Showing posts with label Sexual Assault. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexual Assault. Show all posts

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Sexual "Assault" ain't always what it seems

One of the really frustrating things about Wisconsin's (and most other state's) sexual assault laws is that they are very often blind to reality. The reality I speak of is that kids - teenagers - are sexually curious and, increasingly, sexually active. In the past year, however, I have represented 5 individuals - 18 year olds - who either had sex with or were discovered in mid-grope with girls in the 14-16 year range. In each instance, the girls were more than on board - they were active, interested participants and, in 2 cases, the aggressors. The boys (men?), however, were hauled off to jail and faced between 25 and 40 years in prison for their dalliance.

One kid (let's face it, 18 year old's are still "kids") actually pled guilty to felony sexual assault and served 9 months because he touched (brushed up against) a girl's breast. After I convinced the judge to reverse the conviction, a jury (luckily!) saw right through the charge of "assault" and acquitted him.

So the system works, right? Sure, after 2 anguishing years, public humiliation, financial ruin and the risk of being labeled a sexual predator.

Another case in point: an 18 year senior is pursued by a 15 year old party girl who trumpets on her "My Space" page about all the drinking and fooling around she does. They finally have sex after she aggressively pushes the issue. Later, in school, she is heard bragging about it by a teacher (who is a mandatory reporter). The next thing this kid knows, a detective is calling about potential charges of sexual assault of a child. Is this just or right? Of course not! It is more of the same sexual hysteria that has infected the system and our society run amok!

That's my rant for today! With all of the unsolved robberies, murders and REAL rapes, don't the police have higher priorities? There is such a thing as judgment and discretion in law enforcement....let's use some folks!



John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214
Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 -
www.birdsall-law.com


Monday, September 22, 2008

More Kiddie hysteria....

Well the feds are at it again: "State and federal authorities are investigating the possible sexual abuse of minors at a 15-acre evangelical compound run by a convicted tax evader whom critics describe as a cult leader." See the entire story here. "The Tony Alamo Christian Ministries complex in southwestern Arkansas was raided Saturday by more than 100 federal and state police, and six children have been placed in temporary state custody and are being interviewed." The CNN video reports here detail that there are allegations of child porn, and sexual "abuse" withing the Alamo ministries.

Can you say witchhunt? Apparently the feds have been after Alamo for years - repeatedly raiding his compounds in California, Texas and now Arkansas. The evidence that the cops are supposedly acting on is not being revealed but it is very reminescient of the raids on the Koresh compound in Waco, Texas, and the polygamist raid in Utah earlier this year where over 400 kids were removed. As usual, the raid is highly publicized but the evidence of wrongdoing - specific, REAL evidence - is never revealed. Moreover, the anguish of the families and the individual cases are quickly forgotten (or never considered) by the public at large.

My wish for law enforcement and prosecutors is that they finally get over there incessant need to grand stand in high profile busts without considering the emotional, finacial and reputation fall-out to the people involved.



John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.



135 W. Wells St., Ste 214

Milwaukee, WI 53203

414.831.5465 -

www.birdsall-law.com


Thursday, September 18, 2008

Proving a crime is a real "burden"!

Two cases currently being given an inordinate amount of hysterical media attention demonstrate how the public can have a twisted view of justice in America. More importantly, they are left with the impression that the cops always get it right and ignore the vast number of wrongfully convicted people in this country.

OJ is at it again! Or is he? Was he set up? Even some commentators think so as discussed on CNN InSession BLOGs. The hysterical reaction to OJ over the years is explicitly played out here. After his arrest for trying to get his own property back, who were the first to be interviewed? The Goldman's!! How's that for getting a fair shake? The actual evidence - available for those who care to look - shows a judge who let in tapes secretly recorded that even the FBI expert admitted could have been altered, the witness who did the taping selling them to a gossip website (TMZ) BEFORE he gave them to the police and then writing a book well before the trial and the arresting cop admitting that he normally arrests people before making a complete investigation! There is little doubt that OJ was trying to get his stuff back himself (without the police) to avoid any proceeds from going to pay the $33 million dollar judgment against him, but that does not mean he knew that a gun was brought to the party. His rat/snitch friends know that but will say anything after the frantic rush to cut deals with the government.

On the other side of the country, a young woman is being crucified daily in the press. Casey Anthony reported her daughter Caylee missing in July - a month after she went missing. Since then, she has been vilified as "unstable," "perplexed" and that she had long ago tried to give Caylee up for adoption. The authorities then claim to have found Caylee's hair, an "odor" and "stains" (which can only be seen with a black light) in the trunk of Casey's car. There is reportedly evidence of a "decomposing body" and traces of choloform. Never, however, have any of these supposed scientific tests been confirmed. I have seen countless instances where DNA and fingerprint "evidence" has been debunked because of faulty sample collection, messy lab work or flat-out corrupt technicians. But the media plays it like undoubted fact and then engages in salacious smears to paint this woman in the most evil light possible. Enough already!!! Can't the media allow the process to work without poisoning the jury pool before someone has a chance to defend themselves. The paper thin case they are trying to build reminds one of the Manhattan Beach sex abuse case (day care worker acquitted of molesting hundred's of preschool children) or the Duke LaCrosse case (where the DA was ultimately disbarred for abusing his position by manipulating the stripper "victims" of a claimed sexual assault).

Trying someone in the press is not what this country, or a criminal justice system are about. It turns into entertainment for those that can't get enough of Britney, Paris and Lindsay. If anyone has any doubt about the need for an experience and aggressive defense lawyer, these cases ar explicit examples of that need.



John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 -
www.birdsall-law.com



Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Sex hysteria and Perversion of the Truth

I had the painful experience of listening to the Supreme Court debate between Justice Louis Butler and Circuit Judge Michael Gableman last night at the State Bar Center in Madison. Virtually the entire debate centered around the negative ads that have defined this campaign and smeared both candidates.

As an ardent Butler supporter, I was incredulous at Gableman's refusal to recant the obviously slanderous content of the ad that HIS campaign wrote and he approved. He claims it was "fair game" to talk about the candidates past work. Fair enough. However, the ad is severely misleading and leaves the strong impression that Butler's work on a sexual assault appeal (while he was a public defender) somehow "sprung" a child molester that "went on" to commit more assaults.

In fact, Butler raised the issues of the irregularities in the trial and an unanimous court of appeals agreed and reversed the conviction and sent the case only for a new trial. The man was not released. The Supreme Court agreed (again, unanimously) with Butler but nonetheless reinstated the conviction because there was overwhelming evidence so the error was "harmless." The man served his entire sentence and only committed another assault years later.
Gableman, however, juxtaposes pictures of Butler and the man together and then asks - who would you trust to protect Wisconsin's children? How much more perverted can you get? Not the man....Gableman! He wants to be a trusted member of the state's highest court but can't even exercise the judgement to debate issues fairly or to accurately portray a set of facts. This overzealous pursuit of a position of power stands in stark contrast to Butler's calm composure, keen intellect and rational judgment.

I hope that enough of the truth about this fine justice and honorable man is communicated to the public prior to the April 1st election. We have a great court right now....Gableman will not be a welcome addition.

See more about this focus on attack ads here.



John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 -
www.birdsall-law.com


Monday, March 17, 2008

Murder & Sexual Assault Plea Bargains Aren't A Bargain

Every day I encounter people who believe that they were bullied into pleading guilty to some plea “bargain” that, upon brief reflection, they realized that it wasn’t that great of a deal. Or, more often, they just felt that they were truly innocent and should have gone to trial. In any event, they routinely blame their attorney for just being in bed with the DA and not really fighting for them and they want to “withdraw” their plea. Sounds simple, right? As usual, the answer is: “it depends.” The variables are huge, the DA’s almost universially oppose these motions no matter when brought but the judge can be a real wild card. I have had extremely compelling cases that have been denied and seemingly difficult cases that breezed right through.

The first hurdle is whether it is before or after sentencing. A criminal conviction begins after the judge “accepts” your plea of guilty and then “adjudges” you guilty and orders a “judgement of conviction” be entered in the record. The case is then set for sentence if it is a felony. Many smaller cases may proceed right to sentencing after the plea proceedings. The legal standard is hugely different: before sentencing, courts are supposed to “liberally” grant such motions for any “fair and just reason.” However, after sentencing, they only grant a withdrawal request to prevent a “manifest injustice.”

Don’t feel bad if you don’t know what those terms mean in the legal context, neither do most judges. We attorneys, of course are convinced that we always have met the standard but the judges are all over the board. Consider two case I have handled in recent years: Jose and Walter.
Jose was set for trial for 3 counts of first degree intentional homicide and 3 counts of reckless homicide. His trial attorney basically did nothing to investigate the case which involved a gang-related shooting. Early on, the state indicated that the only plea they would offer was to cop to 2 counts of first degree and they would recommend life without parole (no death penalty in Wisconsin - yet!). Jose rejected this “deal” categorically and maintained that position to anyone that would listen - including his Jesuit priest that would minister to him regularly. On the eve of trial, his attorney pushed a final “deal” on him: plead to just one count of first degree and 2 count of reckless homicide and the state still recommend life without parole. Can you feel the love? Some how, his attorney convinced with that he may escape a life sentence and basically bullied him into taking the deal. He immediately regretted it and contacted me to help him withdraw the plea under the liberal standard of “fair and just reason.” Claims of innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel and the testimony of his priest just didn’t cut it for this incredibly obstinate judge who used every available tool of intellectual dishonesty to deny his request. The truth was that the court just didn’t want to try the case.

Contrast that with Wally: he was fooling around sexually with his male cousin when they were 14 and 13 respectively. The families all knew about it and put a stop to it. 3 years later, the cousin brought this up at school and the counselor reported it to police. Because of Wisconsin’s juvenile court decisions, the case was treated as an adult crime because Wally was 17 and an adult for criminal law purposes. Also, since the accusation (a false accusation) was that Wally had threatened him with a knife, the judge ordered him to report as a sex offender for 15 years after he finished probation. On appeal, the client had to meet the manifest injustice standard but, to our great surprise, had a policy of granting nearly every request for withdrawing a plea practically for the asking if there is a claim of actual innocence. Since Wally did not fit that role, however, he did not do that. What is amazing is that he would of in a heartbeat.

The difference in these cases? The murder was in a busy Milwaukee court with a hyper-conservative judge and the sex case was in very rural Grant county with an incredibly flexible judge.

Any lessons here? Yes - if you are going to enter a plea (which is often a great idea) - be sure that it is what you want and that your attorney has adequately explained all of your options to you. Then you will not need to worry about coming back later to fix the mess. If you don’t like the deal - go to trial but only if your attorney is ready! If not get a continuance and a new lawyer.






John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 -
www.birdsall-law.com




Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Convicted, Then Found Not Guilty

Eau Claire Man Convicted Of Second Degree Sexual Assault & Child Enticement, Then Un-convicted, The Acquitted

We've all heard it can't be done - convictions cannot be reversed... 'les there is a prior conviction. But that is precisely what happened several months ago when our client, Aaron B. J. Frey was wrongfully convicted of second degree sexual assault of a child and child enticement. And then at trial, he was acquitted.

In November 2005, Aaron Frey was charged with sexual assault of a minor child and child enticement. The court appointed an attorney, and Aaron plead guilty to third degree sexual assault, with a dismissal of the enticement charge. He was sentenced to 18 months of probation and served 90 days in jail.

Frey then hired Birdsall Law Office to represent him on appeal of the conviction. Birdsall reviewed the court record, and set in motion a reversal of that conviction. The trial judge reversed the conviction based on a defective plea colloquy - inadequate covering of the elements of the offense.

The district attorney then proceeds to file charges based on "other acts" evidence, which allege another sexual encounter on a separate night (two nights prior to the charged crime - and on the alleged victim's 14th birthday). But the alleged victim says that the "other acts" are all wrong, and any "touching" that may have occurred was accidental. She was very worried that her mother would find out about her setting a time with Aaron to meet him after sneaking out of the house while her parent slept. And then there was the fact that they were both in underclothing when the police found them parked behind a building that was under construction at 3:30 a.m. on a school night, the additional fact that she had disarmed the home security alarm to sneak out, and the small technicalities that she was the primary person calling Aaron and she set up the meeting.

Trial began this past Monday, but last Friday, the alleged victim met with the district attorney and completed switched her story, stating that at least one of the "touching" incidences was not accidental and was in fact sexual, among other changes to previous testimony.

When a person testifies to one fact, and then switches that testimony to another fact, and the defense attorney brings up these changes under examination during the trial, the process is called "impeaching a witness".

The jury deliberated for 50 minutes and brought back the verdict of "not guilty" on both counts.



John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 -
www.birdsall-law.com