Archive for the ‘Rights of the Accused’ Category

U.S. Prosecutor crusades to falsely crucify a man for child porn

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

Carlos Alfredo Simon-Timmerman was arrested for possession of child pornography.  The only problem was that it wasn’t child pornography and any cop or prosecutor with a double-digit IQ should have known that.  Unfortunately, anti-sex crusaders have never been known for their intellectual prowess.

The child porn that Simon-Timmerman had in his possession was a video called “Little Lupe the Innocent; Don’t Be Fooled By Her Baby Face.” The movie stared noted film actress Lupe Fuentes.

Despite the fact that it would have been a simple matter to verify the age of the porn star, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jenifer Yois Hernandez-Vega proceeded to prosecute Simon-Timmerman based solely on the fact that the star looks under age.  Yep, that’s correct.   Prosecutor Hernandez-Vega apparently thinks that a guess based on nothing more than appearance trumps the actual fact of her age.

Reading through the story, it’s patently clear that the prosecutor was not the slightest bit interested in justice or the innocence of her target.  She was totally vested in a conviction despite any facts and enthusiastically embarked on a crusade to destroy the life of Carlos Alfredo Simon-Timmerman using her powers as an agent of the government.

Rather than issuing a subpoena to verify the age of Ms. Lupes, AUSA Jenifer Yois Hernandez-Vega demanded that the adult porn actress personally appear in court.  Ms. Lupes had to fly from Venezula to testify in Puerto Rico.

After hearing testimony and examining her passport, the trial court ordered the prosecutor to dismiss the charges.

Anyone with even a hint of humility would have questioned whether they exceeded their authority and backed off in order to avoid embarrassing themselves and their office, but federal prosecutor Hernandez-Vega persisted far beyond the limits of credibility to the point of malicious harassment, if not an outright assault disguised as due process.

And the ending is the saddest part of the:

Although the innocent man spent two months in jail before being able to make bail, Jenifer Yois Hernandez-Vega will not even be given a reprimand.  She’ll continue in her unethical ways, and there’s nothing anyone will do to stop her.

As long as the public blindly encourages an aggressive steamroller approach to law enforcement, where career building completely overshadows even the pretense of justice, this kind of behavior on the part of prosecutors will continue.  The American public has gone from erring on the side of innocence to wholesale incarceration and “letting god sort them out”.

Welcome to the Sex Hysteria Hall of Shame, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jenifer Yois Hernandez-Vega.

Prostitutes abused by court in Massachusetts

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

A federal judge rejected a plea agreement of a Chelsea district court clerk accused in February of exchanging favors for sex.

From Boston.com:

Under the agreement, former Chelsea District Court clerk-magistrate James M. Burke would have spent 12 months and one day in prison, paid a $5,000 fine, and undergone two years of supervised monitoring.

If a comparison were made, I bet there would be a stark contrast in penalties faced by lowly clerks like Burke as compared to judges and prosecutors when it comes to abuse of power.   When was the last time you heard of a judge or prosecutor facing prison for misconduct?

A grand jury indictment returned last year alleged that Burke used his position to extort sexual services from women and deprive them of their constitutional rights, “which includes the right to bodily integrity.”

Burke allegedly forced a woman charged with prostitution to perform sex on him in an empty courtroom and sexually assaulted another alleged prostitute after locking her in a room at the courthouse.

Back when Burke was charged, the Boston Herald quoted federal authorities calling this “a perversion of the legal system”, but extorting sexual favors from prostitutes is hardly an unknown occurrence whether it be at he hands of the cops, prison guards, or other justice system authorities.  A harsh punishment is a welcome rarity.

Massage parlor fishing expedition in Indianapolis

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

Cops in Indianapolis raided thirteen massage parlors looking for evidence of prostitution.  They made prostitution arrests at less than half the businesses.  In a typical ploy to get around those pesky Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches, the cops simply tagged along with license, fire, and health code inspectors that have easy access to businesses without requiring a warrant.

From fox59.com:

One business owner is fighting back, reopening his shop after consulting with an attorney. He said his therapists all have state licenses and don’t need certification from the city. He claims the raid damaged his business.

“We have customers that were very embarrassed and probably won’t come back. This is probably one of the few legitimate asian massage places in this town and we went through quite a lot of effort to make it that way,” said Kenneth Carter, owner of the Asian Health Center Therapy Massage.

Massage parlors are commonly perceived to be a front for prostitution and the public is unlikely to have much sympathy for any businesses that is painted as part of the illegal sex trade.  As a result, law enforcement faces no public outcry when they use sleazy schemes to harass them.

Blanket harassment of massage parlors by cops is no different than targeting people simply because they are black.  Law enforcement investigations should be based on solid evidence that a crime has taken place before they invade someone’s private property.  The Constitutional rules don’t change because the business is a massage parlor, strip club, or store that sells sex toys.  Police and prosecutors have the power to inflict huge legal expenses on businesses regardless of whether the charges stand up in court.  Raiding a business without legitimate cause is abuse of that power.

Speaking of women’s rights…

Friday, April 2nd, 2010

Last night I watched a movie called The Stoning of Soraya M. It’s a true story of an Iranian woman who is falsely accused of adultery by her husband who wants out of their marriage.  The story is exceptionally well produced, dramatic, and is intense from beginning to end.

I think the movie vividly exemplifies the mindless mob mentality that engulfs morality crusades, propelling them out of control.  It’s also a stark reminder of the power of religion to fuel hate, defy reason, and perpetuate injustice.

If you’re a woman concerned about women’s rights on a worldwide scale, there certainly seem to be a lot more worthy targets of your moral crusade than women who engage in sex work.  At least have the integrity to focus your zealotry on those who want your help instead of declaring that any woman who does sex work by choice is in denial.

Anyone who thinks that porn is an assault on women ought to see this movie to get a little perspective of what a real assault looks like.

Punishing crime before conviction

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

According to theprovince.com, the small town of Merritt, British Columbia may join “scores of other law-enforcement agencies across North America, including ones in Alberta and Ontario, that have turned to public shaming as a way to deter prostitution.”

The plan is to release to local media outlets the names of accused johns once they’ve been charged, said Staff-Sgt. Scott Tod, commander of the RCMP detachment in Merritt.

“The reality is we live in a small town. Everyone knows each other.

One has to wonder why these policies almost always publish the names upon arrest, but before conviction, especially when the stated goal is to bring shame the accused.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is opposed to the practice.

It punishes the person before they’ve been convicted, said Nathalie DesRosiers, the association’s general counsel.

“What if they’re not guilty? They will already have been punished,” she said.

Of course, not everyone agrees with the strategy:

Kate Gibson, executive director of Vancouver’s WISH Drop-In Centre, which provides services to female sex-trade workers, said she worries such a tactic could drive prostitution further underground.

“It surprises me that there are people going in that direction. What does it serve to do?” she said.

It doesn’t surprise me, Kate.  When it comes to prostitution, there is no shortage of people willing to dispense with the formalities of a conviction before doling out punishment.

Connecticut may scrap statute of limitations for civil suits alleging sexual misconduct

Monday, March 1st, 2010

According to a press release:

Responding to the requests of constituents who are seeking justice and their day in court for decades-old acts of sexual abuse, state Sen. Mary Ann Handley (D-Manchester) and state Rep. Beth Bye (D-West Hartford) today unveiled a bill designed to eliminate the statute of limitations in civil cases stemming from child sexual abuse, exploitation or assault.

Legislators absolutely love the opportunity to leverage off of the paranoia over child sex abuse because nothing sells quite so quickly with less examination than a proposed law that “protects children” from the horrors of child abuse, real or imagined.  Are adults in Connecticut being unfairly denied their day in court due to an unrealistically short statute of limitations?  Not exactly.

The purpose of the bill is to eliminate the civil lawsuit ‘clock’ that begins ticking at age 18 in cases involving the sexual assault, abuse or exploitation of a minor. Individuals have 30 years—until age 48—to file a civil lawsuit, or they lose their chance to achieve justice in a court of law.

So as the law currently stands, someone who was sexually abused as a child has until they are 48 years old to file suit.   My guess is that law makers there have already capitalized off the sex hysteria to get it stretched out that long.  30 years is not just a bit excessive.  It’s fucking preposterous.

The press release goes on to mention two specific cases that supposedly demonstrate the need for elimination of the time limit.  Of course, if a statute of limitations could be eliminated on the basis a of one or two cases of someone who missed the boat, there would be no such limits for any crime.

Blogger and civil rights lawyer Norm Pattis critiques the bill further, with an eye toward the potential  mischief from those who still support the largely discredited recovered (aka repressed) memory syndrome, where someone recalls trauma (usually sex abuse) that supposedly happened decades earlier.   Accusations based on recovered memory are as close as it gets to complete fabrication of a crime, but innocence rarely saves the accused from having their life utterly destroyed.

Cop on trial for sexually asaulting prostitute

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

The jury will hear closing arguments today in the trial of a San Diego cop charged with sexually assaulting a prostitute.

According to 10news.com:

Thomas John Sadler, 49, is charged with sexual battery by restraint, assault and battery by a peace officer and false imprisonment by violence.

[...]

Sadler testified Tuesday that picking up a prostitute while on duty was one of the “biggest mistakes of my life,” but he denied sexually assaulting her.

Yeah, it probably wasn’t her best day either.

Because prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are at the mercy of cops who can threaten them with arrest or promise to let them go in exchange for “favors”.

In his opening statement, [prosecutor] Dort alleged that Sadler has a history of assaulting women in the same way he allegedly assaulted the prostitute. Sadler could face time in state prison if convicted.

Man wins $4.1 million for wrongful imprisonment

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Tim Masters was 15 when 37-year-old Peggy Hettrick, was found murdered and sexually mutilated in a field near Masters’ family home.

Twelve years later, in 1999…

He was convicted largely on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of an expert witness who said he fit the profile of a sexual predator.

Nothing like throwing that little prejudice into the case to get jury to see the accused as something akin to the Antichrist.

Citing DNA evidence that did not implicate Masters, a visiting judge threw out the case in 2008, and Masters walked free.

The crime remains unsolved.

More lawsuits are in the works.

An earlier report from when Masters was released says one cop as well as two prosecutors (both now judges) involved with the Hettrick case are being investigated.

The link for this story was pulled from a comment by Michael Chaney over at theagitator.com.

It’s not about justice. It’s only about winning.

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

It’s bad enough, when you’re accused of a crime, to have all the machinery of the state working to wreck your life, but when the prosecution throws out all pretense of objectivity in an effort to win at all costs, you are totally screwed.  Innocence is immaterial.

Radley Balko tells the story of Santa Clara, CA, District Attorney Dolores Carr who presides, with impunity, over a conviction machine that regularly flaunts the rules, grinding up accused sex offenders like so much raw meat.  Of course, with the lynch mob mentality of the public, the ends justifies the means when it comes to sex abuse cases and Carr is their hero.

Accidentally prosecuted and convicted of felony sex abuse

Monday, February 8th, 2010

When Richard Lee Simmons was 18, he had sex with his 15 year old girl friend.  The state of Oregon brought him before the grand jury, prosecuted him, and convicted him.  The only problem is that the grand jury never indicted him.  Everyone just assumed they came back with an indictment.

To make up for the error, the judge threw out the felony conviction and the prosecutor then brought a misdemeanor sex charge (which doesn’t need a grand jury).  Prosecutors don’t take kindly to grand juries that refuse to indict their ham sandwiches.

And now University of Oregon Law School graduate Steve Richkind is seeking to bring a $3.5 million civil rights suit against the state.

To botch the first prosecution and follow it with a second over the same conduct constitutes double jeopardy, “shocks the conscience” and “violates a universal sense of justice,” Richkind argues.

Having exhausted his options in the state courts and having lost at the federal district level, it will be interesting to see if he prevails with the Ninth Circuit.