PDA

View Full Version : Man freed after two decades when molestation accuser recants




jmdrake
11-22-2014, 01:25 AM
I was in a jury pool a few years ago when the prosecutor asked the following question:

"Members of the jury. Things aren't like they are on CSI. You don't always have physical evidence. For example in child molestation cases there often isn't any physical evidence. So do you believe you should convict someone on the basis of nothing but the victims testimony if victim is credible, or should child molestation be legal."

Needless to say I got kicked of the jury. I tried to stay on. The fact that I had graduated law school and clerked for someone doing criminal defense was a red flag for the prosecutor. It was a domestic assault case that was charged as especially aggravated kidnapping and especially aggravated assault. There was no weapon as required by statute. (The prosecutor during jury selection held up a pen and said "You realize this could be a deadly weapon right?") The "victim" went back to the defendant after the alleged incident happened but then later filed charges. The defendant got 40 years. It still makes me sick to my stomach thinking about it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/21/us-usa-washington-conviction-idUSKCN0J50AV20141121?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Washington state man convicted of molestation freed after accuser recants

SEATTLE Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:20am EST

(Reuters) - A Washington state man convicted of child molestation nearly two decades ago was freed from prison on Thursday after a judge ordered a new trial because his accuser recanted her story, court officials said.

Jerry Lee Brock, 55, was convicted in 1995 of first-degree molestation charges stemming from the accusations of an 11-year-old girl who said she was sexually assaulted in her sleep, according to court records.

He was given a life sentence under Washington's persistent offender law, in which individuals convicted of three serious crimes are incarcerated without the possibility of parole. Brock had two previous felony convictions for burglary and promotion of prostitution, court records show.

The woman who accused Brock of molesting her as a child came forward in 2012 and said she had made the story up to get her mother's attention, according to court documents.

Last week, Thurston County Judge Erik Price held a motion hearing on the new evidence and on Thursday released Brock based on the woman's latest statement and ordered a new trial in 90 days, court records show.

Prosecutors could choose to drop Brock's case ahead of a new trial in February.

Brock had previously appealed his case, records indicate.

His public defender could not immediately be reached for comment.

(Reporting by Victoria Cavaliere in Seattle; Editing by Curtis Skinner & Kim Coghill)

KCIndy
11-22-2014, 03:26 AM
There's one more way real life isn't like CSI or Law & Order. Unlike TV dramas, most prosecutors in real life - in my opinion and observation - don't really give a rat's ass whether the person being prosecuted is guilty or innocent. Most prosecutors want to go for the "easy kill" so they can pad their record with a high conviction rate.

Note that the man in the story is free for the moment, but that's pending a new trial in spite of the fact that the alleged victim recanted her testimony.

After almost twenty years in prison, this guy is not going to have the resources to wage any sort of real fight in court. If the prosecutor thinks he can get an easy conviction in a new trial, does anyone really think he won't go after a conviction? Or at least a plea deal confessing to some sort of wrongdoing so the prosecutor's office will save face?

jmdrake
11-22-2014, 07:00 AM
Well after 20 years the original prosecutor may have retired. And prosecuting him now could be risky for the state. One of the elements of a malicious prosecution lawsuit is that there has been an adjudication in your favor. If they just let him out and say "sorry" I'm not sure if he can sue. Under those circumstances some attorneys might take the case for free in hopes of winning the later civil case. But yeah, you are right that there are prosecutors that care more about their win/loss record and "saving face" than anything else. The first time I really saw this was in the PBS Frontline documentary "An Ordinary Crime". In that one the police arrested someone just because he had a similar name to an armed robbery suspect who shot one of the victims. One of the men who got caught said "That's not the man". The other one said "I'll say that's him if that's what you want me to say". He just wanted to cut a good deal for himself. The young man was convicted. Eventually the real shooter felt bad and confessed. At first the state was going to let him out. But the victim at this point was sure that she "saw" the man that was originally convicted. The judge berated the officers who brought real shooter forward for "interfering" and the falsely accused was put back in prison. After the publicity from the documentary the man was finally released.

See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ordinary/

juleswin
11-22-2014, 07:28 AM
I am sure glad nobody suggested to the girl to shot hey imagined attacker cos you bet the same court that convicted an innocent man would have acquitted the 11 yr old girl.

But about your jury selection question, I think I wouldn't have revealed that I wasn't going to convict someone without evidence and then go ahead and do just that once I am allowed into the pool. The way i see it, if someone gets to commit the perfect crime on me that left to evidence leading to him/her, I say they let him/her go. I am not going to like it but I am going to be ok with it.

jmdrake
11-22-2014, 07:42 AM
I am sure glad nobody suggested to the girl to shot hey imagined attacker cos you bet the same court that convicted an innocent man would have acquitted the 11 yr old girl.

But about your jury selection question, I think I wouldn't have revealed that I wasn't going to convict someone without evidence and then go ahead and do just that once I am allowed into the pool. The way i see it, if someone gets to commit the perfect crime on me that left to evidence leading to him/her, I say they let him/her go. I am not going to like it but I am going to be ok with it.

I'm not following your line of reasoning WRT the 11 year old. She did what she did because she wanted attention from her mother, not because she felt she was in any danger.

With regards to the jury pool, once I admitted I had been to law school I was as good as struck. The prosecutor also struck a research scientist. He kept asking the scientist "As a scientist don't you want your conclusions to be based on real evidence?" The scientist didn't seem biased one way or the other. But the fact that he was a critical thinker meant the prosecutor didn't want him. I was torn about whether or not I wanted to be on the jury. I did have the bar to study for.

juleswin
11-22-2014, 08:13 AM
I'm not following your line of reasoning WRT the 11 year old. She did what she did because she wanted attention from her mother, not because she felt she was in any danger.

With regards to the jury pool, once I admitted I had been to law school I was as good as struck. The prosecutor also struck a research scientist. He kept asking the scientist "As a scientist don't you want your conclusions to be based on real evidence?" The scientist didn't seem biased one way or the other. But the fact that he was a critical thinker meant the prosecutor didn't want him. I was torn about whether or not I wanted to be on the jury. I did have the bar to study for.

The shooting part is me addressing the people here who are quick to tell victims(real or imagined) to shot their perceived attackers