The tragedy, the injustice, the incalculable sadness over the destruction of an innocent life -- all of it speaks for itself, and no comment can further underscore this frightening miscarriage of justice. I will note one thing: the prosecutor who is charged with withholding the information still says the man is a rapist. Even now, this poor man is forced to carry the taint of this injustice with him.
Court backs retrial over evidence dispute in sex assault case
By JENNIFER EMILY / The Dallas Morning News jemily@dallasnews.com
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled Wednesday that a man sentenced to life in prison for sexual assault as a teen should get a new trial because evidence was withheld in his case.
Court records show the victim told a prosecutor in 1995 that Antrone Lynelle Johnson did not sexually assault her inside a school restroom, but Johnson was convicted and not told about the information until last year.
Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins said Wednesday that his office would not retry Johnson because prosecutors don't believe a crime occurred. Johnson, now 32, was released from prison in November pending the outcome of the appellate court's decision.
"Obviously, he didn't commit the crime," Watkins said. "Prosecutorial misconduct was done in this case, and it was blatant."
But Patricia Hogue, the original prosecutor in the case, adamantly denies that she withheld information and says that current prosecutors "misled" the court. The information, she said, would have been given orally to Johnson's attorney. There would be no written record.
Hogue, who was fired when Watkins took office in January 2007, questioned why the DA's office would take the word of Johnson's attorney, V. Ray Davis, who was convicted in 1998 of trying to bribe a prosecutor.
"If the DA's office wants to do that and let rapists out of jail, that's OK. I'm not part of it anymore," Hogue said. "It's still absolutely false that I withheld evidence."
She said she is also angry that current prosecutors haven't allowed her to examine the case file.
Withholding such evidence from the defense is called a "Brady violation." The term refers to a 1963 U.S. Supreme County case – Brady vs. Maryland – in which the court found that prosecutors violate defendants' constitutional rights if they intentionally or accidentally withhold evidence favorable to the defense.
There is no criminal charge for a Brady violation in Texas.
The day before Johnson's trial, the girl told prosecutors that Johnson did not sexually assault her, according to court records. A school official also called her "a great liar," according to another notation in the file.
A copy of a prosecutor's note from Feb. 5, 1995, reads: "Johnson did not make her give him oral sex. He took her in the bathroom and she told him she didn't want to do it, so he stayed in there and pretended and then let her out."
She didn't appear for trial, but prosecutors persuaded Johnson to plead guilty to sexual assault in exchange for 10 years of deferred adjudication probation. That type of probation means Johnson would not have had a criminal conviction if he completed the program.
While on probation in September 1995, Johnson was accused of having sex in the boys' restroom with a 13-year-old female Seagoville High schoolmate.
She was three months away from 14 – the legal age in Texas to consent to sex with the 17-year-old Johnson. He was charged with sexual assault of a child.
Records show the girl came to school with condoms and had sex that day with three other students under the basketball bleachers. Those students were also charged.
Court records show the girl gave conflicting statements. She told a grand jury that she had denied to others having sex with Johnson. But the denial apparently was not revealed to the defense, which would also be a Brady violation.
Judge Mark Tolle, who is now deceased, revoked Johnson's probation and sentenced him to life in prison in the first case. He was given a five-year prison sentence in the second case.
The DA's office said Wednesday that the girl from the first case told prosecutors she did not know Johnson had gone to prison. She said nothing happened in the restroom and did not have a clear recollection of what she told Hogue and when she told her. She did not object to Johnson's release.
Johnson's attorney, Shirley Baccus-Lobel, said Wednesday that Johnson did not want to speak about the case. She said Johnson is working, going to school and dating.
"It's a happy day here," Baccus-Lobel said. "It would have been a tragedy to have all that yanked from him."
Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-hogue_21met.ART0.Central.Edition1.526c.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
48 comments:
In my opinion the real rapist in this situation is Patricia Hogue. Where does she get off continuing to tarnish this innocent victim?
She deserves to spend the rest of her worthless life behind bars, but of course she won't. The scum won't even get a slap on the wrist. Our system loves liars.
I would like to chide her in the way that the great Joseph Welch, attorney for the Army, chided the '50s Communist witch hunter Senator Joseph McCarthy on national television when McCarthy tried to smear Welch's young associate:
WELCH: "Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. . . . . (L)ittle did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. . . . . It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think that I am a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."
When McCarthy started up again, Mr. Welch delivered the famous line that was the beginning of the end for McCarthy's witch hunt:
WELCH: "Senator, may we not drop this?....Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Ms. Hogue, you have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, madam? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
Watch a great American destroy a very vile one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAur_I077NA
And this situation is just like McCarthyism, only many times worse. Thousands of innocent men will always bear a scar because of the liars.
Another perverted DA.
Another knifong.
"Watch a great American destroy a very vile one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAur_I077NA And this situation is just like McCarthyism, only many times worse. Thousands of innocent men will always bear a scar because of the liars."
Excellent, Anonymous. There are tremendous similarities between the two witch hunts -- except ours is far more widespread and dangerous.
"If the DA's office wants to do that and let rapists out of jail, that's OK. I'm not part of it anymore," Hogue said. "It's still absolutely false that I withheld evidence."
Truly amazing! Patricia Hogue is trying to persuade everyone that she certainly DID tell the defense about the ultimate in exculpatory evidence - a pre-trial recantation; then it one sentence, she totally destroys her entire story.
Notice she says, "If the DA's office wants to do that and let rapists out of jail...", while she knows damned well that Johnson was innocent.
So, what kind of person calls a another, who they know is innocent of the crime, a "rapist"? One who doesn't care about justice, but only about imprisoning men and building a reputation.
To make matters even worse than with what happened with Micheal Nifong, this women actually did take the case to trial, and won a conviction of the innocent man - all while knowing full well that he was innocent. (Actually, I'm sure that Nifong intend to do the same thing).
The woman needs to be charged with prosecutorial misconduct, disbarred, and Johnson should sue her for every penny she has, and will ever make. That's what should ALWAYS happen to those in law enforcement who manipulate facts in order to convict those that they know are innocent.
An honest prosecutor would not only have disclosed a recantation to the defense (and done so both orally and in writing), they would have dismissed the case entirely.
[full disclosure: I'm married to a prosecutor who has done just that - dismissed a case in which the alleged victim recanted her rape charge. And, not only did she immediately call the defense attorney, she went before the judge, in open court, and made a legal record of all that had transpired - ensuring that there would be a court transcript to fully exonerate the falsely accused defendant. I think that this is, and should be, the norm for dealing with such occurrences. Any attorney who fails to disclose such information has failed in both their legal and ethical duties to the court (the duties they swear to uphold/it's not a personal choice), and should suffer the most severe sanctions possible. failing in such matters only serves to erode public confidence in judicial and law enforcement operations. This must be stopped, even at the cost of careers - it's that important.]
Excellent, slwerner. Thanks. Your wife sounds like a beacon in the darkness that has engulfed our legal system. Our profession is filled with people who hide evidence to win cases. Sad but true.
Archivist - "Excellent, slwerner. Thanks. Your wife sounds like a beacon in the darkness that has engulfed our legal system. Our profession is filled with people who hide evidence to win cases. Sad but true."
I'm afraid I must disagree here. The vast majority of those involved in law enforcement and the judiciary ARE honest and upstanding individuals. There are only a select few who taint the entire profession(s). Most cops are honest - and a great many false rape accusation are sniffed out almost immediately. It might surprised some to learn that there are, I have learned, instances in which the story of a complaining witness does ring true, and a responding officer will ultimately get the truth out of them and dissuade them from making false accusations - including false rape allegations.
the problem is that the fine work, such as this, that the majority do tends to go entirely unnoticed - they're just doing their sworn duty to do justice. It's the rouges who get noticed.
As for prosecutors, rather than engaging in willful acts of false prosecutions, they are prone to make honest mistakes. In my wifes case, she very nearly made such a mistake. She was set to take the alleged rapist to trial, and to use his criminal record to enhance his ultimate sentence (she was virtually assured a "win").
It was only because she decided to discuss the sentence she intended to ask for with the "victim" (in an effort to bolster her with the knowledge that her testimony was "going to get that evil rapist off the streets for a long time" that the victim ever chose to recant at all.
Her story of and innocent visit resulting in a violent forcible rape had fooled season investigators, experience victims assistance consolers; and would certainly have fooled any jury.
It was only when she realized that her lies were about to send him to prison that she confessed to my wife that she had made it all up.
The point I am making here is that my wife, who takes her legal duties very seriously, was going to trial in the firm belief that the young women had been raped. She would have tried and convicted an innocent man, not due to any malicious intent, but rather because she (and many others) had been so effectively mislead.
This particular case was the only false rape case that I'm aware of in her office, but I do know that cases are routinely dismissed when exculpatory evidence is found - and discovered to the defense without hesitation.
Far from being filled with dishonest and devious individuals intent on getting wins at all costs, the vast, vast majority of prosecutors are truly dedicated to serving the cause of justice.
I know many of them personally, and I can tell you that, to a person, they were all calling for Nifong's head for what he had done.
Again, I know many of these honest attorney's personally, and I know that they would never think to withhold evidence just to win a case. Far from being a "blot" on their trial stats, a case dismissed for cause serves as a definite plus for their careers.
So, please don't disparage the entire prosecutorial bar with such a broad brush - let's find those "bad apples" and make examples out of them.
Can you imagine what NOW and feministing.com would say if this was being done to women? Just imagine if any man -- no matter what kind of a criminal he was; no matter how low his character -- could falsely accuse any woman of a crime and automatically be believed. Imagine if women were routinely convicted based on nothing but the testimony of a man, and his ability to make himself cry in front of strangers. Can you imagine what they would say? They would have no qualms about comparing our justice system to that of Nazi Germany.
And then imagine if any man could frame a woman -- and then admit that he'd made it all up -- and the woman still went to jail because "recantations aren't reliable." Can you imagine what they would do?
They would be rioting in the streets!
Slwerner: I completely agree that the problem isn't just due to malice on the part of some prosecutors. These false accusers are really good at what they do.
But I think that most of them are people who are better at manipulating those who want to believe them. If you turn up the heat on them under cross they can melt pretty quickly. If you're such a liar that you would make up a story about being raped then you'll probably have a hard time refraining from making up more and more lies.
Still, it's very possible for an innocent man to be convicted, even if the police and prosecution are honest -- which is why it is so terribly important to start sending false accusers to prison where they belong. It is a huge mistake to say that you can solve this problem just by cracking down on the prosecutors who do withhold evidence.
When my son's accuser tried to back out of her accusation, the prosecutor threatened her mother she was either prosecuting him -- or she would prosecute her.
This same prosecutor, claiming I was "retraumatizing the victim" had me barred from participating in my son's defense because I'd told both the local police and Seattle police, my son's attorney and Niece's therapist my sister in law had put her up to making the accusation after I threatened to report her as a molester.
I was roundly proclaimed a liar -- women don't molest children. Only men molest children.
His accuser also left the state and refused to return to testify, just as this girl did.
When my son asserted his right to face his accuser, they checked her into a mental ward and refused to return.
This prosecutor knew the accusation was false, but wanted the 'win' so badly she would have gone after the mother for trying to drop it.
The right to face your accuser is supposed to be one of the most important Constitutional rights we have -- yet prosecutors can so easily circumvent it.
Anonymous - "But I think that most of them are people who are better at manipulating those who want to believe them."While I didn't go into the details of the case I was describing, it was absolutely true that there was a definite bias towards believing the "victim" and suspecting the worst of the accused.
I'd hope not to take this discussion off on any more of a tangent than I already have, but. briefly (in the hopes of better understanding), the case involved a white honor student, from a good home, who was (for lack of a better way of expressing it) looking to gain some street "cred" by hooking up with gang-banger (I have no idea why). Anyway, she went to his home, with the full intent of having sex with him in the hope that they would become boyfriend-girlfriend.
But, after having had sex, when he expressed his disinterest in her as anything other than being just another of his "ho's", she got angry, and made her allegation against him.
So, yes, there was a definite bias at work which lead to the false allegation being believed more readily. I also believe that this young women was a very good liar and manipulator, as well.
Q:" She didn't appear for trial, but prosecutors persuaded Johnson to plead guilty to sexual assault in exchange for 10 years of deferred adjudication probation."
I just want to call attention to this little fact once again --
This case should have been dropped if for no other reason.
You can't just tell the police and prosecutor something happened, then let that person go to prison without testifying before a Judge, and allowing him to defend himself.
Whether you know it or not -- the WORST element of this story is not Ms. Hogue withholding the recant.
This witness not even appearing in court to testify, and the poor guy getting strong-armed into accepting a guilty plea is the WORST. THE WORST!
Even though everything was stacked against him, my son was willing to go to trial to defend himself.
"We both went to Christian schools. She can't put her hand on a Bible and say I did that".
He knew she couldn't look at him and lie. The prosecutor damn well knew it too.
Everyone has the right to face his/her accuser in a court of law. It's what USED to be "The Greatest Justice System In The World".
Sgt. Mom - "I just want to call attention to this little fact once again --
This case should have been dropped if for no other reason."
A while back, when you first related the account of your son's Alfred Plea, I was amazed at the level of incompetence/malfeasance that seemed to have come from all sides - the prosecutor, the defense attorney and the judge - in the case.
I had posted some questions to you, but you might not have seen them at the time. But, one of my concerns had been as to how a case could have proceeded without the victim, and no prior ruling from the court allowing the case to move forward in her absence.
As I recall, no notification was given at least 30 days in advance of the intent to proceed without her as a witness, and she was just "convienietly" out of town on the day of trial?
Am I recalling this correctly?
I don't know if Washington's laws are substantially different than Colorado's, but I cannot imagine a judge allowing such a thing to happen.
In my wifes jurisdiction, they employ a full staff of trained victim counselors because it is so important to get victims to be able and willing to testify for trials.
In the case I described in previous posts, my wife was making sure that the victim was ready and able to testify when she recanted, because, as I recall, her testimony was going to be necessary to establish that a crime had indeed occurred.
Perhaps one of our legal minds here could comment?
I am going to regretfully disagree with you, Mr. Werner.. only after assuring you I believe your wife is a most fortunate lady, and have no doubt she is all you say she is.
This is like saying the majority of Congressmen and Senators are REALLY honest, hardworking good people who would never do wrong. It's only a few bad seeds...
I've worked in a high school, and know personally several cases where an innocent kid was forced to plead guilty to something they hadn't done in order to avoid the expensive of trial.
It was all - 6 months unsupervised probation and it will be dropped if you plead guilty stuff, so they did.
But it was ROUTINE. And even though they paid a fine and it was later dropped, it was still admitting guilt to something they didn't do.
And it's ROUTINE!!!
You want to be stubborn and plead innocent? Sure. It'll cost you. Hundreds? Thousands?
So most just do the guilty plea and go away with an early indoctrination into the 'just us' system.
That's corrupt, how ever minor. That's wrong no matter how young.
Corruption and justice only going to the highest bidder is the legal reality most of us live with.
Mr. SLWerner,
These posts are getting jumbled and out of sync we're all posting so fast and furiously.
Thank you for asking those questions --it's been 10 years, and I was not allowed to participate in my son's defense.
I really need to pin down those timelines - you made an excellent point...
I wasn't allowed to hear the charges, I wasn't allowed to read the statements.
I have sent for his records, and hopefully they'll come soon -
I am going to my notes from the time and check that time line.
I have had other attorneys look over the case --they all say you got a good deal, don't try to undo it.
This has never felt like a good deal...
I live in Colorado, too.
"So, please don't disparage the entire prosecutorial bar with such a broad brush . . . ." I defer to you on the prosecutorial bar, and suspect you are absolutely correct. I was referring to the legal profession as a whole, of which I have much knowledge.
Sgt. Mom - "Corruption and justice only going to the highest bidder is the legal reality most of us live with."
And, I have to disagree with you also.
Given the facts as you presented them here, I could give you the names of at least a dozen defense attorney's (including some public defenders) who'd have got your son's cased summarily tossed had it happened here in Colorado.
From what I can recall of your account, I'd put the blame for your son's Alfred Plea squarely on the shoulders of your seriously incompetent defense attorney. Even if a over-zealous prosecutor wished to railroad him, any half-way competent defense attorney could have easily used the evidence that his accuser was medically determined to have never had sex to completely decimate the case.
For that matter, if defense had presented such evidence at any pre-trial hearing, I cannot imagine any judge who would not rule that there was insufficient evidence of the alleged crime to even bother to proceed.
And, even if it were allowed to proceed, the fact that the only direct witness to the alleged crime not being there to testify so as to establish that a crime had occurred, would have lead to a Judgment of Acquittal upon the prosecution resting.
And, what sort of high school "crime" cab get a kid prosecuted, but would not require any sort of formal investigation to first establish that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the suspect was involved? Were these false allegations, or did something occur and school officials just pick some random kid to blame?
My wife has been a prosecutor for many years, and has done rotations through the Juvenile division. The vast majority of charges against juveniles will never go to trial - only rather serious offense are even considered for trials. And, for those, the burden of proof is the prosecution - and, these are trial before the court (the judge), not some jury that can be easily manipulated. With better detail, what your alleging simply doesn't make sense.
Now, I'm not saying that there are not some police and prosecutors who act with malfeasance. I'm just not convinced of thesis grand conspiracy to lock up the innocent that you seem to believe in. Mistakes are made, but typically because a false allegation is made which cannot be effectively disproven. I'd point out the rather low rate of rape convictions as prima facia evidence that the system works more often than not to the benefit of the accused.
Also, I'd note that it has been you who's been posting the examples of falsely accused men being convicted based on the corruption of that system. As with the case of Antrone Lynelle Johnson in the main article of this thread, it was only by deliberate misconduct that he was convicted. This is not the norm, the way it always is, as you seem to imply. These examples are the aberrations that need to be rooted out.
If my son's case had been in Colorado, hundreds of people would have been sitting in that courtroom in support of his innocence.
I'm pasting this excerpt from a letter I wrote a journalist at the time.
This transpired during my son's sentencing hearing, the Judge was outraged at his polygraph results:
Judge: "How dare you come in here and try to prove your innocence?" The
Judge was red faced angry. "Polygraphs are inadmissible and you know
it." Our atty pointed out the polygraph was court ordered. "YOU ordered them, sir".
He also
pointed out the animosity toward the accused mother wasn't quite fair.
"If your son was accused and you took him for a polygraph which showed
him innocent, did you expect her to believe him a Liar?"
The atty also
pointed out the unfairness of offering a plea for a lower charge, then
and sentencing him for the part they dismissed. The Judge
said in adult court that couldn't be done, but in juvenile it could,
and he was going to do just that. He was to be in detention for 30
days, no time off for good behavior, and if he didn't confess, it
would be revoked, and my son would go to jail for two years.
This warrants a thorough investigation into Patricia Hogue's past prosecutions!!
Michael Knifong should have also had his past prosecutions examined for perversions.
I wonder if he would be able to make a defamation case against ms hogue...
Please, slwerner -
I ask that you don't take umbrage at my observations of the legal system.
I have heard from so many other people with experiences like mine - if not worse. I have to believe we can't all be over reacting, or being presumptive.
I found this article, and however flip and angry it it --this was EXACTLY my own experience, I couldn't have written it better...
Are You a Victim of
False Prosecution?
If you are then you are aware of how the "justice" industry (racket) in America works: You (the innocent person) are falsely charged with a crime. Most of the time you receive a myriad of stacked charges intended for the sole purpose of extracting a "plea bargain" from you.
You then rush to an attorney, pay him a retainer to cover the usual $150.00 per hour (usually more), which he/she charges, to supposedly defend your innocence. The attorney usually files some motions, writes some worthless letters and makes countless, unproductive (unless they pertain to you accepting a plea bargain) phone calls until you are broke. Generally you haven't even started your trial and 99% of the time the attorney hasn't completed any investigation.
All of a sudden your attorney is telling you that you can't win your case and you should accept the benevolent plea bargain that the almighty district attorney has offered you.
"Do you want to take the chance on spending 30-40 years in prison when you can plea bargain for 18 months," your attorney tells you. What happened to: "I think we can win this case, its a good case." Remember? Isn't that pretty close to what your attorney told you as he/she was relieving you of your money?
You then accept a plea bargain and go to jail or you have a jury trial, you're found guilty (because your attorney hasn't produced enough evidence-if any and because the judge directs the jury to find you guilty) and then you go to jail. When you finally wake up you realize that on top of now being a criminal, you are flat broke and incarcerated. You find that the very person (your attorney) you frantically rushed to retain, became your worst enemy.
Welcome to the largest racket in history!
There is only one way to remedy a false prosecution: Investigate the accusers, the prosecutors, the detectives and then watch the judge very carefully. In other words, complete an in-depth investigation before you are prosecuted and then take the facts into the public arena.
The US~Observer newspaper will not waste your time or your money. This is not a game, it's your life and your freedom. We do not make deals. If you are innocent, then nobody has the right to steal what belongs to you, most of all, your liberty. Nobody! That includes your attorney as well as your supposed public servants.
Why have a bad day when it's still possible to force justice right down their throats?
If you are innocent and there is conclusive evidence of your innocence, US Oregon Observer provides a 100% money-back guarantee should we fail to prove your innocence and achieve your total vindication. US Observer investigates cases for news and therefore we don't print that which can't be resolved. We want to win, just as you want to prove your innocence.
Do not contact us if you are in any way guilty and for justice sake, don't wait until they slam the door behind you before contacting us if you are innocent. In civil cases the scenario is the same except for the incarceration part. Don't go broke trusting someone who is only concerned with your pocket book!
Contact us today! And don't forget to mention that NewsWithViews.com sent you!!!
541•474•7885
My wife has been a prosecutor for many years, and has done rotations through the Juvenile division. The vast majority of charges against juveniles will never go to trial - only rather serious offense are even considered for trials. And, for those, the burden of proof is the prosecution - and, these are trial before the court (the judge), not some jury that can be easily manipulated. With better detail, what your alleging simply doesn't make sense.
SgtMom, alleging things that don't make sense? No way!
"Records show the girl came to school with condoms and had sex that day with three other students under the basketball bleachers. Those students were also charged."
And the boys are charged? Who's the sexual predator here? Age of consent laws don't make sense.
all you guys are missing one small detail: notice HOW the article is written (by the woman reporter). First, the title:
"Court backs retrial over evidence dispute in sex assault case"
'Evidence dispute' - hah! LOL!! And we don't find out til about a third of the way down what actually happened. Also, the overall tone of the article seems to be one of muffling or even obfuscating (via exceee verbeage) the whole thing.
I think part of the idea when unethical reporters such as this lady do this, is to make everything concerning the story sound mundane early on in the article, then so people lose interest in it or get confused, so stop reading it and thus don't find out how serious the incident actually was.
When reporters engage in these tactics, not only do they underestimate the public's intelligence, they increase the overall anger against the press. Sooner or later these reporters should get their come-uppance. I hope.
The media is one arm of the four-sided feminist fascist establishment: the courts, academia, and legislative bodies comprise the others. This is straight from Nathanson and Young; though they may or may not use the word 'fascist', they do compare ideological feminism to Nazism in a couple places in their book (Spreading Misandry).
I believe it to be a valid comparison, and it's too bad Glenn S. cannot see that is true. Oh well, guess I got off on a tangent.
Norm, I, too, look for those biases in these articles. Reporters often don't write their own headlines, but that only means the editor is also at fault.
The problem isn't just feminism, though. It's also a matter of men not caring about what happens to other men. Too many men show how tough they are by calling for the summary execution of other men before they can even have a trial. That's how chivalrist scores points. It's disgusting.
Q: As I recall, no notification was given at least 30 days in advance of the intent to proceed without her as a witness, and she was just "convienietly" out of town on the day of trial
I do not have the actual records yet, but from correspondence I kept from the time, it went down this way:
May 28 Phone call from local police wanting to "discuss something that happened two years ago in Seattle".
June 4 Call from PD office, saying we must meet before son's 16th birthday, or he would be tried as adult.
July 10 Decline hearing - 1) decision to try in juvenile court,2) request the parents be barred from hearing or reading the case against the accused because of his mother's statements.
Hearing set for Sept 23.
Sept 10th met with PD to prepare for hearing.
"We forgot to call you and tell you not to come".
No investigation had been done.
Family moved out of state. Prosecutor arranged telephone interview for defense. Offer of misdemeanor plea, no jail, SOTA. Chose not to accept plea.
Requested continuance - approved for Nov 4.
Oct 1 - fired PD, hired new attorney. He requested continuance to investigate. He said it might take weeks or even months to investigate and prepare for trial. He was in the middle of another trial. The Judge would understand.
Oct 7 - Judge angrily denied continuance - said he had already been granted one. This left 3 weeks to prepare.
I don't have the exact date when we were told the accuser wouldn't be at the hearing, that she had been admitted to a mental ward, but it was 4 -5 days before the hearing at most.
Prosecutor changed plea to felony 3rd degree rape, no jail time.
Nov 3 - big name attorney agreed to accept case pro bono, so fired attorney. She mentioned she went to law school with him. Later in the day, he called to say she decided not to accept the case, since it was a 'delayed reporting' case, she just wanted a 'recovered memory' case.
He explained the Alford plea, assured us it was the only way to go ( which I still believe was a correct decision at that point).
Nov 4 Accepted plea. Was explained what the plea was, but not told he would have to say the word : guilty.
Excerpt from a letter:
The day before we are to arrive for his sentencing, I
still haven't heard from our atty, and my conversation with the
probation officer has left a growing worry knotting my stomach. I call
the court to check on our court date. It is still on. I complained
to the bailiff about our atty not keeping me informed, not returning
my calls. He seems pleasant and sociable. Late that evening our atty
called, and told us the devastating news: The probation officer and
prosecutor were going for a manifest injustice, recommending a two
year sentence. What! Why! We are stunned beyond belief. The atty
is as well. The probation officer has turned hostile without
explanation, and his word will carry tremendous weight. There is a
mad scramble for time, our atty requests time for some of our letter
writers to appear as expert witnesses to speak on *****'s behalf. He
also says the Judge has redressed him about my calling him, and this
has made things so much worse for my son, it was a horrible mistake to
have done it. We are granted another 30 days to get our witnesses
prepared to go to Seattle.
Mar 4 - His teacher, minister, Uncle, a PHd w/ 20 year CPS career testified on his behalf. Only a few letters out of dozens could be submitted - no letters proclaiming his innocence were allowed.
The Judge was incensed about the polygraph showing truthful results saying he didn't do it.
His attorney sent him to the forensics evaluator used by the prosecutor's office.
The Judge sentenced him to 30 days detention instead of two years. he ordered my son to confess, or he would go to prison. Our attorney said he couldn't do that, but in fact, he could.
How can you have a probation officer before you're even convicted of anything?
" The problem isn't just feminism, though. It's also a matter of men not caring about what happens to other men. Too many men show how tough they are by calling for the summary execution of other men before they can even have a trial. That's how chivalrist scores points. It's disgusting. "
In my honest opinion, both feminists,their ilk and chivalrists and their ilk show their criminal tendencies by siding against any male accused of committing a crime against a female or a child. As we already know males and females have an equal capability of lying, this includes children yet, because of stereotypes and misinformation from certain legal theorists and their supporters and biases in the whole system of justice, few people see or recognize this. I have no idea how many people have been programmed to believe that females and children cannot tell a lie. It is alreadt proven that females can and do lie about being raped and/or sexually assaulted. Many parents who have noticed cookies missing from the cookie jar and noticing cookie crumbs on their childs face, have heard the child say they didn't get into the cookie jar and take any cookies. I am not suggesting that all females and children are liars. I am merely saying they have an equal propensisty to tell a lie. In my honest opinion,the system has been scammed by rhetoric and other misinformation to believe only a grown man can lie.
The natural rivalry that exists between males has long been recognized,used and,exploited by the misinformation alliance and not only by feminist theory but, also feminist legal theory.
In my honest opinion,they have used all means, mostly unfair, to paint all males as criminal beasts. This site has been loooooong needed to dispell myths that ,because they weren't challenged in the past, were taken as truth. If you are accused/charged with something wrong and you do not respond or speak up for yourself, then the accusation(s) will be accepted as facts to be used against you at every opportunity.
Nobody can hear what you do not say
I do not know of any man who is not hardwired to do whatever it takes, at all/any cost(s), to protect women and children. I know of no woman who isn't simliarly hardwired to protect children at any/all cost(s) These instincts have been manipulated by the misinformation alliance and used against men and now, are being used against women. Because of the misinformation alliance and their ilk, we have allowed ourselves to believe a woman and/or a child anytime they even claim to be victims. In the cinema, men have long not only played the part of heroes but, also villains. For the most part, women and children have played the victims. Perhaps we have allowed ourselves to be programmed by subliminal messages?
http://www.theantifeminist.com/?p=165
I am not a misogynist
It's evolution. Men are built to compete against other men and to protect women and kids, not to protect other men. Meanwhile women are built to work together. There is some competition among women for mates, but that's nothing like the very brutal competition between males that occurs in nature.
Men are pack animals -- hunters. Women are gatherers; herd animals. Herds huddle together for mutual protection; pack animals strive constantly for status. Among hunters weakness cannot be tolerated, so men don't jump to the aid of other men. But women will always have enormous sympathy for other women who present themselves as weak or helpless -- even when some of those women are just liars.
There is a built-in bias against males which is biological. There are also some biases that favor men -- in the past men have been taken more seriously than women in a number of professions -- but those biases that favor men over women have already been eliminated by our society. All that remains now is the contempt for males who aren't currently at the top of the social hierarchy.
When a woman gets in trouble, it's automatically somebody else's fault. But when a man is in trouble it must be his own fault.
In my honest opinion, both feminists,their ilk and chivalrists and their ilk show their criminal tendencies by siding against any male accused of committing a crime against a female or a child.
People reveal their real attitudes about rape when they support prison rape. Either you're against rape in all circumstances or you're not, and a lot of people think that men being raped in prison is hilarious.
People reveal their real attitudes about rape when they support prison rape. Either you're against rape in all circumstances or you're not, and a lot of people think that men being raped in prison is hilarious.
Anon,
This is actually a very good point. This is what shows, to me, that the modern Rape-Industrial complex is a gender driven movement, only worried about the money, than punishing the criminals.
Other Anon,
I know of no woman who isn't simliarly hardwired to protect children at any/all cost(s)
You will pardon me if I name Susan Smith. Or Mary Winkler. Or any woman who divorces and keeps the father out of her childrens lives.
If women were hardwired to protect children, none of those types of situations would happen. I DON'T buy that they are hardwired to protect children. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any cases where a woman died trying to save a child. I'm sure there are some, but I just can't remember any instances.
Women who murder their kids may feel that they are protecting them from having to exist in an evil world that they won't be able to cope with. Anyhow, they sure as hell aren't hardwired to protect men.
Women who murder their kids may feel that they are protecting them from having to exist in an evil world that they won't be able to cope with. Anyhow, they sure as hell aren't hardwired to protect men.
Anon,
That is exactly my point. They "Feel" they have to protect them. To me, hardwired means it is a natural, unconcious part of who you are. If they are relying on their feelings, then they are relying on learned behavior, not hardwired.
Agreed that men are on the bottom of the list when it comes to who women care about.
Men protect women then children (those could be reversed) then themselves. Women protect themselves then children then men (and those last 2 are debateable).
" In the cinema, men have long not only played the part of heroes but, also villains."
I'd say over the last 20-25 years, the scenario in movies, etc. is that all the evil and stupid or goofy characters are played by men, whereas all the women play heroines, victims, or neutral/innocent bystanders.
" If [women] are relying on their feelings, then they are relying on learned behavior, not hardwired."
Not really. Where did you get the idea that feelings have nothing to do with hard-wiring? It is not as if feelings and behaviour are completely 'dissociated' in that context.
Norm,
Fear of most things is a learned response. It isn't necessarily hard wired. I was basing that on the context of what anon said:
Women who murder their kids may feel that they are protecting them from having to exist in an evil world that they won't be able to cope with.That fear of an evil world isn't something built in. It would have to be learned over time, and affect the thought process. It's the woman who can't cope with the world, and projects that onto the kids.
Not that fear isn't something that is built in. Without it, as in the fight or flight response, likely our species wouldn't be here. But in relation to how anon was saying it, I don't think it is a natural part of who we are.
Anonymous said...
" It's evolution. Men are built to compete against other men and to protect women and kids, not to protect other men. Meanwhile women are built to work together. There is some competition among women for mates, but that's nothing like the very brutal competition between males that occurs in nature.
Men are pack animals -- hunters. Women are gatherers; herd animals. Herds huddle together for mutual protection; pack animals strive constantly for status. Among hunters weakness cannot be tolerated, so men don't jump to the aid of other men. But women will always have enormous sympathy for other women who present themselves as weak or helpless -- even when some of those women are just liars.
There is a built-in bias against males which is biological. There are also some biases that favor men -- in the past men have been taken more seriously than women in a number of professions -- but those biases that favor men over women have already been eliminated by our society. All that remains now is the contempt for males who aren't currently at the top of the social hierarchy.
When a woman gets in trouble, it's automatically somebody else's fault. But when a man is in trouble it must be his own fault. "
I agree. Though humans are favored, we are still creatures of nature.
" Anonymous said...
My wife has been a prosecutor for many years, and has done rotations through the Juvenile division. The vast majority of charges against juveniles will never go to trial - only rather serious offense are even considered for trials. And, for those, the burden of proof is the prosecution - and, these are trial before the court (the judge), not some jury that can be easily manipulated. With better detail, what your alleging simply doesn't make sense.
SgtMom, alleging things that don't make sense? No way!"
No two prosecutors are alike. Some seek the truth and seek convictions at any all costs, some seek to use whatever means necessary to win a conviction. Your wife may play fairly but, others follow kniphongic-like rules. The citizens of North Carolina may have thought Mike Nipong was a prosecutor who played and fought fairly buy, he proved them wrong. I personally wonder how many others there are out there just like him. I suspect there are many.
This post on Coyote Blog about prosecutorial overzealousness in relationt o child abuse cases mentioned the role Janet Reno played in starting the trend. I'd like to offer more on just what she did, with help from a book by Judge Andrew Napolitano. The book Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws was a Christmas present last year.
The rise of daycare in the 1980s (accompanying a rise in working moms) left people vulnerable to fears that their children were being mistreated by their caregivers. Janet Reno was the Florida state attorney for Dade County when she created the Miami Method, a way to prosecute child abuse based more on persuading the jury than on solid physical evidence.
In 1984, Grant Snowden won Police Office of the Year. The next year a 3-year-old for whom his wife cared, accused him of abuse. The police investigated and dropped the case for lack of any evidence. Reno reopened the case months later and then filed charges for an alleged touching in 1977. There was still no physical evidence, and the young girl had made allegations before that were in fact false - in fact, at the time of the alleged touching, canceled checks showed a different babysitter had been coring for her. He was acquitted. Reno got five children to accuse Snowden again, on the theory that though none of the children was individually credible, together it created an impression of guilt; it seemed as though they couldn't all five be lying. Snowden was convicted. It was overturned 12 years later, in 1998.
Post a Comment