maryanne Pelic said it was not difficult to convict Lampkins. She attributed this to the videotape evidence and the improbability of Lampkins' defense argument.\n"His explanation of what happened didn't make sense in light of the videotape," Pelic said.\nAccording to Pelic, the defense's argument regarding the taping of Jones undressing was that Lampkins and his wife always taped their arguments and that while the camera was set up to tape an argument, Jones happened to come into the bedroom and get ready for bed. \nThe defense for taping Jones in the bathroom was that Lampkins was attempting to play a practical joke on his wife, Pelic said.\nPelic added that she was unsure why Lampkins would have chosen to do this on a morning that he was hurrying to get to work.\nLampkins' defense attorney, Phyllis J. Emerick declined to comment on the case.\n"I don't feel I'm at liberty to (make a statement). We haven't had sentencing yet, and this is such a private issue for my client," Emerick said.\nThe sentencing trial is scheduled for Dec. 4. According to Pelic, the range of possible penalty for this offense is six months to three years in jail.\n"The mother-in-law's main concern is that he get treatment," Pelic said.\nShe added that Lampkins' wife has supported him throughout the trial and that both she and Lampkins testified on Tueday.\n-- Contact staff writer Elise Baker at elimbake@indiana.edu.