Here's a story about a shocking case out of Florida that sent a man named Willie Baker to prison for a sex offense against a teenage serial false accuser.
A Florida state trial court refused to allow the jury to hear evidence that the young female accuser had previously accused multiple male relatives of sexual assault on different occasions, and that she admitted that at least two of those allegations were false. The jury, deprived of this evidence, found Mr. Baker guilty.
Mr. Baker subsequently filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. A federal district court correctly granted the writ, and this week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision granting the writ of habeas corpus. The Eleventh Circuit held that the state court's decision excluding the impeachment evidence violated Mr. Baker's rights under the Confrontation and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Baker v. Florida, No. 10-11889 (11th Cir. filed Dec. 27, 2010).
As you read the facts, ask yourself why this young serial false accuser was not in custody at the time she made the accusation against Mr. Baker. Here's what happened: in 1999, a 15-year-old girl identified only as "D.A." filed an abuse report against the defendant, Willie Baker, her brother-in-law, which entailed "oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by or union with the sexual organ of another." D.A. testified that she was living with her sister and Baker in 1999. She said, "I was laying on the couch and my sister went out . . . . So, [Baker] came—out of the blue, just came out touching me, feeling on me. He grabbed my finger, my hand, and took me in their room. She added: "He undressed me and he laid me down on the bed and he had sex with me with a condom. And I told him that I don't go out like that, period." She testified that on another occasion he "was going to try to do it again, but [she] would[ not] let him."
Mr. Baker's counsel cross-examined the girl outside the presence of the jury. Pay attention to the following:
(1) The girl stated that she used to live in Alabama with her grandmother, but that she came to Florida because her "auntie's boyfriend" raped her when she was nine years old. Why wasn't "auntie's boyfriend" prosecuted? Because "[t]hey couldn't catch up with him."
(2) She further testified that she spent her first couple of days in Florida living with her uncle, Risey Darden, until his grandsons tried to have sex with her. (Note the plural -- "grandsons." That means at least two.)
(3) The girl was asked whether she had also accused her uncle, Risey Darden, of trying to have sex with her, she testified that Darden had not tried to have sex with her, but that she might have accused him of doing so.
(4) She later moved in with her other sister, Angela Price, and brother-in-law, Eddie Price. While she was living with them, she accused Eddie Price of trying to have sex with her, but she later told an investigator that he had not done so.
(5) At one time, she accused her brother, Lloyd Andrews, of having sex with her, as well. She testified that Andrews had not had sex with her.
By my count, that's at least five or six males this girl has accused of improperly having sex with her. That we know of. She admitted that three of those males were innocent.
Outside the presence of the jury, Mr. Baker also proffered testimony from Andrews (brother), Darden (uncle), and Angela Price (sister) regarding D.A.'s past allegations of sexual abuse, all of which they denied.
Mr. Baker asked the court to allow the jury to hear this evidence about the girl's prior allegations of sexual assault by multiple males because, he correctly argued, it was relevant to her credibility and veracity. The court, however, excluded the evidence on grounds that only general reputation evidence, not specific instances of untruthfulness, could be used for impeachment.
After hearing the remaining evidence, the jury found Baker guilty.
Mr. Baker filed a writ of habeas corpus in Federal Court. The district court granted the motion, and this week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed it.
The Eleventh Circuit wrote:
"Here, D.A. was questioned under oath about her past accusations of sexual assault by male relatives. She testified that her auntie's boyfriend' raped her when she was nine years old, but he was never caught. She said that Risey Darden's grandsons tried to have sex with her during the day and a half that she spent at Darden's home, but Darden denied that it had happened. She said that she might have accused Darden of having sex with her, as well, but he had not done so. While she was living with Eddie Price, she accused him of trying to have sex with her, but later told an investigator that he had not done so. While she was living with Lloyd Andrews, she accused him of having sex with her, as well, but she testified that he had not done so. Thus, D.A. herself explicitly stated that the allegations against Price and Andrews were false, she acknowledged that she might have made a third false accusation against Darden, and Darden would have testified that the allegation against his grandsons also was false.
"D.A.'s truthfulness was key to the prosecution, and the evidence of her prior false accusations not only spoke to her general character for truthfulness, but particularly attacked her truthfulness and motivation for testifying as they related directly to her allegation against Baker. . . . The evidence that D.A. had habitually lied about sexual assaults by family members had 'strong potential to demonstrate the falsity of [her] testimony' in this case, and 'a reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of [her] credibility had defense counsel been permitted to pursue his proposed line of cross-examination.' . . . . Supreme Court precedent clearly indicates that the exclusion of the false-accusation evidence violated Baker's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Thus, failure to find a Confrontation Clause violation would constitute an unreasonable application of federal law."
Justice was done. But not before a man was sentenced for a horrible crime due to the allegations of a serial false accuser, and not before the state of Florida continued to fight against his release in state and federal courts.
Everyone agrees that serial rapists need to be locked away. It is astounding that there is not a similar consensus -- at least among the people who run our law enforcement and judicial systems -- for serial false accusers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
"Mr. Baker's counsel cross-examined the girl outside the presence of the jury."
I'm no lawyer, but isn't that a violation of the Sixth, "to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor"??
"The court, however, excluded the evidence on grounds that only general reputation evidence, not specific instances of untruthfulness, could be used for impeachment."
Sorry, but that's straight-up retarded.
"After hearing the remaining evidence, the jury found Baker guilty."
Curious, what other evidence was there?
The court has to review some evidence outside the jury's presence to determine if it's admissible. That part was fine. It was the court's decision to not allow the jury to hear it that was the problem.
Stories like this are as common as mud - the only thing unusual is the falsely accused found justice.
If this "child" was under the age of 12 yu would not be reading this story - Mr. Baker would do his time in prison and spend the rest of this life on the outskirts of society branded for life as a "perv".
"Sorry, but that's straight-up retarded"
No, actually that's straight-up Rape Shield laws. That's what passes these days for straight-up "justice".
That's "straight-up" reality.
Everyone who supports sex offender registries and taking away due process rights to convict will themselves face this - and then it will be too late.
It already IS too late.
"The court has to review some evidence outside the jury's presence to determine if it's admissible. That part was fine. It was the court's decision to not allow the jury to hear it that was the problem."
OK, but I wonder why cross-examination of a witness would require such a previous determination. Is that due to "rape shield" laws?
I'd taken FRE 412 to be a prohibition of revealing any negative attacks on the rape accuser. Would you write more about the "supreme court precedent" you describe with this:
"Supreme Court precedent clearly indicates that the exclusion of the false-accusation evidence violated Baker's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Thus, failure to find a Confrontation Clause violation would constitute an unreasonable application of federal law."?
PART I
Don't forget FRE 412(b)(1)(c).
Here's right from the opinion:
The Confrontation Clause guarantees the defendant the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1435, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). "[T]he exposure of a witness'[s] motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination." Id. at 678-79, 106 S.Ct. at 1435 (quotation marks omitted). Trial judges retain wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination of a witness, based on concerns about harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness's safety, interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant, and other concerns. Id. at 679, 106 S.Ct. at 1435. Yet the trial court may not prohibit all questioning of the witness about an event that the jury might reasonably have found furnished the witness a motive for favoring the prosecution in his testimony. See id. "The partiality of a witness is subject to exploration at trial, and is always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony." Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) (quotation marks omitted). "[A] criminal defendant states a violation of the Confrontation Clause by showing that he was prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness, and thereby to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness." Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 231, 109 S.Ct. 480, 483, 102 L.Ed.2d 513 (1988) (quotation marks and alteration omitted).
"While some constitutional claims by their nature require a showing of prejudice with respect to the trial as a whole, the focus of the Confrontation Clause is on individual witnesses." Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 680, 106 S.Ct. at 1435. "Accordingly, the focus of the prejudice inquiry in determining whether the confrontation right has been violated must be on the particular witness, not on the outcome of the entire trial." Id. Nevertheless, an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 684, 106 S.Ct. at 1438 (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). Whether an error was harmless depends on a variety of factors, such as the importance of the witness's testimony and the presence or absence of corroborating or contradictory evidence. Id.
Part II -- from the opinion:
In Davis, 415 U.S. at 316, 94 S.Ct. at 1110, the Supreme Court stated that evidence of a witness's prior crime may be used in a general attack on the witness's character for truthfulness, or as a particular attack directed at revealing possible biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives, as they relate directly to the issues or personalities in the case. As the witness's testimony provided a crucial link in the proof of the case against Davis, the witness's accuracy and truthfulness were key to the prosecution. Id. at 318, 94 S.Ct. at 1111. The state's interest in protecting the anonymity of juvenile offenders did not outweigh the serious damage that the evidence would have done to the prosecution, and, thus, exclusion of the evidence constituted a violation of the Confrontation Clause. See id. at 318-20, 1111-12.
In Olden, 488 U.S. at 228-29, 109 S.Ct. at 481-82, the trial court excluded any evidence that the defendant was in an extramarital relationship with the purported rape victim and that the victim was lying to protect her marriage. Seeid. at 230-31, 109 S.Ct. at 482. The Supreme Court held, "It is plain to us that a reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of the witness'[s] credibility had defense counsel been permitted to pursue his proposed line of cross-examination" into the victim's reason for lying about the rape. Id. at 232, 109 S.Ct. at 483 (quotation marks and alteration omitted). "[T]he limitation here was beyond reason," and the "exclusion of evidence "with such strong potential to demonstrate the falsity of [the victim's] testimony" was unjustifiable under the circumstances. Id. Furthermore, the victim's testimony was crucial to the prosecution's case and directly contradicted the defendant's account of that night, so the restriction on his right to confrontation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
If we just took the "serial false rape accusers" off the street, it would be a substantial step in the right direction.
Israel has just convicted its ceremonial President (Katsav) of rape with no corroborating evidence whatsoever.
The conviction is a result of political scheming by the left (to replace Katsav with leftist Peres) combined with massive feminist intimidation.
It is a very serious perversion of a legal system that says that womens past false rape accusations are irrelevant to their current false rape accusation.
The American gender / Raunch community gain "Empowerment" by perverting our legal system to keep a sustained attack on men (well the heterosexual ones).
The biggest consequence if constitutional courts were to "Break the misinformation Alliance between the American Gender / Raunch community, and American law enforcement"
would be the "Humbling" of the American gender / raunch community.
The "American Gender / Raunch community" will fight tooth and nail to keep their perversion of American courts and law enforcement, firmly in their secret closet.
@ the 1:13\
Were you trying to make a point?
WTF do you mean by the american gender raunch community?
Anonymous said...
Stories like this are as common as mud - the only thing unusual is the falsely accused found justice.
If this "child" was under the age of 12 yu would not be reading this story - Mr. Baker would do his time in prison and spend the rest of this life on the outskirts of society branded for life as a "perv".
"Sorry, but that's straight-up retarded"
No, actually that's straight-up Rape Shield laws. That's what passes these days for straight-up "justice".
That's "straight-up" reality.
Everyone who supports sex offender registries and taking away due process rights to convict will themselves face this - and then it will be too late.
It already IS too late.
i agree
Post a Comment