Post: #1

I'm fucking incredulous.

Quote:A man serving 40 years for raping his eight-year-old daughter has lost his bid to be released from prison, even though the alleged victim has insisted for the past 15 years that the crime never happened, and that she only said it had because her drug-addicted mother threatened to beat her.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/...ction?lite

Post: #2

Horrific. Innocence is no protection from the rape card, got to get the fuck out of the states.

Post: #3

Clearly she's lying now and it actually happened when it was eight. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

Post: #4

I thought that false rape accusations were absurd, but this is a whole step worse. Incredible - you have the victim and only witness vouching that you didn't do it and you're still left to rot.

Focus all of your efforts on getting out.

Post: #5

(12-16-2013 09:32 AM)MSW2007 Wrote:  I'm fucking incredulous.

Your government at work. Makes you want to keep paying taxes to support more of these horror stories.

Post: #6

Prison Industrial Complex.


Inmates are worth money to the state, free men are not.

Post: #7

There is a lot of outrage fatigue with this stuff, but it's really worth stopping for a moment and reflecting on what is happening here:

This DA, Francis Phillips of Orange County in New York state, wants to keep an innocent man in prison for another 25 years, after he has already unjustly served 15.

This is not merely despicable and outrageous. It is evil. It is an act as evil as any murder or atrocity, and if there was justice in the world, it would be punished accordingly.

And it is far from the first such case when it comes to false child abuse accusations. To those who are interested, I highly recommend this book, "No Crueler Tyrannies" by Dorothy Rabinowitz, based on a Pulitzer Prize winning series of articles, which contains heartwrenching stories of the victims of the false child sexual abuse accusation hysteria in the US.

One of these stories involves a man named Gerald Amirault, who served 18 years in prison because of false child abuse accusations that were obviously ludicrous and incredible to begin with, and unraveled completely as time went on. The DA who lobbied successfully to keep Amirault in prison for as long as possible was Martha Coakley, who is currently the Attorney General of Massachusetts and is likely to become its next governor.

Post: #8

Procedurally, it is clear that what this guy needs to do is file a Motion for a New Trial based on after-discovered evidence. Attaching an Affidavit from the alleged victim would strengthen his argument. Such a Motion may or may not be untimely, based on the rules of that particular state. Often, situations where there is after-discovered evidence are treated differently than other situations. The mere fact that she is now changing her story in no way guarantees that he would be found not guilty. I saw a trial not too long ago where I was on deck waiting for my case to be called for trial. In this case, the victim who was the lone eye witness to the alleged incident completely changed her story and denied that the Defendant did anything to her. The judge still found the guy guilty. I have had two trials where the alleged victims unexpectedly decided to testify in my clients' favor and deny that they committed any wrongdoing. I think that in both cases the prosecutors were ill prepared and monolingual and therefore unable to effectively communicate with tbe alleged victims prior to trial. Both trials resulted in not guilty verdicts.

Post: #9

Don't knock up a drug addict.

Post: #10

Merenguero, the daughter has already recanted her story 15 years ago, 6 months after the conviction, and the mother recanted as well. The appeals have been going on for that long. There was a re-investigation but I did not see any mention in the article that there was ever a Motion for a New Trial. Does this make any legal sense to you?

(12-17-2013 01:21 AM)Merenguero Wrote:  Procedurally, it is clear that what this guy needs to do is file a Motion for a New Trial based on after-discovered evidence. Attaching an Affidavit from the alleged victim would strengthen his argument. Such a Motion may or may not be untimely, based on the rules of that particular state. Often, situations where there is after-discovered evidence are treated differently than other situations. The mere fact that she is now changing her story in no way guarantees that he would be found not guilty. I saw a trial not too long ago where I was on deck waiting for my case to be called for trial. In this case, the victim who was the lone eye witness to the alleged incident completely changed her story and denied that the Defendant did anything to her. The judge still found the guy guilty. I have had two trials where the alleged victims unexpectedly decided to testify in my clients' favor and deny that they committed any wrongdoing. I think that in both cases the prosecutors were ill prepared and monolingual and therefore unable to effectively communicate with tbe alleged victims prior to trial. Both trials resulted in not guilty verdicts.

Post: #11

(12-17-2013 11:18 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Merenguero, the daughter has already recanted her story 15 years ago, 6 months after the conviction, and the mother recanted as well. The appeals have been going on for that long. There was a re-investigation but I did not see any mention in the article that there was ever a Motion for a New Trial. Does this make any legal sense to you?

(12-17-2013 01:21 AM)Merenguero Wrote:  Procedurally, it is clear that what this guy needs to do is file a Motion for a New Trial based on after-discovered evidence. Attaching an Affidavit from the alleged victim would strengthen his argument. Such a Motion may or may not be untimely, based on the rules of that particular state. Often, situations where there is after-discovered evidence are treated differently than other situations. The mere fact that she is now changing her story in no way guarantees that he would be found not guilty. I saw a trial not too long ago where I was on deck waiting for my case to be called for trial. In this case, the victim who was the lone eye witness to the alleged incident completely changed her story and denied that the Defendant did anything to her. The judge still found the guy guilty. I have had two trials where the alleged victims unexpectedly decided to testify in my clients' favor and deny that they committed any wrongdoing. I think that in both cases the prosecutors were ill prepared and monolingual and therefore unable to effectively communicate with tbe alleged victims prior to trial. Both trials resulted in not guilty verdicts.

They most likely never filed a Motion for New Trial and they may very well be out of the box as far as filing such a Motion due to timing issues. If there is an exception to the deadline when there is after-discovered evidence, they may have a chance. Both Appeals and Motions for New Trials generally seek the same remedy, which is a new trial. The goal in an appeal is to prove that the trial judge committed reversible error which would justify the Defendant being granted a new trial. A Motion for New Trial can allege a number of other things, one of them being after-discovered evidence. Here, it doesn't seem as though it is being alleged that the trial judge ered. It is more of a claim that the alleged victim changed her story after the trial. The appellate courts' hands may therefore be tied unless reversible error is alleged and proven. If the Defendant has exhausted all his appeal rights and is not permitted to file a Motion for a New Trial, his only option may be to seek a gubernatorial pardon. Good luck with that. Even an extremely liberal governor wouldn't want the heat that setting free a so-called convicted rapist would bring with it.

Post: #12

Quote:Don't knock up a drug addict.

Moral of the story.

Post: #13

Many of these prosecutors and others are ELECTED. That is also a tragedy. Blame the slavish, servile, and sheepish American people.

Post: #14

(01-05-2014 07:55 PM)puckerman Wrote:  Many of these prosecutors and others are ELECTED. That is also a tragedy. Blame the slavish, servile, and sheepish American people.

I haven't heard of ordinary people ever voting to elect a prosecutor in any country, but regardless, through their indifference and active support of the prosecutor's masters they still do remain responsible for the acts&abuses of those officials.