The prosecutor is forging ahead with the case described below despite the alleged victim's recantation, because he says recantations are not uncommon in these cases. He alludes to other evidence of supposed guilt, which is not spelled out in the news article. Absent such other evidence, this matter should not go to trial. While recantations sometimes occur for illegitimate reasons, they more often occur for legitimate ones. Imagine how barbaric our justice system would be if we allowed prosecutors to simply "roll the dice" with no additional evidence than the alleged victim's initial report of a sex crime, in light of her recantation? But, then again, we do see a fair number of examples of such barbarism in news accounts repeated on the pages of this blog.
HERE IS THE NEWS STORY:
Alleged rape victim recants story after being jailed for refusing to testify
The 19-year-old alleged victim in a rape case recanted her testimony Thursday, two days after a Gwinnett County judge ordered her to be jailed for refusing to testify.
The woman, whose name is withheld because prosecutors still consider her a victim of sexual assault, said at a hearing that her testimony "is gonna be that it didn't happen," when the case goes to trial.
A jury was selected earlier this week in the case against Kenneth Anthony Jones, 47, who is accused of molesting the female relative over several months in 2004 and 2005. However, the jury was excused before trial could begin when problems about the alleged victim's testimony cropped up at a pretrial hearing.
Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge Fred Bishop ordered the 19-year-old jailed on Tuesday when she refused to testify despite being granted blanket immunity. The teenager's two-night jail stay apparently led to a change of heart about testifying, but not the kind prosecutors hoped for. Instead, the teenager testified Thursday morning she had concocted a story about being molested by a relative to escape a troubled home life.
"I didn't want to be in the house anymore," she said. "I was tired of rules, I was always in trouble in school and I always had to watch my sisters' kids. I just wanted to be alone."
The victim said she had hoped the case would just go away when she met with prosecutors this summer and told them she didn't want to go forward with the case.
Gwinnett County Assistant District Attorney Jay Hughes decided to forge ahead with the case, which has been pending against Jones for four years. Hughes said it is not uncommon for victims of molestation to recant their testimony. The highest rate of recantation is when the abuse occurs at the hands of a family member, Hughes said.
"Based on my knowledge of the body of evidence I expect to be admitted, I believe the case should go forward for a jury to make a decision," Hughes said. "Credibility is always a matter for the jury to decide."
The teenager was released from jail Thursday with the understanding that she must return to testify at trial. The trial date will be reset for a later date, Hughes said. Jones was arrested Oct. 17, 2005, and has been free on $27,800 bond since Nov. 15, 2005.
Hillary Krepistman, an attorney who was appointed to represent the alleged victim on Tuesday, said it was unfortunate that the teenager wound up going to jail. She said the 19-year-old was clearly overwhelmed.
"My heart breaks for this girl," Krepistman said. "Regardless of what may or may not have happened to her, obviously there was trouble there in the home. She had to spend two nights in jail while [the relative] goes home."
Link: http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/alleged-rape-victim-recants-169550.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
This is why we must flat-out make it illegal to prosecute when there has been a recantation or any history of false accusations. Too many dirtbag prosecutors will proceed anyway on the basis of evidence that exists only in their imaginations.
The prosecutor should be held accountable for his actions, if his actions are a clear violation of basic law.
District attorneys should be held accountable for their "prosecutor lynchings", especially if they are doing it to get re-elected..like the pervert michael knifong did.
The pervert Michael Nifong's actions weren't at all unusual. Prosecutors are little dictators who do whatever they want and get away with it.
"(DA) Hughes said it is not uncommon for victims of molestation to recant their testimony. The highest rate of recantation is when the abuse occurs at the hands of a family member"
Clearly, the reader is expected to accept the notion that such recantations are due to the family pressuring the victim into letting the perpetrator off. Yet, there can also be cases wherein the allegation was simply false to begin with; in which case, it is wholly appropriate for the family to wish to put an end to the lie.
Additionally, those involved in law enforcement often point to the effectiveness of exposing young people to the penalties they might face for committing crimes (Scared Straight, for example).
Here we have a case where a young woman got a 2-day taste of what jail would be like:
"Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge Fred Bishop ordered the 19-year-old jailed on Tuesday when she refused to testify despite being granted blanket immunity. The teenager's two-night jail stay apparently led to a change of heart about testifying, but not the kind prosecutors hoped for. Instead, the teenager testified Thursday morning she had concocted a story about being molested by a relative to escape a troubled home life."
Rather than be scared, as we would expect, into doing what we are also expected to believe is the "right thing", and commit to truthfully testifying against her molester; she instead decides to recant her entire allegation. It seems that in this case, from the perspective of the girl who had was supposed to be scared into doing right, the "right thing" was, in fact, to end the lie.
Perhaps this caused her to be concerned for what would happen to an innocent man, her falsely alleged molester, and she could not face sending him to prison for a crime he did not commit.Or, perhaps, because she gained an understanding of what she might face if her false allegation were found out, she "chickened out" of proceeding further.
Of course, it's still possible that she was molested as she initially alleged. It just seems that in light of this:
"The victim said she had hoped the case would just go away when she met with prosecutors this summer and told them she didn't want to go forward with the case."
That it is unlikely that her allegation was true.
The DA makes some vague allusion to "evidence" that would have been presented to the jury, but it begs the question as to just what sort of evidence, or than statements made to police, one would expect to find if a victim were only molested?
None of you can say that she was not molested. Recanting doesn't mean that you were lying. It could easily mean that you don't want to deal with a trial and everything that goes along with it. How come you men believe it when a female says no rape occurred but you never seem to believe females you say a rape did occur?
Anonymous at 1:00:
If you want to make it illegal to prosecute when a female changes her mind about wanting to go through with a rape trial, can we also make it legal to prosecute men who have a history of rape? Pretty much the same thing in reverse, isn't it?
I didn't realize that it was illegal to prosecute men who have a history of rape convictions. Do you even try to think before you post this idiocy?
Really? Who prosecutes a man solely on the basis of past rape convictions? I think it is YOU who display idiocy.
Men are prosecuted based on NOTHING. But you already knew that, you idiot troll.
Men are rarely if ever prosecuted on nothing except in your minds. By "nothing", you must mean "not caught on video, not witnessed by anyone". Of course, when there are witnesses, they tend to join in, as that poor teen in California found out.
You're a liar. Five out of six rape prosecutions is he said/she said.
The reason the witnesses didn't interfere is because there was nothing to interfere with. This was sex, not rape. Prove otherwise!
So let's get this straight. A man is on trial for a crime we don't know even happened. The one person who can give reasonable grounds for a crime actually occurring is the star witness. She's expected to state that no such crime happened.
The DA seems to think this all within the bounds of reason, and offers an explanation your over-imagining 10 year old might use when writing a story for school.
Anyone like a few nuts with their crazy?
Per my other post: Jeana is now permanently banned from this blog.
Just as well. I've never seen her contribute anything intelligent.
Thank you Pierce!!!! I was getting into my 'attack' mode.
CBGirl
jeana said...
Really? Who prosecutes a man solely on the basis of past rape convictions? I think it is YOU who display idiocy.
In some jurisdictions past accusations are admissable as evidence. So in fact men can be prosecuted on the basis of alleged incidents that may never have occured.
Why am I not surpriised by the actions of this prosecutor? This, if I am correct, is a violation of color of law and at least some of the due process?
Of course I don't put all of the blame on the prosecutor. A good deal of it I suspect belongs to the state, who it appears has replaced the victim with themselves. Can someone here quote for me the ninth and tenth amendments?
By the way, thank you Norm for tossing Jean. She was amusing at times but, became an infammatory bore.
I meant inflammatory but infammatory may also be appropriate.
Why am I not surpriised by the actions of this prosecutor? This, if I am correct, is a violation of color of law and at least some of the due process?
********
Prosecutors have near dictatorial powers under the law. They can screw pretty much all of the innocent people they want, if they're so inclined.
When is the last time you heard of a prosecutor being held accountable for anything? Even Nifong only did one day. He should be in prison for twenty years.
Right!
Nifong should be in prison for at least 20 years.
When you think of how awful what he did was and to get off with only one day in jail it's just sick.
Post a Comment