Category : Sexual Offenses
Supreme Court Declines Revisiting Execution Decision
On Sept. 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion that declines to revisit its June 2008 decision outlawing executions for individuals convicted of raping children. By a 7-2 vote, the majority of justices based their latest ruling in part on what Justice Anthony Kennedy called a “national consensus” against ruling out the death penalty for convicted rapists.
Ruling Is against Louisiana and Bush Administration Request
The state of Louisiana and the Bush administration via the Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its earlier decision outlawing such executions. That 5–4 decision overturned the death sentence for Patrick Kennedy, who had been convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana in 1998.
Louisiana is one of six states that allow the death penalty for the crime of raping a child.
Military Law Authorizes Death Sentence for Child Rape
The most recent ruling by the court also addresses military law, which authorizes the death penalty for rape of children (and adults). Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that the military provision “does not draw into question our conclusions that there is a consensus against the death penalty for the crime in the civilian context and that the penalty here is unconstitutional.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito voted to hear the Louisiana case again. Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts dissented from the Court’s June decision, but they voted against reopening the Louisiana case. Scalia contended in his dissent that the justices in the majority were using their independent judgment to say that the U.S. Constitution forbids the death sentence whenever the defendant did not kill the victim.
(Source: Associated Press)
Are you facing criminal charges? If so, contact us today to speak with an experienced criminal law attorney who will thoroughly evaluate your situation and fight to protect your legal rights.
Men Convicted of Rape Fight for Release
Four men from Houston, Texas who were charged and imprisoned nearly 25 years ago for rape are still fighting to be released.
The long term prison sentence was the result of accusations that the four men had gang raped a six-year-old girl.
Attorneys Request New Trial
Last week, attorneys for the men filed a lawsuit demanding the release of the men, who protest their innocence, and have requested a new trial.
However, the only current glitch in the case is that the victim is now claiming the rape never happened.
"It’s a lie," says Johnny Edwards, one of the convicted man’s brothers. "It’s a lie. Bottom line, it’s a lie."
Men Stand Accused
Donald Thompson was one of four men convicted of gang-raping a six-year-old girl at a birthday party for her father.
The girl’s father was also convicted of being a part of the rape.
The victim, who is now 30, recently confessed on audio tape that the four men, including her father, never assaulted her.
Two of the convicted men were released on parole last year; but when they refused to admit to any wrongdoing in counseling, they were sent back.
Now, the families of these men are fighting aggressively to have them released from prison after the tape acknowledging their innocence was made public.
(Source: ABC)
Do you have a loved one who has been convicted of a crime? If so, please contact us to speak with an experienced attorney who will evaluate the case and ensure your loved ones receive the legal guidance and support they need and deserve.
Ohio Man Freed After 18 Years in Prison
A man who spent 18 years behind bars was recently released after he was proven innocent of his charges.
The man was charged and jailed for allegedly raping a 10-year-old girl in Ohio.
Man Accused of Rape
Robert McClendon, 52, was convicted of taking a 10-year-old relative from her backyard, blindfolding her and taking her to his house before raping her.
The victim reportedly told staff members at a hospital about the rape the day after it happened.
DNA Proves Man’s Innocence
After 18 years in prison, a lab re-examined the case and discovered that the DNA profile didn’t match evidence found at the crime scene.
The DNA was re-evaluated when DNA Diagnostics Center, a lab from Cincinnati, agreed to conduct tests on the prisoners for free.
Authorities had reportedly thrown away swabs from the victim’s medical exam, which is typically the best evidence for testing in cases involving rape.
“To be in prison for 18 years for something you didn’t do and the know you are going to walk out of court a free man, that’s a lot to take in one day,” says McClendon.
(Source: New Haven Register)
Do you know someone who has been wrongly convicted of a crime? If so, please contact us to speak with an experienced attorney who will evaluate the case and ensure your loved ones are getting the legal support they need.
Boston Man Files Suit Against City
A man who was wrongly convicted of a sexual assault crime and spent seven years as a registered sex offender, after being released from prison, was recently proved innocent.
The innocent victim is now filing a suit against the city for the ten years he wrongly spent behind bars.
Innocent Man Convicted
Guy Randolph, 50, was convicted of indecently assaulting a little girl and battery in 1991 and spent 10 years in jail for his supposed crimes.
After being released from jail and returning to his Hyde Park neighborhood, Randolph was registered as a convicted sex offender and the community branded him as an outcast.
Randolph and his mother were even told they weren’t allowed to be approved for public housing in the city.
Justice Served
In May, a Superior Court judge exonerated him after the district attorney’s office acknowledged his innocence.
His name was immediately taken off the Sex Offender Registry and the picture of him that hung in the Boston police station for years was finally removed.
Lawsuit Filed
Randolph has filed a suit against the city and is hoping to be compensated for all the time he lost while being in prison.
"I feel as though Guy deserves compensation" says his 74-year-old mother, who he lives with. "It’s owed to him. There are lots of things he missed out on."
(Source: The Boston Globe)
Have you or someone you know been accused of a crime you didn’t commit? If so, please contact us to speak with an experienced attorney who will evaluate your case and ensure that you receive the compensation you need and deserve.
Wrongly Imprisoned North Carolina Man
According to reports, a man who was wrongly imprisoned for a crime he didn’t commit is now eligible to receive more money from the state of North Carolina.
Before lawmakers bring this year’s legislative session to a close, lawmakers have agreed to give the man, along with others who are eligible, $50,000 each.
The victims were reportedly already given compensation, but this latest payout will be given in addition for their time in prison.
Man Wrongly Convicted and Jailed
Dwayne Dail spent 18 years in prison for a rape, which it was recently found, he didn’t commit.
“What I want to you to think about is if your child were accused of a crime and were sent to prison as Dwayne Dail and others have been,” stated Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, to her colleagues in the Senate.
Victim Finally Sees Justice
Dail was charged with raping a child and after his sentence when Dail requested DNA testing be done, he was told the evidence was lost.
“He is now a very damaged person,” explains Kinnaird. “We feel this is what the people owe to someone who has been wrongly convicted and so badly treated.”
The Senate reportedly voted 37-1 in favor of the new measure, which will increase the amount of compensation available to the wrongly convicted.
(Source: NewsObserver)
Do you know someone who has been wrongly convicted of a crime? If so, please contact us to speak with an experienced attorney who will enable you and your loved ones to receive the legal compensation you need and deserve.
Man Receives Funds for Wrongful Conviction in Louisiana
A man who was wrongly imprisoned for 26 years at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola was recently freed and cleared of his convictions.
The man was accused of a rape he did not commit and now, with the help of Rep. Frankie Howard, he will be compensated for his lost time.
Innocent Man Arrested and Imprisoned
Rickey Johnson was arrested in 1982 for breaking into a woman’s home in the middle of the night and raping her.
He was sentenced to life without parole and has been imprisoned ever since.
DNA Testing Proves Innocence
In 2007, the Innocence Project joined forces with Johnson’s attorney and they conducted DNA testing on evidence collected the night of the rape.
The DNA profile reportedly did not match Johnson, but instead matched one of the inmates he had befriended in prison who was charged with another rape in the same apartment complex.
“If police and prosecutors had not focused on Ricky Johnson so early in their investigation and if proper eyewitness were identified, the real perpetrator might have been brought to justice sooner,” says Vanessa Potkin, from the Innocence Project.
Compensation Given to Free Man
Although the $150,000 paycheck Johnson will receive won’t give him back all the years he spent in jail, Johnson and his family are happy and relieved that justice has finally be served.
“I am not the man who committed this rape, all I want to do is go home,” said Johnson when he was released.
(Source: Leesville Daily Leader)
Have you been convicted of a crime you didn’t commit? Please contact us today to speak with a trustworthy attorney who will evaluate your case and ensure you receive the legal help and guidance you need and deserve.
The Erosion of the Right to Confrontation in Child Sexual Abuse Trials
Few criminal cases have higher stakes than those involving accusations of child sexual abuse. The accusation alone can permanently damage a person’s reputation in the community. A conviction may bring significant prison time, a sex offender registration requirement, and restrictions on employment options. With so much at stake, it becomes even more important to follow Constitutional procedures designed to prevent convictions based on false accusations. Yet many states have acted to eliminate one of the most important rights of an accused in sexual abuse cases: a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser.
Defendant’s Right to Cross-Examine His Accusers
The “Confrontation Clause” of the Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused in a criminal trial the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The purpose of the Confrontation Clause is to allow the defendant to cross-examine his accusers. It assists in the truth-finding process by allowing the judge or jury to examine a witness’s demeanor in the courtroom to determine whether he or she is being truthful. Requiring an accuser to be in the presence of the accused encourages truthfulness, because it is more difficult to lie about someone in their presence.
Many states, however, have essentially eliminated the confrontation requirement in child sexual abuse cases. Due to the young age of child accusers and the sensitive nature of the subject matter being discussed, many states have given judges the discretion to keep the accusers out of the courtroom. Prosecutors claim that traumatized child victims must be shielded from further trauma that they believe will result from facing the defendant in open court. Instead, child accusers in these states are permitted to testify via closed circuit television from a location other than the witness stand and other than the courtroom. Although defense attorneys have challenged this position, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this practice. In Maryland v. Craig (1990), the Court ruled that, although the right to confront your accuser is important, that right is not absolute. Face-to-face confrontation sometimes gives way to the state’s interest in protecting children from potential psychological harm.
Do Defendants Lose the Presumption of Innocence?
Yet defense attorneys continue to argue that shielding child accusers from the accused presumes the defendant’s guilt. More importantly, it deprives the defendant of the presumption of innocence. The threat increases that innocent people could be convicted if a child witness is lying or if the child’s memories are influenced by suggestive questioning from adults. Only by requiring a child witness to testify and be cross-examined in front of the defendant can a fact-finder arrive at the truth. While the youngest members of our society deserve to be protected, it should not be at the expense of fundamental due process rights of criminal defendants.
Despite its ruling, the Supreme Court continues to recognize the importance of face-to-face confrontation in criminal trials. Craig requires prosecutors to satisfy certain requirements in order to waive a child’s appearance in the courtroom. “The trial court must hear evidence and determine whether use of the one-way closed circuit television is necessary to protect the welfare of the particular child witness who seeks to testify.” Craig, 497 U.S. at 855.
Impact of a Child’s Presence in the Courtroom
Because the presence of the child in the courtroom can have such an impact on the finding of guilt or innocence, a criminal defense attorney should vigorously refute the necessity of closed-circuit testimony. A defense attorney can accomplish this by showing that the child witness’s trauma would be caused only by the courtroom generally, and not by the presence of the defendant. A skilled defense attorney will hold the State to its obligation, as the party with the burden of proof, to present evidence that the appearance of the child accuser in court will render the taking of testimony impossible. While seemingly a small battle in the war that a sexual abuse trial will be, its loss may result in denying a defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial.
Voluntary DNA Sample Leads to Link in Cold Case
In trying to help Police investigators link his brother to a 1983 rape and murder case of a Campbell teen, David Pearman voluntarily submitted a DNA sample. However, detectives quickly changed their focus when Pearman’s DNA sample connected him to a crime unrelated to his brother’s; Pearman’s DNA sample connected him to the rape of an 81 year-old woman from San Jose.
Both Brothers Now Facing Possible Life in Prison Sentences
Currently, both brothers face charges that could sentence them to life in prison. The brothers reside in Santa Clara County men’s jail, without the option of bail. David Tomkins, an Assistant District Attorney, says that authorities were “lucky” to have embarked on this chain of events that led to the identification of Pearman as a suspect in the case of an elderly woman being raped in 2001, unrelated to the crime to which his brother is a suspect.
46 year-old David Pearman, a.k.a. David Leonard Holland, was taken into custody and arraigned on charges related to the 2001 rape case. Pearman also has a prior felony record for Burglary. Police investigators are claiming that the voluntary DNA sample that he contributed matches that of a sample taken from the scene of the crime of the 2001 rape of an 81 year-old woman. If it weren’t for the investigation into his 53 year-old brother on an unrelated case, Police would likely have never been able to link evidence from the 2001 crime scene to Pearman. According to Tomkins, Pearman would have gotten away with this crime if authorities in the “cold case” division hadn’t been investigating Christopher Melvin Holland (Pearman’s brother) in connection with the murder of a 17 year-old.
Details of the 1983 Rape and Murder Case
The murdered 17 year-old, Cynthia Munoz, was found partially naked and stabbed to death in her Campbell home more than 24 years ago. During those 24 years that passed, Police had leads in the case but lacked sufficient evidence to bring charges against a potential suspect. However, earlier this year investigator Michael Schembri began to focus on the Munoz murder and found out that a friend of Christopher Holland bragged that he and Holland raped and murdered the 17 year-old girl in the course of a robbery for narcotics. Just as Schembri was looking further into Holland’s involvement, he was nowhere to be found. When authorities realized that they had a semen sample from the Munoz rape/murder, they located Holland’s two brothers and asked them to give DNA samples in hopes of finding a link.
The sample from David Pearman’s brother Kenneth Holland was enough to charge Christopher Holland in Munoz’s murder, showing a link close enough to determine that it is “possible but highly improbable” that anyone but one of the Holland’s committed the crime. This provided ample evidence to put out a warrant for Christopher Holland’s arrest; Holland was arrested after police received a tip that he was hiding out in a San Jose apartment.
DNA Sample Revealed Surprises
Although police had all the evidence they needed from Kenneth Holland’s DNA sample, David Pearman’s DNA sample revealed some surprises. While Pearman and Christopher Holland are only half-brothers, making Pearman’s sample useless in the Munoz case, the procedure of entering his sample into a computer database alerted authorities to its match with the evidence taken in the 2001 rape case of the elderly woman.
Authorities now believe that they have enough evidence to charge Pearman with Burglary, Rape, and Forcible Oral Copulation. This case would have never been solved if it weren’t for the voluntary DNA sample provided in an unrelated case in which his half-brother was the prime suspect.
Sacramento Falsely Reporting
ANTELOPE: A woman from Antelope, California might face criminal charges after confessing to Sheriff’s Department detectives that she told lies about being the victim of a sexual assault, and even fabricated a crime scene.
Woman Claimes She Was Sexually Assaulted in Home Burglary
This woman, 29 years old, told officers that she arrived home on September 17th to find two males burglarizing her home on Pepperidge Drive. According to Sergeant Tim Curran, the woman claimed that one of the men fled the scene but the other sexually assaulted her.
Inconsistencies in Victim’s Story and Evidence
Sergeant Curran could see multiple inconsistencies between the victim’s story and the available physical evidence. He claimed about the detectives, “A lot of it was just their instincts the day of the incident,” and “They had some questions in their minds and things just never added up.”
Woman Falsely Reports Crime
In a follow up interview, this woman admitted that she lied about the burglary and sexual assault, as well as her involvement in staging the crime scene. It is possible that this woman will be charged with Falsely Reporting a Crime, a misdemeanor in the State of California.
Mass Hysteria: Lessons Learned from the Day Care Center Sexual Abuse Scandals
In the 1980s and 90s, highly publicized trials of day care providers struck fear in parents from coast to coast. In 1983 in California seven workers at the McMartin preschool were charged with 115 counts of having sexual relations with children as young as two years old. In New Jersey in 1985, kindergarten teacher Margaret Kelly Michaels was accused of forcing more than 20 children to play sex games and penetrating them with knives and forks. In 1995 a pastor and his wife in Wenatchee Washington were accused of being at the center of a sex ring in which children were ritualistically abused and raped. Forty-three adults were accused of being involved in the sex ring, and 29,726 charges of sexual abuse were filed against them.
Many Sexual Abuse Cases Involving Children Were Unfounded
These cases represent only a small sample of an apparent epidemic of sexual abuse that plagued the country. The accusations were marked by lurid details of torture, satanic rituals, and elaborate sexual abuse scenarios. They involved hundreds of children, and led to thousands of charges filed. If the stories seemed to horrifying to be believed, it is because, in many cases, they were not true. The McMartin case wore on for seven years and is the longest and most expensive case in U.S. history. It resulted in no convictions. Margaret Kelly Michaels was convicted of 115 counts of sexual abuse and spent five years in prison, before the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned her convictions. The charges in the Wenatachee “sex ring” were deemed entirely untrue, and the case has been described as, “the worst example ever of mental health services being abused by the state …” (“Pastor and wife are acquitted on all charges in sex-abuse case,” New York Times, December 12, 1995.) Certainly some children in some cases had been sexually abused, but research showed that between 23 percent and 33 percent of child sexual abuse cases involved false allegations, between 2 percent and 8 percent of cases involved deliberate lies by children, and the majority of reported cases were unfounded (“False sex abuse accusations lead to revision of theories,” Psychiatric News, June 20, 2003).
Techniques Used to Gather Evidence Are Flawed
Years after these and similar sexual abuse cases the psychiatric and law enforcement communities were left to determine how their systems had led to and perpetuated this modern-day witch hunt. What research in the past decade has indicated is that most interview techniques and assumptions used in the child abuse investigations were seriously flawed. In overturning one conviction, the court of appeals concluded that the alleged victims were subjected to aggressive, highly suggestive questioning. When the children denied being abused, the investigators badgered them until they gave the “right” answer. In addition, “[i]nterviewers were gullible, asked leading questions, conducted multiple interviews that led to delayed disclosures with fantastical details, and failed to consider other explanations for the children’s behaviors.” (“False sex abuse accusations lead to revision of theories,” Psychiatric News, June 20, 2003).
What Caused the Day Care Abuse Hysteria?
The psychiatric community must share the blame with law enforcement. The day care abuse hysteria was partially brought on by the rise of “recovered memories” of sexual abuse. These memories were “recovered” when patients suffering from psychological problems were told by therapists that their symptoms suggested sexual abuse, and could be remembered through the use of suggestive techniques such as hypnotic regression. (“The danger of false accusations,” Boston Globe, April 22, 2002). But these therapists had “confused the absence of memory with repression of a traumatic memory, believed that memories were immutable and could be recalled from birth, and assumed a person who felt abused had indeed been abused.” (“False sex abuse accusations lead to revision of theories,” Psychiatric News, June 20, 2003). Moreover, recent studies by psychologists have demonstrated that traumatic memories can be implanted.
If there is anything positive to be gleaned from the sexual abuse hysteria, it is that many law enforcement agencies have developed standard investigatory protocols designed to avoid contaminating child testimony. These protocols include videotaping the questioning of child accusers in order to document the interview process. In addition, members of the psychiatric community have begun to treat recovered memories with more skepticism. While prosecutions based on false accusations are not completely behind us, there is reason to hope that lessons from the past will prevent mistakes in the future.
Victims of False Sexual Abuse Accusations
To the falsely accused, however, past lessons may be of little comfort. Victims of false accusations face a difficult legal battle and a public presumption of guilt that may be difficult to overcome. Defendants need the assistance of an attorney who understands the legal issues involved, and who has experience in defending the falsely accused. An experienced attorney will investigate the charges, aggressively dispute the allegation, and present an effective case in court. If necessary a defendant’s lawyer will defend him in the press and protect him from mistreatment. A criminal sex conviction can result in significant prison time, and the accusation alone can cause significant emotional damage. A skilled attorney will minimize the damage to the accused both inside and outside the courtroom, and will fight to ensure that justice is done.
