Rapist sentenced to 50 more years for week-long assault on wife - appeal denied

(Original Post 9-29-09)
A man who was convicted of raping his wife in a second trial was sentenced to 50 years in prison in addition to 22 years handed down in a previous aggravated rape conviction. The 50 years sentence stems from two consecutive 25 year sentences for aggravated rape and especially aggravated kidnapping. 6 year sentences for aggravated burglary and aggravated assault were imposed, but they'll run concurrently with the other charges.

Sullivan County Criminal Court Judge Robert Montgomery said that he “I shudder to think what might have happened” if Bristol TN resident Doug Young, 49, hadn't been apprehended in Georgia a week after he kidnapped and raped his wife, Heather Moore.

The rapes and kidnapping occurred over the week of January 4 to 11, 2008 after they ate breakfast at Moore's home. Young's presence was a violation of the protective order Moore filed against him on December 3, 2007, citing that “[Young] possesses many firearms and has threatened to shoot me and I am in fear for my life.” Moore's father, fred Moore began staying with his daughter, trying to protect her.

The two traveled in Moore’s vehicle to Asheville, N.C., where they spent the night at a rest stop; to Cades Cove in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, where they circled the scenic loop over and over again; and to Cherokee, N.C., where they holed up at the Drama Inn for most of the next week, according to testimony presented Monday and Tuesday.

From Cherokee, Young and Moore took shopping and dining excursions to Spartanburg, S.C., and Clayton, Ga. From Jan. 4 to Jan. 11, Moore testified, Young kept a gun trained on her at almost all times, and forced her to have sex with him on at least seven separate occasions. Prosecutors are focusing only on the incidents that occurred in Sullivan County.

Everywhere they went, Moore testified, Young kept the pistol in his right-hand pants pocket. One day, while drinking vodka and driving, Young menaced her with the gun, running it up and down her head, saying, “I could kill you right now,” she recalled.

Friday’s sentencing concluded the most serious charges that Young racked up in just over a month between Dec. 1, 2007, and Jan. 10, 2008. Before then, he had been a superintendent at BurWil Construction, whose worst offense was an incident of joyriding as a juvenile.

But with his marriage to Moore unraveling, Young turned violent, sexually assaulting Moore in December 2007 at her home, after she refused to give him a hug, a jury concluded.

Then, on the eve of finalizing their divorce and days ahead of a hearing on Young’s aggravated rape charge, he violated the court’s no-contact order and stole in to Moore’s house to wait for her.

Prosecutors in Young’s second trial in August built their case by focusing on his offenses from the time he entered Moore’s residence, to when he left, abducting her at gunpoint, and commandeering her car.

According to Moore's previous victim impact statement, she fears coming home at dark, her rapist escaping and putting a gun to her head, and has to face the door when eating at restaurants. "All of this make it very difficult to report a crime like this and have the most horrible thing that has ever happened to you be exposed in the media for all to see.”

Moore's mother, Margaret Schaffer, said that “We’re going forward now. We’re not looking back.” Young's 2008 rape conviction is currently being appealed.

(Update 5-27-11) Doug Young's appeal of his 2009 rape conviction has been denied by the Tennessee Court Of Criminal Appeals in a unanimous decision dated Monday, May 23, 2011. The appeal is based on the introduction of Young's 1st rape conviction in the second trial as evidence. The court said that while testimony regarding the first rape conviction was a bit excessive, it allowed prosecutors to privide evidence of a criminal plan or motive. The appellate court also ruled that other evidence against Young outweightd the error of allowing the testimony relating to the first conviction. The entire decision can be found here in this pdf file. The case number is E2010-00027-CCA-R3-CD.

Israeli Arab appeals rape-by-fraud sentence

(Original Post 7-29-10)
An Israeli Arab has appealed his conviction for rape by fraud to the Israeli Supreme Court. Sabbar Kashur's conviction on July 20 was for telling a Jewish woman he met that he was a single Jew when in reality, he was a married Israeli Palestinian father of two. They met outside a shop in Jerusalem and had sex. This happened in September of 2008, and a month and a half later, the woman went to Israeli police and cried rape. After nearly two years of house arrest. Kashur was sentenced to 1 1/2 years in prison.

A panel of three judges, headed by Tzvi Segal, deputy president of Jerusalem District Court, stated their reasons for the rape by fraud verdict.

 If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated... .The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price - the sanctity of their bodies and souls. When the very basis of trust between human beings drops, especially when the matters at hand are so intimate, sensitive and fateful, the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims ... otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled, while paying only a tolerable and symbolic price.

The verdict has sparked both condemnation and praise in both Israeli and other circles. Women's groups have said that the verdict recognizes that one does not have to use a position of authority or violence to commit a rape - that lying to get sex is just as must an assault as a forcible rape. Others have said that the true reason why Kashur was arrested and convicted of rape by deception was because he was an Arab who had sex with a Jew in Jerusalem.

There have been Israeli men who have been convicted of rape by deception in the past. Both of these have been people who were in a formal position of authority with their victims and promised their victims sex for something of value. Four states have rape by fraud laws - Alabama, California, Michigan, and Tennessee.

Massachusetts has rape by fraud legislation which has been stalled. The impetus for such a law comes from this. Wendy Murphy, a prominent law professor and victim's rights advocate, wants to see Massachusetts' law passed. “What I’ve proposed as a more representative alternative is to have a crime called penetration without consent, and avoid the force issue.”

Cleveland-Marshall College of Law professor Patricia Falk says while fiduciary relationships which are sexualized are considered to be non-consensual, defining fraud in other relationships is much more difficult. “What’s the difference between ‘I will love you forever and we’re going to get married’ and ‘I am LeBron James? What constitutes romantic inducements and things that are fraudulent enough for the law to take recognition of?”

(Update 8-4-10) Kashur was released pending appeal yesterday by the Israeli Supreme Court. The court said that  due to the circumstances of the case, "The possibility should not be ruled out that a higher court may reduce the petitioner's sentence." Kashur spent his first day of conditional freedom with his children in a shopping mall.

Minimum sentence raised to 15 from 10 years for killer

The Alberta Court of Appeal has hiked the parole ineligibility for an Edmonton man serving life in prison for cutting up his estranged wife's face and killing her boyfriend after finding them in bed.

In a decision released Ŵednesday, September 23ç, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled the sentencing judge had erred in giving killer Kham Tran, 45, a "demonstrably unfit" sentence by handing him a life term with no chance of parole for 10 years. Instead, the three-judge panel ordered that Tran must serve at least 15 years before being eligible for parole.

"Given the nature of the offence and the circumstances of this murder, a 10-year period of parole ineligibility is demonstrably unfit," says the written decision.

"The deceased was stabbed 37 times. He crawled from the bedroom to escape. (Tran) kicked him. (Tran) also placed a knife in the deceased's hand, presumably to infer that the deceased had attacked (him).

"We also conclude that the sentencing judge erred when she failed to consider the other offences as aggravating factors. (Tran) was convicted of aggravated assault on his estranged wife. He sliced her face from ear to jaw and deep to the bone, and she is permanently disfigured. He told her that she would no longer be beautiful. He threatened to kill her children. These were separate offences and ought to have been considered as aggravating."

In 2006, Tran was sentenced to nearly nine years in prison after being found guilty of manslaughter and aggravated assault for the Feb. 10, 2004, slaying.

However, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the manslaughter conviction and instead substituted a conviction for second-degree murder. The appeal court ruled the trial judge had erred in accepting a defence of provocation and was mistaken when she found Tran had been provoked by the "insult" of catching his naked wife in bed with another man.

The case was sent back to the same judge for sentencing and she gave Tran a life term with no parole for 10 years. At trial, court heard Tran and his wife had been separated for months, he had already suspected his wife of being in a relationship and had said he knew who the man was.

Court heard Tran stabbed An Quoc Tran, a 41-year-old father of four who is not related, 37 times and sliced the face and hands of his estranged wife, Hoa Le Duong, 38. Duong testified she and An Tran were napping after having sex when they heard someone open the door and then Kham Tran was scratching An's face and kicking him.

She said he punched her and tried to claw out her eyeballs and then ran out and returned with two butcher knives as the terrified pair tried to grab their clothes.
Duong said her estranged husband stabbed her boyfriend in the chest and then came over to her and chopped her hand several times and grabbed her by the face.

"He said, 'Are you beautiful,' and he cut my face," she said, adding he then followed An Tran to the living room and repeatedly stabbed and kicked him.

BBC - Devon, England sex offender's jail term appeal rejected

A sex offender from Devon who breached an order banning him from contacting people over the age of 60 has failed in a bid to reduce his latest jail term.

Derek Francis Hornett, of Crossways, Whitestone, Exeter, was jailed in 2005 for three years for knowingly infecting an 82-year-old Paignton woman with HIV. In May, Hornett was again sentenced to three years for breaching the order.

Judges at the Court of Appeal rejected the 49-year-old's case, saying his sentence was "richly deserved".

Hornett, who knew he was HIV positive, was first jailed for causing grievous bodily harm to the elderly woman after having sex with her and infecting her with the HIV virus.

He was jailed by Judge Graham Cottle in December 2005, who told Hornett his actions had devastated his victim both physically and mentally. As part of that sentence, Hornett was given a sexual offences prevention order (SOPO) banning him from contacting people over 60.
But, within months of being released from jail, Hornett struck up a friendship with a 66-year-old woman, who he did odd jobs for.

Police were called in when the woman became suspicious. They discovered that Hornett had befriended three other women over 60, one of whom was in her 80s.
He was jailed for three years for breaching the SOPO.

His lawyers argued Hornett's sentence should be reduced to give him the chance to care for his seriously ill wife. But Mr Justice Foskett said: "Nothing we have heard persuades us that it's right to make any alteration to a richly deserved sentence."

Long Island wife killer denied new trial

Newsday
Manhasset wife killer denied a new trial
Sunday, July 26, 2009 By ANN GIVENS ann.givens@newsday.com

A Manhasset man convicted of shooting his wife to death in front of their two children will not get a new trial, a federal judge has ruled.

In an 85-page decision released late Friday, Judge Arthur Spatt said Nikolaos Kotsopoulos' claim that his lawyer had talked him into an illegal deal, where the lawyer would get an additional $100,000 if Kotsopoulos were acquitted, was just not credible.

"The evidence at this trial was crystal clear," Spatt said, pointing out that Kotsopoulos' own 12-year-old son, George, had testified against him.

Kotsopoulos, 47, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison after a Nassau jury found him guilty of shooting his wife, Carol, 41, in the face as she was preparing dinner for Greek Orthodox Easter in 2002.

He was granted a hearing this spring after he claimed that his former attorney, Jack Evseroff of Brooklyn, had encouraged him to tell the jury at his criminal trial that an armed intruder had killed his wife because Evseroff had been promised an illegal $100,000 "bonus" if Kotsopoulos was acquitted of all charges.

Kotsopoulos claimed at the hearing in March in Central Islip that he in fact had shot his wife accidentally while he was fidgeting with his gun after an argument. Kotsopoulos said if Evseroff had allowed him to present that story at trial, he might have had a chance at being convicted of a lesser charge, such as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.

In his decision, Spatt said that he does not believe there was an illegal deal, nor does he believe Kotsopoulos ever claimed that he had killed his wife accidentally.

"The court finds that he never told Evseroff that it was he who shot his wife," Spatt wrote in the decision. "Only at this hearing, almost six years after his wife's murder, did the petitioner finally admit that he killed her, albeit only . . . when his confession was offered for his own benefit."

Kotsopoulos' attorney, Steven Kartagener of Manhattan, could not be reached for comment late Friday.

Prosecutor Michael Canty said the judge had no reason to believe Kotsopoulos' story, especially after he changed it so radically.

"Hopefully now the family can have some closure, and Mr. Kotsopoulos will go to prison for the rest of his life," Canty said.

Department Of Homeland Security allows women facing DV in home countries to apply for US asylum

Chris McGreal The Guardian (UK)

The Obama administration has moved to grant political asylum to foreign women who suffer severe physical or sexual abuse from which they are unable to escape because it is part of the culture of their own countries.

The decision, made evident in a court case involving a battered women from Mexico, ends years of dispute over the issue which saw the Bush administration stall moves toward recognising domestic violence as legitimate grounds for asylum made during Bill Clinton's tenure.

The department of homeland security has told an immigration court that it regards the woman, identified only as 42-year-old LR, as potentially having grounds to apply for political asylum because she feared she would be murdered by her common-law husband who repeatedly raped her at gunpoint and tried to burn her alive when he discovered she was pregnant.

Karen Musalo, a lawyer and director of the Centre for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California who is representing a second woman involved in a similar asylum case, said that the move is a significant shift in policy that opens the way for physically and sexually abused women to seek the same protection that those fleeing female genital mutilation are already offered.

"There has been so much controversy and back and forth on this over many years. This finally opens the door to these women to seek protection," she said.

But women who apply for asylum will still face significant obstacles.

"These are not easy cases to prove," said Musalo. "LR must prove that in Mexico violence against women is pervasive and that there is a societal perception that this is acceptable. Then she has to prove that the Mexican government is unable or unwilling to protect her, and on top of that she has to show that there is nowhere in Mexico where she can be safe from her abusers."

LR stands a good chance of meeting the criteria. According to court papers, her husband, who seduced her when he was her physical education teacher at school, forced her to have sex by holding a gun or machete to her head.

He broke her nose on one occasion and, when he discovered she was pregnant, doused her bed with kerosene as she was sleeping and set it alight.
But when she reported the assaults to the police they dismissed them as a "private matter". A judge she appealed to for help attempted to seduce her.

"In Mexico, men believe they have a right to abuse their women because they are like a possession," LR said in the court submission.

The struggle to have domestic violence categorised as grounds for asylum has long centred on another women, Rody Alvarado from Guatemala, who has been represented by Musalo.
For many years, the US government said battered women did not qualify because they could not show persecution on specific grounds such as race or political opinion. That position was eroded in 1996 in a key ruling over female genital mutilation.

Until then the courts held that the women were victims of cultural oppression and that was not grounds for asylum because they were not members of a persecuted group under US law.

"The harm that women suffer is often a harm that is a cultural norm or accepted within a culture or required by the religion and so some adjudicators had taken the position that can't be persecution as required by refugee law because it's a cultural or religious requirement," said Musalo. "Female genital cutting fell in to that category but the board of immigration said it doesn't matter that it's a cultural rite - if it's a violation of human rights and objectively an egregious harm, it's persecution."

In the wake of the 1996 decision, Alvarado sought asylum to escape repeated severe beatings by her husband. Her case has been at the centre of a tangled and politicised dispute over the legitimacy of claims for protection from physical abuse.

An immigration court granted Alvarado asylum based on the earlier decision on female genital mutilation. An appeal court reversed the decision.

Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, overturned the appeal court decision but shortly after that George Bush came to power and stalled the case which remains unresolved.
Musalo says the change in the department of homeland security's position means Alvarado's case is finally likely to be addressed.

Opposition to admitting battered women has in part come from politicians who argue that it will open the floodgates. Musalo said similar objections were made over the admission of women fleeing female genital mutilation.

"A lot of people who were opposed to a grant of asylum said millions of women are subject to female genital cutting a year and if we establish a precedent that this is a basis for asylum these millions of women are going to arrive in the US," she said.

But, she said, there was not significant increase in claims. More than 29,000 people won asylum in the US last year on a variety of grounds.

Man's life sentence for murder attempt on wife upheld on appeal

Frederick Evrod Jones, 56, of Columbia, MD, attempted to overturn by appealing his life sentence handed down in December 2006 for the brutal machete attack on his now ex-wife. He failed in that endeavor.

Jones and his lawyer, Louis Wellemin went in front of an appellate judicial panel to argue that instead of life, Jones should have been sentenced to 12-20 years for the most serious charge, attempted murder. Besides the murder attempt, Jones was convicted of 1st degree assault and violation of a protective order.

On April 23, Jones' attorney, Louis Wellemin, argued to the three-judge panel — Howard County Circuit Court judges Louis Becker, Diane Leasure and Richard Bernhardt — that Jones, who had stopped short of killing his wife, should be sentenced according to state sentencing guidelines for attempted first-degree murder, of which Jones was convicted.Those guidelines, Willemin said, should reduce the sentence to between 12 and 20 years.

But Assistant State’s Attorney Claude de Vastey Jones emphasized the brutal nature of the crime, stressing that Jones had hid behind a trash can and waited for his wife, and that her skull had been cracked. She said Jones’ ex-wife still has to wear makeup and style her hair in a particular way to conceal the scars.

The decision, which was released Thursday, April 30, states that “Given the conduct of the defendant in the perpetration of the offense, the permanent and potentially fatal injuries suffered by the victim, and the circumstances of the offenses, the sentence imposed by Judge [Lenore] Gelfman was not excessive or unjust.”

NY appellate court upholds wife rapist's 50 year sentence

A New York court has upheld the 50 year sentenced given to Anthony Woods, a Buffalo man, previously convicted of raping women who who is now serving 50 years in prison for raping his wife of 2 weeks. The rape occurred in June 2006, and Woods was arrested after he tried to force the victim to withdraw money from her account. A bank teller heard the woman's screams.

The five-judge Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Rochester agreed with appellate prosecutor Michael J. Hillery that the jury verdict was justified by the weight of the evidence. The court also ruled that the stiff sentence imposed by State Supreme Court Justice Deborah A. Haendiges in September 2007 was “not unduly harsh or severe.”

At the time, Haendiges denounced Woods, a Bennett Village Terrace resident, as “clearly a danger to society.” Woods, 44, is an inmate of Auburn Correctional Facility.

Prosecutors based their case against Woods on a 1994 New York Supreme Court decision which upheld the 1981 conviction of Mario Liberta of Buffalo, a wife rapist who served 7 1/2 years in prison for raping his victim in front of their son.

Erie County Judge Michael F. Pietruszka, according to the appellate court, was correct in rejecting Woods' access to his estranged wife's medical records to impugn her credibility. The appellate court upheld admission of testimony claiming that the victim's rape claims were meaningless because "she's my wife."

Legal Aid of Buffalo, who handles the appeal, may still appeal to the NY Supreme Court in Albany.

Teacher who texted students for sexual purposes must face charges, appellate court says

A woman who was a teacher at a New Jersey school must stand trial on official misconduct charges for offering herself for sex with 16 and 17 year old students at her school who were not her students. Karen Binder, 44, faces 10 years in prison and a $150,000 fine for the charges, which according to a New Jersey appellate court, were illegally dropped.

Karen Binder, 44, of Manalapan was arrested in March 2007 after authorities said the parents of a 17-year-old student told school officials that she sent their son a text message expressing her interest in having sex with him.

The boy told investigators that over a two-day period Binder sent him more than 100 text messages and proposed having sex with his brother and his father as well as himself, according to the Applellate Division's opinion.

The other victim, 16 and a student at the high school, was discovered during the investigation, authorities said. Binder also convinced the boy to send her explicit and revealing pictures of himself, according to the opinion.

Binder, whose previous conviction was for a DUI summons, was charged with official misconduct in July 2007. She was rejected from a pre-trial intervention program by the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office and a court clerk because of her refusal to take a drug test and other considerations.

However, Superior Court Judge Barbara Stolte overulled them both and allowed Binder to participate in the diversion program focusing on the drug test, but a panel of three judges reversed Stolte's decision, stating that Stolte focused on the drug test, but not the other issues which prosecutors accounted for.

Part of the ruling is shown below.

"...the judge's conclusion that "the best way of dealing with the defendant's behavior is through intensive counseling and supervision" rather than through criminal prosecution was not hers to make.... The judge reweighed the proofs and reanalyzed the statutory factors as if she, rather than the prosecutor, was the person entrusted with the sensitive prosecutorial decision that is at stake whenever a diversion decision is being made... the judge's discussion of the deference due a prosecutor's decision was, in the end, little more than lip service.''

Binder's attorney Jacqueline Boulos stated "While we respect the Appellate Division's ruling, of course we disagree with it.''

Australian gang rapist loses appeal

Sydney gang rapist loses appeal

One of up to 20 men involved in the “grotesque” and degrading pack rape of a Sydney woman has failed in a bid to have his conviction overturned. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal also rejected Sela Qoro's plea for his 14-year sentence to be reduced on psychological grounds.

Qoro, 45, was one of between 10 and 20 men involved in the detention and gang rape of a 20-year-old woman at Redfern in Sydney's inner city in November 2005. A NSW District Court jury convicted the father of five of aggravated sexual assault in company, for his role in the attack.
He forced the woman to perform oral sex upon him after others had subjected her to a range of sex acts.

Sentencing Qoro to a maximum 14 years last April, Judge Peter Berman said it was “impossible not to be struck by the callousness“ of the men, who treated the victim “as an object for their sexual gratification and nothing more”.

The attack's ringleader had urged the men to “be as rough as you like, she likes it“, Judge Berman said, describing it as a “grotesque episode”.

“She was not treated as a human being,” he said.

“When (Qoro) forced the complainant to perform oral sex on him, he well knew that she had already been subjected to degrading and repeated forced sexual intercourse at the hands of a number of other men.”

Qoro's trial was originally a joint hearing along with the man accused of inciting the attack, but their trials were split a few days into proceedings. Qoro's lawyers applied for the jury to be discharged and a fresh panel sworn in for his case, but the judge refused.

Qoro claimed, in the appeal hearing, that it was a miscarriage of justice.

He also asked the appeal court to reduce his sentence, claiming the trial judge failed to adequately consider the fact that he was mildly intellectually disabled.

But Justices Roger Giles, Peter Johnson and Peter Hall today dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence. “His Honour's decision to decline to discharge the jury was a proper exercise of discretion in the circumstances,” they ruled.

“No error has been demonstrated in his Honour's decision declining to discharge the jury.”
Qoro will be eligible for release in January 2016, at the expiration of his 10-year non-parole term.

Abuser of disabled woman gets 2 years added to sentence

A 62 year old Chippewa Falls, WI man who was the caregiver of a 37 year old developmentally disabled woman with the mental capacity of an 8 year old had his sentence increased from 6 to 8 years after an appeal of his sentence. The appeal was due to procedural guidelines not being followed.

Donald Newell was convicted in October of abusing the woman in the nursing home in which she lived. Chippewa County Assistant District Attorney Wade Newell, not related to the appellant, stated that yesterday's hearing was a procedural hearing meant to update case information.

Judge Roderick Cameron stated that a bunch of aggravated factors, including denial of the harm done by the sexual abuse, Donald's position of trust and power over his victim, and denial of the cognitive limitations of the victim, lead him to increase the prison sentence from 6 to 8 years. Newell will also serve 15 years of extended supervision, given after the end of a custodial sentence.

Donald Newell had been the 37-year-old woman's personal caregiver in 2003 when the assaults occurred. He maintained it had been a consensual relationship, although the woman had been assessed with the mental capacity of an 8-year-old child.

Donald Newell disputed claims her cognitive ability was limited, and he compared her to Helen Keller "who everyone thought was useless until someone wanted to help her."

Donald Newell told the court in his "defense" that the victim and him were having an affair, and that most politicians (And I must add, men in general!) would be in prison if affairs were illegal (which they technically are in many states.)

"Three different people knew [she] and I were having an affair, and they did nothing. They did not tell me it would be a crime. I love [her] very much still and am praying she gets freedom from the people who are still abusing her. No matter what happens today, I am still going to fight for [her]."

Prosecutor Newell stated that the defendant simply did not understand what he did wrong and that showed a lack of responsibility or remorse.

"In a lot of situations this would be a low-risk person, but he had all that going for him yet he continued to commit crime. He would not benefit from treatment because there is nothing to treat. He doesn't think he has done anything wrong. He still doesn't get it. He takes no responsibility for what he's done."

Former Jackson, MS officer sentenced to life for sexual assault

A former Jackson, MS, police officer was sentenced to life in federal prison, an upward departure from the 20 year sentence in a Jackson, MS federal court in 2005 he got for sexually assaulting a 19 year old woman while on duty, but 7 years lower than the lower end of sentencing guidelines. The same judge,U.S. District Judge William Barbour Jr., sentenced Maceo Williams, 53, him to life, citing the betrayal of trust by a police officer and sentencing guidelines.

U.S. Department of Justice attorney Paige Fitzgerald had argued at Simmons’ original sentence that he should face life in prison for violating the woman’s civil rights. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ordered him resentenced based upon a motion by the U.S. attorney general's office.The Appeals Court noted the sentence was seven years less than the low end of federal sentencing guidelines.

Simmons was convicted March 1, 2005, in federal court in Jackson of committing sexual assault while acting under the color of law.

The victim, who was 19 at the time of the assault, said that after a traffic stop Sept. 19, 1999, Simmons took her in his patrol car to a remote spot and sexually assaulted her while a second officer acted as a lookout, according to the court record.The Clarion-Ledger does not identify those alleging sexual assault. The woman said she waited a year before filing a report because she was afraid.

“Police officers are held to a higher trust and you violated that trust....,” Judge Barbour said. He still felt that 20 years was an appropriate sentence, but that departing due to age alone from guidelines calling for life would risk appeal again.

Withdrawal of penis must occur if there's withdrawal of consent - or it's rape in MD

The Court of Appeals, Maryland's Supreme Court, stated that rape can occur under Maryland law if the woman withdraws consent during intercourse, and that men who refuse to stop can be charged with rape. It overturned a lower appelate court's decision that sexual consent can't be withdrawn once given.

The 2006 decision, which drew wide attention, "was certainly startling," said Tracy Brown, the executive director of the Women's Law Center in Towson.

Brown welcomed yesterday's reversal, which, she said, "reflects current standards regarding the rights of women for sexual self-determination and the right for women to withdraw consent."
Despite its holding on the issue of consent, a majority of the court overturned first-degree rape and other convictions that Montgomery County prosecutors secured in 2004 against Maouloud Baby.

The case centered on a 2003 encounter in which Baby, then 16, was accused of fondling an 18-year-old and holding her arms while a friend of his sexually assaulted her in a parked car. Later, the woman testified, Baby told her, "It's my turn now."

"He was, like, 'So are you going to let me hit it?' " the woman said. "And I didn't really say anything, and he was, like, 'I don't want to rape you.' "

She said she told Baby they could have sex as long as he agreed to stop if she told him to. Soon, she said, she told him to stop. He continued for "five or so seconds" after she made the request, she testified.

The defense argued that Baby was not present when his friend had sex with the woman, and that she and Baby had consensual sex.

During deliberations, the jury twice asked Circuit Court Judge Louise G. Scrivener whether a rape has occurred if a woman who agrees to have sex changes her mind after intercourse has begun. Scrivener replied that that was "a question that you, as a jury, must decide."

Senior Assistant State's Attorney Alex Foster stated that the ruling would bring Maryland's laws about rape in line with other states' laws. The appellate court still overturned Baby's rape conviction, but prosecutors say that they are satisfied with the ruling.

Montgomery County State's Attorney John McCarthy stated that we are in a great position to retry the case.

Rapist must serve above guidelines sentence - judge

A Lackawanna County (Pennsylvania) judge has denied a request by a rapist sentenced to between 43 and 86 years in prison to lighten his stiff sentence. Charles Lake, 39, raped an 18 year old Dunmore, PA woman then hid in the woods for 20 days, subsitsing on worms and creek water.

Under the plea agreement, prosecutors recommended a sentence of 25 to 50 years. Judge Michael Barrasse, presiding over the case, did not have to follow the suggestion. Mr. Lake admitted to raping the 18-year-old after tying her up and threatening her with a butcher knife. He also choked the victim, who managed to escape after telling her attacker she couldn’t breathe and needed her inhaler, according to court records.

After leaving the woman’s home, Mr. Lake hid in the woods for 20 days before surrendering to police. He told investigators he drank creek water and ate worms to survive while in hiding. The Times-Tribune does not identify victims of sexual assault.

At Mr. Lake’s sentencing, Judge Barrasse went outside the plea deal and state sentencing guidelines because of the brutality of the rape and the age of the victim. But in court paperwork asking the judge to reconsider the sentence, attorney Jamie Dench said he didn’t believe the judge weighed all the aspects of Mr. Lake’s situation, including the confession he gave investigators and his problems with alcohol abuse.

Deputy District Attorney Michelle Olshefski said she was glad Judge Barrasse didn’t change his mind. “We felt the sentence was more than appropriate,” the prosecutor said. “The judge stated in no uncertain terms the reasons for the sentence ... and that if he could, he would have raised it.”

Lake's attorney expects that the sentence will be appealed to a higher court.

“A judge has the right to sentence to whatever he or she feels is appropriate. So it’s hard to say whether an appellate judge would agree with the reasons he gave for the sentence.”

Michigan man loses appeal of rape charge

A Sturgis man has been ordered to start serving a 21 month to 15 year sentence for the 2005 rape of a woman. The Michigan Court Of Appeals overturned a lower court's decision to grant Warren English III a new trail based on a juror being sexually abused as a child.

According to the Kalamazoo Gazette:

English, 23, was sentenced by Judge Paul Stutesman after he was found guilty of raping a 17-year-old woman in May 2005 following an after-prom party at his family's residence. English is the son of Sturgis businessman Warren English Jr.

County Prosecuting Attorney Douglas Fisher appealed the decision of the trial court, which stated that a victim of sexual abuse should be automatically excused from sitting on a criminal sexual conduct jury.

The appeals court called the decision `erroneous'' and ordered English, who had been released on bond pending the appeal, to turn himself in to the county sheriff.

Appellate Judge Helene N. White wrote in a separate opinion that she "would remand for reconsideration under the proper legal standard," but disagreed that a new trial was necessary.

Sturgis rapist won't get new trial

Woman appeals rape conviction

Stephanie Stark, convicted of the rape of two young women, is appealing her 7-year prison sentence for rape to the Maine Supreme Court, stating that the sentence was too harsh, higher that what the state was seeking.

Stark and another defendant, Peter Mills, were convicted of raping three women, two of which worked with Mills in a Southwest Harbor restaurant. The drug assisted rape of the college women took place June 15, 2005 at Mills' home in Bar Harbor. A 48 year old woman was raped two days later at Stark's Surry home.

The article says,

“The court’s use of a predetermined sentence imposed two days before the sentencing hearing infringes on defendant’s right to counsel at sentencing,” Mr. Smith wrote. “The defendant was prejudiced by the court’s failure to consider the defendant’s mitigating witnesses and rebuttal arguments.”

Mr. Smith also pointed out that, while Ms. Stark was acquitted of the charge of engaging in forcible rape, the judge’s sentencing analysis included a “finding of physical force.”

“The court should not be allowed to substitute its own factual findings where the jury has held that force was not used,” he said.

Finally, Mr. Smith claimed that Judge Brodrick did not consider Ms. Stark’s low score on a risk assessment test, which indicated she was unlikely to commit another crime.


Stark is being held at the Maine Correctional Center in Windham. Smith filed his own appeal earlier this month.

Reference

Stark Seeks Rape Sentence Appeal