Published Date: 16 July 2010 [Yorkshire Post]
By Olwen Dudgeon Legal Correspondent
YORKSHIRE Ripper Peter Sutcliffe will spend the rest of his life behind bars, a judge has ruled. The serial killer, now known as Peter Coonan, must serve a "whole life" tariff, Mr Justice Mitting announced yesterday at the High Court in London. The judge said he had no doubt that was the appropriate term and added: "This was a campaign of murder which terrorised the population of a large part of Yorkshire for several years.
"The only explanation for it, on the jury's verdict, was anger, hatred and obsession. Apart from a terrorist outrage it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which one man could account for so many victims. Those circumstances alone make it appropriate to set a whole life term."
His ruling was widely welcomed among the victims' families. Richard McCann, whose mother Wilma was the first murdered during Sutcliffe's reign of terror, said his overwhelming feeling was one of relief. "I just hope he does not go and appeal it and keep this all going." Sutcliffe, now 64, from Bradford, was convicted at the Old Bailey in 1981, receiving 20 life sentences for the murder of 13 women and the attempted murder of seven more.
He was transferred to Broadmoor top-security psychiatric hospital three years later suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Mr Justice Mitting said he did not accept any reduction from a whole life term was appropriate for "exceptional progress" by Sutcliffe in hospital. He said he believed it was more likely than not that had a Home Secretary set a tariff for Sutcliffe it would have been a whole life.
"Only Rosemary West and Dennis Neilsen approach the number of victims murdered."
Showing posts with label legal ruling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal ruling. Show all posts
Monday, July 19, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
California upholds "rape by fraud" conviction of chiropractor
By a MetNews Staff Writer
An Anaheim chiropractor who molested several patients was properly convicted of the relatively new crime of sexual battery by fraud, the [California]Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
In what it said may be a case of first impression, Div. Three ruled Monday that an Orange Superior Court jury reasonably concluded from the totality of the circumstances that Chi Van Pham touched the women with sexual intent, and that the women allowed him to do so because they believed his representations that the acts were part of examination or treatment.
“There appears to be no limit to the ability of our species to devise new and different bad things to do to each other,” Justice William Bedsworth commented for the court.
Jurors found Pham guilty of four violations of [California] Penal Code Sec. 243.4(c), involving three different women.
Sec. 243.4(c), enacted in 2002, is a “hybridization of molestation and fraud,” Bedsworth explained. It makes the touching of an intimate part of the victim for sexual purposes a felony if the victim is “unconscious of the nature of the act because the perpetrator fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose.”
The crimes occurred between 2003 and 2005. One victim testified that while she was being treated for a car accident that occurred when she was 13 years old, Pham touched her breasts and her genitals on multiple occasions.
She said those acts made her feel uncomfortable, but she believed at the time that it was part of treatment, because she had signed a consent form acknowledging that chiropractic manipulation can be discomforting and because she trusted the doctor. She did not begin to suspect the doctor had acted improperly, she explained, until two years later, when she was working as a volunteer in his office and he made unwanted advances towards her.
Another woman, an adult involved in another car accident, said that while she was being examined, Pham touched both of her breasts. She was shocked at the time, she testified, but said nothing to the doctor or his assistant at the time.
She went home, she explained, and told her mother. She called the police a few days later.
Two of the counts involved another woman, who was referred to the doctor by the lawyer representing her in an auto accident case. On two different occasions, she said, Pham performed what she described as a “tapping rub” on her breasts and around her public area.
On the second occasion, she said, she asked the doctor why it was necessary for him to touch those areas, and he told her he was “looking for pain.”
Judge Patrick Donahue sentenced Pham to seven years in prison, the upper term of four years on the count involving a minor and consecutive one-year terms on the other counts. The upper term was justified, Donahue said, because the doctor abused a position of trust.
Bedsworth, writing for the Court of Appeal, explained the unconsciousness element:
“The unconsciousness requirement does not require proof the victim was totally and physically unconscious during the acts in question....It simply requires proof the defendant tricked the victim into submitting to the touching on the pretext it served a professional purpose....This can be accomplished even when the victim has agreed to the act in question.”
There was sufficient evidence, he said, to show that the women trusted the doctor and were totally unaware that he was seeking to fulfill sexual desires by touching them, until sometime after the conduct occurred.
An Anaheim chiropractor who molested several patients was properly convicted of the relatively new crime of sexual battery by fraud, the [California]Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
In what it said may be a case of first impression, Div. Three ruled Monday that an Orange Superior Court jury reasonably concluded from the totality of the circumstances that Chi Van Pham touched the women with sexual intent, and that the women allowed him to do so because they believed his representations that the acts were part of examination or treatment.
“There appears to be no limit to the ability of our species to devise new and different bad things to do to each other,” Justice William Bedsworth commented for the court.
Jurors found Pham guilty of four violations of [California] Penal Code Sec. 243.4(c), involving three different women.
Sec. 243.4(c), enacted in 2002, is a “hybridization of molestation and fraud,” Bedsworth explained. It makes the touching of an intimate part of the victim for sexual purposes a felony if the victim is “unconscious of the nature of the act because the perpetrator fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose.”
The crimes occurred between 2003 and 2005. One victim testified that while she was being treated for a car accident that occurred when she was 13 years old, Pham touched her breasts and her genitals on multiple occasions.
She said those acts made her feel uncomfortable, but she believed at the time that it was part of treatment, because she had signed a consent form acknowledging that chiropractic manipulation can be discomforting and because she trusted the doctor. She did not begin to suspect the doctor had acted improperly, she explained, until two years later, when she was working as a volunteer in his office and he made unwanted advances towards her.
Another woman, an adult involved in another car accident, said that while she was being examined, Pham touched both of her breasts. She was shocked at the time, she testified, but said nothing to the doctor or his assistant at the time.
She went home, she explained, and told her mother. She called the police a few days later.
Two of the counts involved another woman, who was referred to the doctor by the lawyer representing her in an auto accident case. On two different occasions, she said, Pham performed what she described as a “tapping rub” on her breasts and around her public area.
On the second occasion, she said, she asked the doctor why it was necessary for him to touch those areas, and he told her he was “looking for pain.”
Judge Patrick Donahue sentenced Pham to seven years in prison, the upper term of four years on the count involving a minor and consecutive one-year terms on the other counts. The upper term was justified, Donahue said, because the doctor abused a position of trust.
Bedsworth, writing for the Court of Appeal, explained the unconsciousness element:
“The unconsciousness requirement does not require proof the victim was totally and physically unconscious during the acts in question....It simply requires proof the defendant tricked the victim into submitting to the touching on the pretext it served a professional purpose....This can be accomplished even when the victim has agreed to the act in question.”
There was sufficient evidence, he said, to show that the women trusted the doctor and were totally unaware that he was seeking to fulfill sexual desires by touching them, until sometime after the conduct occurred.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, September 26, 2008
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."
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."
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Charges against acupuncturist accused of groping women stand
Samy A. Elawady, 63, of Wauwatosa, was charged in March with 9 counts of 4th degree sexual assault, a misdemeanor, for inappropriately touching the breasts of four women during an acupuncture procedure in Waukesha County. Circuit Court Judge Ralph Ramirez refused to dismiss five of those charges.
Defense attorney Paul Bucher, a former Waukesha County district attorney, argued that five counts should be dismissed because the State’s charges did not allege that the touching was for the purpose of sexual gratification.
"Simply touching the breast area" is not sexual assault, Bucher told Judge Ralph Ramirez.
The former Waukesha County district attorney said two elements are required before sexual assault charges can be filed: touching and sexual gratification.
There's nothing in the criminal complaint related to the five charges Bucher sought to dismiss to indicate that the touching was anything but therapeutic, he said.
But Ramirez said statements made by other acupuncturists and by Elawady to investigators show that a "clear inference" can be drawn that the type of touching Elawady is accused of is consistent with sexual gratification.
One acupuncturist who took training classes from Elawady told investigators that Elawady warned students to stay away from the breast and groin area and described those areas as "jail one" and "jail two," the complaint says.
According to a complaint, Elawady indecently touched the women during appointments between September and January.
The assaults occurred at Oriental Wellness Center and Spa in the City of Pewaukee and at the Lake Country Health Center in Delafield, the complaint says.
Elawady, who has denied all charges, has told investigators that it’s unnecessary to remove women’s bras during acupuncture procedures.
Defense attorney Paul Bucher, a former Waukesha County district attorney, argued that five counts should be dismissed because the State’s charges did not allege that the touching was for the purpose of sexual gratification.
"Simply touching the breast area" is not sexual assault, Bucher told Judge Ralph Ramirez.
The former Waukesha County district attorney said two elements are required before sexual assault charges can be filed: touching and sexual gratification.
There's nothing in the criminal complaint related to the five charges Bucher sought to dismiss to indicate that the touching was anything but therapeutic, he said.
But Ramirez said statements made by other acupuncturists and by Elawady to investigators show that a "clear inference" can be drawn that the type of touching Elawady is accused of is consistent with sexual gratification.
One acupuncturist who took training classes from Elawady told investigators that Elawady warned students to stay away from the breast and groin area and described those areas as "jail one" and "jail two," the complaint says.
According to a complaint, Elawady indecently touched the women during appointments between September and January.
The assaults occurred at Oriental Wellness Center and Spa in the City of Pewaukee and at the Lake Country Health Center in Delafield, the complaint says.
Elawady, who has denied all charges, has told investigators that it’s unnecessary to remove women’s bras during acupuncture procedures.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
