9-3-2009 Australia:
A JUDGE has banned a campaign against child abuse in a country town under an unprecedented court order.
Police have removed flyers promoting White Balloon Day from the windows of pubs, shops, offices and cafes in Wangaratta.
The campaign was shut down under an order by County Court judge Michael McInerney to remove potential jury bias in the trial of a man facing sex charges.
Handed down on Tuesday, the extraordinary order prohibits "from this day forward" the display or distribution of White Balloon Day flyers, as well as displaying white balloons in support of the cause.
The period includes national White Balloon Day next Tuesday, part of Child Protection Week to be launched by Family and Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin.
White Balloon Day, organised by child protection advocacy group Bravehearts, has run for 13 years.
The campaign won a state award in 2005, presented by then police minister Tim Holding, for drawing attention to child abuse.
Bravehearts founder Hetty Johnston said the ban was made with the best intentions.
"However, we are disappointed by the judge's decision as it means this local community is unable to participate in peaceful White Balloon Day activities like the rest of Australia," she said.
"Our activities on White Balloon Day are largely focused on people wearing white, and purchasing a white balloon or some of our other merchandise to raise funds for the cause. We are not vigilantes."
A business owner whose flyers were taken down by police said townsfolk were "gobsmacked".
"They (police) showed us the form, and then they just went and took down the signs. I think people are pretty dismayed."
Victims of crime advocate Noel McNamara said he was disgusted and will write to the Attorney-General opposing the injunction. ..Source.. by Emily Power
September 3, 2009
Judge bans campaign against child abuse in Wangaratta
December 14, 2008
DE- High court overturns rape conviction
12-14-2008 Delaware:
The Delaware Supreme Court overturned the rape conviction of a 39-year-old man saying the prosecutor was wrong to suggest to jurors that only the guilty are taken to trial.
Deputy Attorney General Donald R. Roberts' comments jeopardized the fairness and integrity of the trial, the Supreme Court said in its eight-page opinion issued last week.
Roberts' statement that prosecutors don't take "falsely reported cases to trial," removed defendant Kevin A. Hardy's presumption of innocence, Supreme Court Chief Justice Myron T. Steele wrote.
"The Delaware Constitution recognizes the presumption of innocence as a fundamental right," Steele said. "For the prosecutor to imply to the jury that he, and the state, prosecutes guilty people only, deprives Hardy of that fundamental right."
Steele went on to say it was the prosecutor's duty to represent the state, which includes the defendant, on trial: "Therefore, it is his duty to see that the State's case is presented with earnestness and vigor, but it is equally his duty to see that justice be done by giving the defendant a fair and impartial trial."
Jules Epstein, associate professor at Widener University School of Law, said the comments shows a lack of training a prosecutor gets in his or her office.
"Prosecutors don't determine if something is false, juries do," Epstein said, adding it is wrong for prosecutors to "vouch" for their cases. "Vouching is prohibited. The prosecutor is never allowed to say 'I personally, or we the government institutionally, believe this witness, disbelieve that witness or know this fact to be true.
"Those are long-standing no, nos."
It is not uncommon to see this sort of prosecutorial misconduct in emotional-charged cases, such as sex offenses, Epstein said.
In 1987, Clarence Moore was convicted of rape and robbery by a New Jersey jury. In his appeal, Moore argued that the prosecutor made improper arguments when he told jurors: "The last thing I have to say is that if you don't believe [the victim] and you think she's lying, then you've probably perpetrated a worse assault on her."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned the conviction in 2001 saying the prosecutor's comments were "outrageous" and "calculated to divert the jury from its sworn duty to focus on the evidence."
"They're very emotional cases," Epstein said, suggesting they are often credibility cases in which the "prosecutors feel strongly about the complaintent as a victim and emotions take over."
According to court records, Hardy was met at a vacant Wilmington house on Dec. 27, 2006, by a woman he previously had lived with. The two had had sex before and did heroin together. On that day, the two were doing drugs when they began to fight.
When Hardy told the woman to take off her clothes, she resisted and they continued fighting until they fell asleep. They woke up the next day and resumed fighting. This is when he raped her, according to court documents.
Hardy was arrested the following month and convicted in February of first-degree rape, aggravated menacing and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree.
The Delaware Attorney General's Office said it respects the Supreme Court's decision and the case would be given to another attorney when it comes up for trial.
Roberts, was put on leave without pay from the Attorney General's Office in October, after he was charged with drinking and driving. The state car he was in veered off the road, striking two mailboxes before stopping in front of a Bear driveway.
An empty bottle of Canadian Mist whiskey was found on the passenger-side floorboard and police said Roberts' had a blood alcohol level of 0.33 -- more than four times the state's legal level of 0.08, according to court documents. ..News Source.. by Esteban Parra
December 11, 2008
WI- New trial ordered for convicted sex offender
Public sex offender registries are one reason why it is virtually impossible for sex crimes to receive a fair trial, this is proof of that premise.
12-11-2008 Wisconsin:
A sex offender who was sentenced to four life terms in prison in July 2007 will receive a new trial after the state Court of Appeals ruled extraneous information was introduced while the jury was deliberating in the case.
The state Court of Appeals ruled that the jury brought extraneous information that was “highly prejudicial” into the jury room while they were deliberating the fate of Joseph J. Spaeth in July 2007.
The jury convicted Spaeth, 41, of four counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child as a persistent repeater. According to the criminal complaint, Spaeth inappropriately touched three children, ages 7, 6, and 3, in February 2006, and court records show Spaeth was previously convicted of sexual assaults in 1991 and 1993.
While deliberating, the jury requested the to look at the statement Spaeth gave to the Oshkosh Police Department and were allowed to look at a redacted version of the statement. A juror recognized the address on the statement and informed the other jurors that a registered sex offender resided there. This information was not presented during the jury trial, according to the order granting a new trial.
Under Wisconsin law, individuals who have previously been convicted of a child sex offense automatically receive a life sentence without parole if convicted of another offense.
A new trial has been scheduled before Winnebago County Circuit Court Judge William Carver on Jan. 12. ..News Source.. by Northwestern staff
