White Goldstein's Criminal Defense Blog
A Teacher Accused of Abuse Speaks Out
So often when we hear of cases where a teacher has been accused of child molestation or abuse, our instinct is to assume they are guilty, sick people who should certainly be punished for harming a child. The fact is, however, that regardless of what the court of public opinion says, our laws still state that we are innocent until proven otherwise.
The current drama surrounding Tonya Craft of Tennessee is an excellent example of a woman already guilty in the eyes of the public. Yet the fact of the matter is that the world won’t know if the teacher charged with 22 counts of child molestation actually committed the crimes until after her trial starts next week. The accused teacher defended herself by publicly speaking out against the charges. Craft has spoken to members of the media on several occasions in Chattanooga, Tennessee. She vehemently maintains her innocence and furthermore has already stated that she will not plead guilty to a lesser charge as she feels she has done nothing wrong and is completely innocent. Craft also notes that these charges have destroyed her career and put her family through a nightmarish ordeal. This outspoken media strategy Craft and her lawyers put into play did not go over very well with Judge Brian House, who slapped a gag order on everyone connected to the case last week. Craft has suggested in several interviews that while her outspokenness and impassioned pleas of innocence have helped make her a public figure, it is only because of the seriousness of the charges against her that she has gotten as much attention as she has.
The gag order given out by the judge is only a blip on the radar of a case that has already been riddled with mudslinging and speculation. Lawyers on both sides have been accused of witness tampering, withholding vital evidence, and improper gamesmanship. The defense and the prosecution have both slammed one another in the local press at every opportunity. Legal circus aside, Tonya Craft, whether proven guilty or not, is absolutely correct about one thing: Being charged with child molestation is a life altering event and must be taken extremely seriously.
A 25-year-old Rape Case is Finally Solved
The family of Tim Cole of Fort Worth, Texas found reason to finally celebrate last week. Cole is the first man to receive the state’s first posthumous pardon based on a recommendation from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles after a judge found that without a doubt Cole did not commit the crimes for which he was convicted. Governor Rick Perry signed the pardon last week for the man who died in 1999 in prison while serving a twenty-five year sentence for an aggravated sexual assault from 1985 that he did not commit.
Tim Cole was a student in Lubbock who maintained his innocence from the time of his arrest. He became a suspect after he was identified by a woman in connection with a string of attacks that had taken place in the area. A shattering 2008 DNA test proved that Tim Cole was not the rapist in the case, while the test implicated convicted rapist Jerry Wayne Johnson who confessed to the rape in several letters. Johnson can not be convicted in the rape since the statute of limitations has expired. According to state officials, the evidence was overwhelming that Cole was wrongfully imprisoned.
The case of aggravated sexual assault of a Texas Tech student has dragged on in the Texas judicial system for over twenty years and for the Cole family, most of whom still live in the Fort Worth area, it has been an uphill battle. The Innocence Project of Texas supported the family by championing Tim Cole’s case. Governor Perry also became close with Cole’s mother Ruby Session and was thrilled to help provide her and the rest of her family with a sense of closure. The family is additionally eligible for state recompense of over $1 million for Cole’s 13 years of wrongful incarceration.
Related: Sex Crimes Defense, Rape Defense
Proven Innocent of Molestation, a Couple’s Nightmare Continues
When Craig and Wendy Humphries of Valencia, California, were cleared of child abuse of their teenage daughter, they assumed their lives could get back to normal. They were wrong. Nine years after their humiliating arrest and their two other children were taken away by local authorities, the Humphries are still listed on the state’s Child Abuse Central Index. The couple was found to be “factually innocent,” and the court ruled that the teen-aged daughter’s claims were untrue, so why does an innocent couple still find themselves on a list identifying them as criminals?
Well, that is exactly what federal authorities are currently trying to find out. Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that Los Angeles County was to blame. Coincidentally, the Supreme Court said that it would hear L.A. County’s claim that the false listing was indeed the fault of the state.
The Humphries had established in a 2008 federal court that their constitutional rights were violated. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and said the system is unconstitutional as it does not allow innocent people the opportunity to remove their names from the list. Nearly two years later, California officials say they are still investigating the matter and trying to figure out how exactly to comply with the 9th Circuit’s ruling. The state admits that getting someone off the Child Abuse Central Index is nearly impossible even if they are found to be innocent.
Meanwhile, as the state tries to address this mire of red tape and procedure, the lives of Wendy and Craig Humphries are still riddled with issues. Wendy, a special education teacher, was concerned that inclusion of her name on the list could prevent her from future employment opportunities while the whole, messy affair, which seems like it should easily be solved by the press of a delete button, rattles on in various courts. The Humphries, at least, are expected to get some financial compensation for being wrongfully included on the state’s ever more questionable index.
Related: Los Angeles Child Molestation Defense Attorney , Los Angeles Times Article on the case
Justice Comes Around to Biurny Peguero
Sometimes justice is sweet and well deserved. Last Tuesday, a Manhattan woman who had made a false rape accusation against a man, and subsequently sent him to prison for nearly four years, found herself on the other end of a court judgment. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles Solomon verbally reprimanded Biurny Peguero and then sentenced her to one to three years in prison.
In 2005, Peguero was with a group of girlfriends on a New York City street when she accepted an invitation to get into William McCaffrey’s car. Intoxicated, she returned to her group of friends to find them extremely upset with her. Apparently, Biurny Peguero concocted the aforementioned rape story to gain the sympathy of her friends. The lie snowballed as police detectives and attorneys became involved in the case. Peguero alleged that McCaffrey had raped her at knifepoint, and soon a citywide search for her “attacker” was underway. When McCaffrey was arrested, Peguero continued to lie to prosecutors, a grand jury and a judge.
Before her admittance of the truth, Peguero’s story got even more bizarre. She told reporters that she was “too drunk” to remember who attacked her or if she was even attacked in the first place. In a move straight out of a telenovela, Biurny Peguero dramatically confessed after a DNA test proved that she was lying and her priest urged her to come clean.
Now Peguero is singing a different song. Upon her sentencing, she tearfully apologized to William McCaffrey for robbing him of nearly four years of his life while destroying his reputation. As a mother of two, it seems clear she was hopeful that Judge Solomon would deliver a light punishment, but she was out of luck. Lying in court, especially in the state of New York, is one of those crimes for which judges really like to throw the book at the convicted. Sadly, no ruling can give William McCaffrey his four years back, but this karmic decision by the judge soundly sends the message that those who lie in court will eventually get what is coming to them.
Related: Violent Crimes Defense, Sex Crimes Defense
Hair Testing and Toxicology in the Modern Courtroom
As technology progresses, toxicology reports are becoming an invaluable if somewhat tricky tool when used in the courtroom. Take the case of Anthony John Sadek of Redwood City, California, for example. Sadek was accused of drugging his wife with gammahydroxybutrate, or GHB as it is more commonly known, so that he could molest their child. GHB is a powerful drug that can cause immediate unconsciousness when taken in large doses. Often referred to as the “date-rape drug”, GHB leaves a person’s system quickly which makes allegations of rape or intoxication difficult to prove. Sadek’s wife feared that she had been drugged with GHB and went to have her hair tested by a forensic analytic specialist. The results of the test were negative, yet her hair was sent to another lab that turned up levels of GHB that would cause death. That Sadek’s wife was not dead obviously put these results in question.
The legitimacy of hair testing when it comes to GHB has been a topic of argument for quite some time. Some experts say that it is the only way to find traces of the drug in a person’s system since it quickly leaves the body after ingestion. Others argue that hair already naturally contains GHB in small doses making conclusive report nearly impossible. It can be confusing for a layperson with no forensic or criminal background to interpret lab results like these, and the judge in the Sadek case must have agreed. He dismissed the entire case last week on the grounds that the toxicology reports submitted to the court were deemed false. The judge as well as the defense attorney agreed that the vastly different test results simply did not make sense. Naturally, these inconclusive test results do not necessarily mean that Sadek is innocent, but what they do mean is that there simply wasn’t enough concrete proof to try the case in front of a jury.
As science and the legal system continue to evolve and change, tools like toxicology reports will play a crucial role in how rape defense, child molestation defense, and violent crime defense cases are decided.
Paying the Price for Being Falsely Accused
Being falsely accused of rape and then being mistreated by authorities is a dehumanizing experience that could potentially destroy the lives of many people. It is the sort of thing we see on crime shows that seems too horrific and far-fetched to ever be true. Yet false accusations of rape are a very real occurrence across the country. Just ask Justin Sallis of St. Paul Minnesota.
Sallis was accused of raping a woman in St. Paul after she called 911 last March to report that she had been attacked and raped in an alley. She said that she was walking to a local convenience store when a man grabbed her and raped her. She described her attacker as a 5’9 middle-aged man with a scar above his left eyebrow with salt and pepper facial hair. Justin Sallis is a 26 year old who is 6 feet 3 with no scar on his eyebrow.
The victim had consensual sex with Sallis the day before her reported attack as well as the day after. Evidence of Justin’s DNA was collected during the woman’s sexual assault exam, and in June he became the prime suspect in the rape. The victim was informed by the police that there was a suspect in her case but did not tell her the suspect’s name, age, or appearance. Sallis was dragged out of his Chicago apartment by six U.S. marshals and arrested for the rape.
Earlier this month, Justin Sallis, who has since been exonerated in the attack, has struck back by slapping a federal lawsuit on police, prosecutors and the U.S. Marshals that states they had no probable cause to arrest and charge him. For Justin Sallis and many others, false accusations of rape or other violent crimes, don’t exist solely on late night cop shows.
Is it right to punish ‘sexting’ teens as child pornographers?
Sexting, the act of sending or receiving nude or partially nude photos of oneself or another person via cell phone, has become a worldwide phenomenon in a short amount of time. If a minor engages in the act of sexting, he or she may be prosecuted under child pornography laws. In March of 2009, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the district attorney of Wyoming County, Pennsylvania, claiming that the civil rights of three high school girls were violated when their pictures were discovered on other students’ cell phones by officials at the Tunkhannock School District. The case challenges what constitutes child pornography because the teens appear either topless or in their underwear in the digital photos. None of the photos in question depict genitals, although one of the girls appears baring her breasts.
There have been numerous legal cases where sexting has brought the definition of what constitutes child pornography under a spotlight. For example, in 2008 assistant principal Ting-Yi Oei of Freedom High School in South Riding, Virginia was charged with possession of child pornography after he was asked to investigate a rumor that kids were sexting at a school where he worked. After uncovering a partially nude photo of a girl and reporting it back to his principal, he was asked to save the photo on his computer for evidence. Oei was later charged with possession of child pornography and related crimes. However, the case was dropped because the images were not considered child pornography under Virginia law because they were not “sexually explicit.” Nudity alone was not enough to prosecute the thirty-year teaching veteran. Although he was never brought to trial, Oei was forced to spend over $150,000 to defend himself and clear his name.
Child pornography laws are put in place to protect children against abuse and exploitation. But when a minor photographs themselves and carelessly sends that photo to a friend and is later accused of child pornography, the only protection may come from a good defense attorney, or, in the case mentioned above, by the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union.
“Kids should be taught that sharing digitized images of themselves in embarrassing or compromised positions can have bad consequences, but prosecutors should not be using heavy artillery like child pornography charges to teach them that lesson,” said Witold Walczak, Legal Director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “These are just kids being irresponsible and careless; they are not criminals and they certainly haven’t committed child pornography.”
Was Michael Irvin Wrongfully Accused of Rape?
Three days before the Super Bowl, a drama of a different kind was unfolding off the field. Michael Irvin, a former Dallas Cowboys superstar, ESPN personality and Dancing with the Stars contestant, was slapped with a lawsuit that alleges sexual assault and rape. The lawsuit refers to a series of alleged events that happened over the July 4th holiday in 2007. The woman known in the suit as Jane Doe claims that Irvin and a unnamed male companion lured her into a hotel room and was forced to perform sexual favors against her will. Doe claims that the Hall of Famer “has a history of attempting to commit similar sexual assaults”. The accuser is seeking damages for the sexual assault and rape. Accusations of rape in the world of sports are not a unique occurrence, but what happened next with Michael Irvin is a bombshell.
The twist in this story happened a few days later when Irvin filed a suit against Nicole A. Mustafa alleging “civil extortion, conspiracy, defamation and tortuous interference.” Irvin not only denied the rape charges but also claims that he was fired from ESPN due to Mustafa’s “false allegations”. Irvin claims that Mustafa has been attempting to extort money from him since his success on Dancing with the Stars. The complaint states, “It is typical for fame-seekers to attack celebrities of Irvin’s stature to try and make a quick buck.”
The $100 million counter-suit speaks volumes about how Irvin and his team are handling the damaging sexual assault allegations. By refusing to settle out of court, Michael Irvin is clearly trying to protect his public image and his career. It remains to be seen whether or not Irvin’s strategy can succeed. But if it does, it could be a bellwether move signaling a change in how celebrities protect themselves.
** 2/24/2010 Update: According to ESPN, Irvin will not be charged.
Incidents of Drug Trafficking Increase in Tough Economy
Drug crimes attorneys certainly have no shortage of work in these challenging financial times. As the unemployment rate continues to rise, alternate sources of income are being sought across the country. Sadly, many people have chosen drug dealing as a backup plan. To make a bad situation grimmer, under funded programs and officers’ whose anti-drug programs have lost funding could be the cause of false arrests and wrongful convictions. Last year police made over 1,400 arrests at Los Angeles International Airport with the majority of the arrests being attributed to drug or theft charges. That number is up 144 cases from 2008, according to the Los Angeles Times. Just this week state troopers in Chillicothe, Ohio arrested three men after discovering 29.5 grams of crack cocaine and 16.5 grams of powder cocaine in the mens’ vehicle. Also in Ohio, the last two suspects of 38 defendants plead guilty in a huge federal drug case that targeted a long-standing marijuana and cocaine ring. Elsewhere in Auburn, Alabama, four men were arrested on drug trafficking charges after local police seized twelve pounds of marijuana.
Cases like these could be symptomatic of the economic downturn according to the 233 police agencies surveyed by the Police Executive Research Forum in 2009. The law enforcement organization based in Washington found a forty-four percent rise in crime that they attributed to the financial crisis. The NDIC (National Drug Intelligence Resource Center) reported last year that due to the proximity to Mexico and a high unemployment rate, drug crimes in the city of Los Angeles have increased. Finally, organizations like the DEA and the Media Awareness project have noted that because of budget cuts, programs to stop the trafficking of drugs are struggling to stay afloat. This is particularly troubling as depleted training of officers and lack of funding could potentially spell disastrous arrests and botched investigations nationwide.
California New DUI Law for 2010
Effective July 1, 2010, a new California DUI law, SB 598, if implemented, will allow those drunk drivers who are convicted of a second or third driving under the influence (DUI) offense to get a restricted license earlier than under the old law, if these offenders:
- Install ignition interlock devices (IIDs) on their vehicles (at their expense), and;
- Pay a fee sufficient to cover the Department of Motor Vehicle’s (DMV’s) costs to administer the program.
An IID does not permit the vehicle to start unless the driver (with no alcohol on his or her breath) first blows into it. The amount of time the devices are kept on the car depends on the number of DUI convictions a driver has had.
The new law requires the DMV to advise second- and third-time, misdemeanor DUI offenders that they have a new option, instead of receiving a suspended license. Offenders may obtain a restricted license if:
- the offender enrolls in a DUI program;
- installs and maintains an IID in any vehicle they drive, and
- serves a 90-day suspension period for a second conviction of misdemeanor DUI, or a six month suspension period for a third conviction of misdemeanor DUI. This option only applies if the offense involved alcohol intoxication only, and other intoxicants were not involved.
Unlike a suspended license (which prohibits driving entirely), a restricted license allows a person to drive to and from work, and to and from a court-ordered DUI program.
The purpose behind the bill is to increase use of IIDs among hardcore drunk drivers. The legislature is hopeful that this measure will lead to behavior change and fewer incidents of drunk driving.
Existing Law
Currently, second offenders lose their license for two years and are not eligible to apply for a restricted license until at least one year has passed, and they have completed 12 months of the 18-month alcohol program.
Third-time offenders currently face 3 years revocation.
Comparison of New and Old DUI Law
The new statute shortens the time before a second offender can get a restricted license to 90 days, instead of 1 year and partial completion of an alcohol program.
The new law also allows a third-time DUI offender to obtain a restricted license after 6 months, assuming the offender complies with the new law’s requirements.
Fee Increases
The cost of new and renewed driver’s license will rise from $28 to $31; a duplicate will now cost $25 and an identification card will cost $24. These are just a couple of the new fee increases going into effect in 2010.
Funding Required
SB598 requires a non-state source of funding in order to be implemented. If there is no non-state source of funding, then the new DUI law will not be implemented, and drunk drivers will be subject to existing law.
If you are convicted of drunk driving, you should contact an experienced attorney at White Goldstein to determine which California DUI laws apply to your legal situation, and how we can help.