Thursday, April 16, 2009

Man jailed for ten months based on wife's allegation that he tried to force her to have sex; the jury acquits him in just 40 minutes

COMMENT: If the case discussed in the news story below this comment doesn't scare the daylights out of every male in a relationship with a woman, I'm not sure what will. A man faced twenty years in prison for allegedly trying to force his wife to have sex during an argument about their lack of physical contact. He never completed the act, and they took a shower together immediately thereafter. She had no bruises or other physical indicia of the alleged assault. Two days later, she had him arrested and bond was set at an incredible $250,000. Based on nothing more than her word that he had attempted to do something against her will. The man's defense attorney stated: “I believed the allegations were false to gain an advantage in a divorce. You try the case the same as any other case. You look at the facts. This was a weak case for the state. Aside from her allegations, there was no evidence to corroborate her story.”

Still the man was arrested and held for trial. And he was jailed for ten full months because bond was set so high.

Did you get that? Almost a year -- in jail -- based solely on the accusation of his wife, unsubstantiated by any other evidence. Why wouldn't a restraining order have worked here?

And then the jury took just forty minutes to acquit him.

For what other criminal allegation can one citizen deprive another of his liberty for ten months based on a "he said-she said" dispute about an alleged attempted rape where penetration admittedly never occurred and for which there was no other evidence? No man has the ability to do this to any woman. It is appalling.

Acquittal for hubby accused of wife rape

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:19 PM EDT

By LISA BACKUSStaff writer

NEW BRITAIN — The parents of a city man accused of attempting to sexually assault his wife are crediting the work of an assistant public defender for setting their son free.

Michael Lidzbarski, 40, had been held on $250,000 bond since his arrest by city police last June.

It took a jury 40 minutes to come back with a not-guilty verdict Monday, his attorney, Claude Chong, said.

“I’m happy for my client,” Chong said. “I am grateful that justice was done.”

Lidzbarski was arrested by warrant June 27, 2007, two days after the alleged attack.

The warrant for his arrest said his wife accused him of trying to force her to have sex during an argument about their lack of physical contact.

The woman admitted she took a shower with him immediately after the incident and had no physical evidence such as bruises to back up her story.

He was not accused of completing the sexual assault.

“This was the first case I’ve ever had where a wife accused her husband of attempted sexual assault,” said Chong, who has tried other sexual assault cases.

“I believed the allegations were false to gain an advantage in a divorce. You try the case the same as any other case. You look at the facts. This was a weak case for the state. Aside from her allegations, there was no evidence to corroborate her story.”

The woman filed for divorce in August 2008. The divorce proceedings were on hold pending the outcome of the criminal case.

Chong said his client had no previous criminal record and had turned down a plea deal, instead opting to go to trial.

Closing arguments were made Monday after two days of testimony, Chong said.

The jury came back with a not-guilty verdict after 40 minutes of deliberation.

“One of the tragedies here is that he was held on high bond for 10 months,” Chong said.

“He had no criminal record. It was based solely on the allegations. I think justice was done but the high bond was unjustified.”

Lidzbarski’s mother credited Chong for her son’s acquittal.

“Thanks to Mr. Chong, if not for him my son would have faced 20 years in prison for something he didn’t do,” she said as she and other family members waited outside the court clerk’s office for him to be released.

“I knew we didn’t have the money for a lawyer but I was worried, I thought for sure, it’s a public defender, but this really restored my faith in public defenders.”

Link: http://www.newbritainherald.com/articles/2009/04/15/news/doc49e6926c1687e848067141.txt