Recent Usage - Jackson County, Illinois

Defendant: Melisa B. Vistain

      Back in March of 2012, Jackson County resident Melisa B. Vistain told police that she had been sexually assaulted. After a thorough investigation, the Jackson County Sheriff's Department, along with Murphysboro Police Department, found that Vistain's claim was unfounded. Since then, she has been charged with felony disorderly conduct for this "untrue claim."
     At 29-years-old, Vistain has entered the Alford Plea on Friday, June 28th. A judge has since sentenced her to 12 months of court supervision and ordered the defendant to pay a $450 fine.
     Since sexual assault charges are one of the least reported crimes in the world, it is imperative that we explore the idea that the defendant has been wrongfully convicted of this felony disorderly conduct charge. WPSD Local 6 explained that police had looked into her accusation and said that the claim was untrue, however how can we be certain that Vistain wasn't actually sexually assaulted? Not only does this use of the Alford Plea bring up questions, it also forces us to question what we accept as "finding a claim to be untrue." To what point are we willing to investigate a claim before deciding that it's untrue? And at what point are we willing to say their accusations are unfounded and the individual should be persecuted for lying?
     As always, comments welcome!


Info Source:
WPSD Local 6

Our Confusing Criminal Justice System

It's nothing new that our criminal justice system is a confusing one. So let's clear some things up with some vocabulary you might not quite know the definitions of (All of these are referenced to in my speech).


Adjudicatory Hearing: The actual trial for juvenile cases. During this, the judge determines whether or not facts stated in a petition/warrant are true, and may temporarily a case in order to give the defendant enough time to obtain a lawyer in order to have a fair trial. In delinquency cases, all charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the trial to continue. In adult or criminal cases, the same process is usually followed (felonies are different).

Clemency: If a prisoner is granted clemency, it usually means they will be granted "mercy" in order to get out of prison early because of some other circumstance. For instance, if an inmate has served 15 years of a 18 year sentence, and their mother is dying of cancer, a judge may grant him "clemency" so he or she can spend time with their mother. This is, at its most basic, a reduction of penalties.

Hearsay: Testimony of an individual that is not from their personal knowledge, but from what they have heard someone else say. Ie: "I heard from Bobby that he saw John stole the copper wire, but I personally did not see John steal it."

Nullification: This, on a state level, is the idea that states can/will refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws. For instance, if a federal law said that gay marriage is illegal, and a state finds this unconstitutional, they can refuse to enforce the law within their state.

Recusal: An action taken by any court official, such as a judge, which disqualifies or withdraws him/herself from a case where they may be biased. For instance, a judge has the right to recuse himself from a case where the defendant is accused a rape, if the judge's daughter was a victim of rape because he may be biased in his final decision.

Restitution: A court order requiring a convicted offender to repay the victim money or services in order to compensate for monetary losses that resulted from the crime, as part of their sentencing.

Trial De Novo: This is a request for a new trial. This means that an individual is dissatisfied with the court's decision. However, the courts have all rights to deny the request if their specific policies are not followed. Click HERE to see a complete listing of rules are Indiana's rules of Trial De Novo.

Writ of Habeas Corpus: This is a mandate used to bring a prisoner, or detainee, before the court in order to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful.


To see other vocabulary terms, or get more information, check any of the wonderful sites down below. Partnership for Safety and Justice is a great resource for criminal justice terms, and has a long list of vocabulary terms and definitions at the website listed below for those who are curious about other criminal justice ideas. Happy education, all! As always, comments welcome below.


Information From:
Clear Up MY RECORD
Cornell University Law School
Indiana Rules of Court
Nullification - The Rightful Remedy
Partnership for Safety and Justice - Glossary of Terms
Prince William County, Virginia

Types of Pleas Within the Courts

When it comes to information society is privy to, most individuals have only heard of three different pleas: Guilty, Not Guilty, and Nolo Contendere (or the "No Contest" Plea). Now that you're familiar with the Alford Plea, you know that there are really four different types of pleas a defendant can use within the court systems. This post is just to solidify and expand upon what you already know by putting them all side-to-side.

• Guilty: By using this plea, the defendant admits that he or she committed the crime he or she is being charged with. This is a complete admission of guilt and thus a waiver of all rights for the defendant. This plea requires consent of the court to be used.
• Not Guilty: With this plea, the defendant denies any and all charges brought up against him or her. Therefore, the court system now has the burden to prove a case against (or for) the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. 
• Nolo Contendere (No Contest): This plea means that a defendant does not admit guilt, and will be subjected to punishment as if they entered a guilty plea. This plea is only applicable to the current proceedings. For example, if they enter a Nolo Contendere Plea within a criminal court for assault, the defendant cannot then use the plea for a civil suit against the defendant. This plea, like a guilty plea, also requires consent from the court to be used. 
• Alford Plea: With the Alford Plea, defendants are virtually using a "Not Guilty" plea--by still maintain their innocence--but will be treated in court as if they have entered a "Guilty" plea. Therefore, the defendant will be subjected to the same punishment as if they entered a guilty plea, though in the majority of cases the Alford Plea allows a defendant to bargain down their sentence. This plea, like the Guilty Plea and Nolo Contendere Plea, must be approved by the court in order to be used--though it is also not accepted in 3 state court systems. 

Also, it's important to note that if a defendant fails to enter a plea (or outright refuses), the court must then enter a plea of "Not Guilty" for the defendant. It also falls on the court to determine that the plea was made voluntarily and did not result from force, threats, or promises. 

All Information From:

LegalMatch

Recent Usage - Fairfax, Virginia

Defendant:
Noah Rucker

Noah Rucker was 29 when he was the girl's swim coach at James Madison High School. Now, at 40, a girl has come forward and states that she had inappropriate sexual contact with Rucker when she was 17 years old. Back in June of 2012, Rucker was arrested and charged with three felony counts of "taking indecent liberties with a minor."

However, Rucker was able to use the Alford Plea in this case, which dropped the three felony counts down to a single misdemeanor of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor." According to the Washington Post, Rucker is expected to serve approximately six months in prison. Along with time in prison, Rucker will be prohibited from coaching swim and having contact with the woman who came forward.

Not only did Rucker abuse his position within the school system, but now he will most likely get away with just six months in prison? When did our society begin to think that it's okay to give sex offenders a slap on the wrist for these crimes?

According to the Virginia Department of Health, statutory rape laws have two levels: "carnal knowledge of a child between thirteen and fifteen years of age," and "someone 18 years or older having sex with someone age 15, 16, or 17 years old." The second would apply to Rucker's case, and is seen as a class one misdemeanor, meaning that he could serve up to a year in jail as well as a $2,500 fine. However, no where in the Washington Post article does it say that Rucker was charged with "statutory rape."

In addition, the mere fact that Rucker continued to coach swimmers in his region following these acts in 2001 is a problem of its own. Yes, it's true that one criminal act should not completely ruin a person's life. However, Rucker continued the job that put him in the position to commit a crime for years after the act. How can we ever be certain that the defendant has not committed similar acts with woman all over the region during these past 12 years?

29% of rape victims are ages 12-17, the exact range of ages Rucker would have had access to while coaching girl's swim. Not only that, but about a half of rape victims never report the crime.

Why don't victims report their rapes?

1. 23% feel that rape is a "personal matter."
2. 16% of victims fear backlash for reporting the crime
3. 6% of victims feel that the people are biased

With statistics like these, it comes as no surprise that many men and women who have been raped or sexually assaulted will never come forward with details of the crime, or even the name of the offender. While I would never suggest criminalizing someone based on what could be true, we need to realize the facts of sexual assault show that Rucker may very well have had sexual contact with more teenage girls during his time as a swim coach.


Let's keep our minds open, but realize concurrently the injustice that is taking place within Rucker's case. The Alford Plea should not be used in sexual assault cases, let alone any cases. Most, if not all, victims of sexual assault need the admission of guilt to move forward. So while the six months in prison may give Rucker time to rethink his actions, that woman who came forward will never hear him say, "Yes. I sexually assaulted you and I plead guilty to the crimes set in front of me."

Thomas B. Walsh, Noah Rucker's attorney put it best. "Mr. Rucker denies any responsibility in the case. In light of the charges and in all fairness to the parties involved, an agreement was reached to reduce the charges to misdemeanors."

I don't know about you, but if I was sexually assaulted by my high school swim coach, I don't think I would have "agreed" to reducing his charges and letting him get away with never admitting responsibility.


As always, thoughts welcome.


Information From:
RAINN - Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network
The Washington Post
VDH - Virginia Department of Health

Recent Usage - Salisbury, Maryland

The Defendant:
Keith Lamont Parker

On Friday, January 25, 2013, defendant Keith Lamont Parker of Salisbury, Maryland entered the Alford Plea in two separate cases--one for second-degree murder and one for possession with intent to distribute a dangerous substance (cocaine).

Judge Kathleen L. Beckstead sentenced Parker on January 28, 2013 to 25 years for the murder charge and 20 years (to be served concurrently) for the drug charge. In addition, due to a violation of probation in a 2006 case, he will be serving an additional eight years (to be served consecutively).

When looking at previous "Recent Usage" posts, this is the first case in which the defendant will receive a sentence with any real weight. Also, Parker's use of the Alford Plea did not allow him to drop any charges against him. However, there is no doubt that the Alford Plea allowed Parker to get a shorter sentence than he would have otherwise. For instance, his drug and murder sentences are to be served concurrently, whereas, without the Alford Plea, he would be serving 45 years (plus the additional 8 for violating his probation) instead of 25.

Parker's case may seem like the "best" way to use the Alford Plea, however we need to realize that even this case is not so cut-and-dry. Elmer Charles Duffy III, the son of the murder victim, was present through all of Parker's hearings. His main question was, and still will be, "Why?". Duffy was quoted saying "That's something that every man needs--his father. Eventually, one day, you'll get out of prison. My father doesn't have that chance."

Should judges take into account the family of the victim when deciding whether or not to accept the Alford Plea in a particular case? Thoughts welcome!


Information From:
DelmarvaNOW

Recent Usage - Rochester, Minnesota

The Defendant: Moses Gum Benjamin

On October 4, 2012, Moses Gum Benjamin was arrested after threatening his wife with a knife. He stated, "I can finish this right now. I'm serious. I will finish this right now," and threatened to take the kids with him. When the phone rang, his wife and children were able to escape out of the house.

This past Friday, February 1st, 2013, Benjamin was able to enter the Alford Plea in the Olmsted County District Court. This plea has allowed Benjamin to plead guilty to second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon in exchange for a dismissal of three counts of first-degree burglary and terrorist threats (which are all felonies), as well as a gross misdemeanor for domestic assault.

In the past, Benjamin was convicted of malicious punishment of a child in the year 2011.

The defendant's sentencing will take place March 28.


Food For Thought: 

Considering Benjamin's past history of crime, does it seem fair that the judge has accepted an Alford Plea in this case? What about the fact that the court is dismissing three felony counts in order to convict him for second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon?

According to Minnesota law, second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon will yield a sentence of no more than seven years and/or a fine of no more than $14,000. When we look at the dismissals, is the Minnesota court system making the right choice?



Information From:
Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
Mugshots.Com
Post Bulletin - Minnesota News

Recent Usage - Sandpoint, Idaho

Defendant: Christopher Robin Garlin

Last September, Garlin was arrested as an accessory to murder. The case stated that Garlin's 19-year-old roommate, Austin Blake Thrasher, shot and killed Michael Wyatt Smith who was seeing a 16-year-old girl that Thrasher was also seeing.

Garlin is being charged as an accessory to murder for withholding knowledge of the murder from law enforcement for four months before finally confessing what he knew in January 2012 while in jail due to theft and burglary charges.

On Monday, November 5th, 2012, Garlin was able to enter the Alford Plea in the 1st District Court of Sandpoint, Idaho. His case is set to wrap up on January 13th when he will be informed of his sentence.

Should Garlin be able to enter the Alford Plea in this case? It seems odd that the judge would accept such a plea when it technically means that Garlin admits there is enough evidence to convict him of withholding information but he still wishes to maintain his innocence. How can an individual maintain their innocence of withholding information while simultaneously admitting guilt for doing the same thing?

Thoughts welcome!



Information From:
Bonner County Daily Bee
San Francisco Chronicle