2nd Chapter of My Book

    You can access my entire book, Falling on the Deaf Ear, at http://fathersmanifesto.net/falling.htm .


 CHAPTER 2


MY TRIAL


I soon found out that my trial was not to find justice, but to send me to prison as quickly as possible. Not only was the district attorney prosecuting me, but the judge over seeing my case was also searching for a conviction. Every motion, except one, and every objection about the DA's slanderous comments during my trial was disallowed by the judge. The jury also could not have cared less about my innocence. Eight out of twelve that heard my case were women over fifty years old. During my trial they looked as if they just wanted to get home. With all these factors against me I needed a competent and caring defense attorney. What I got for my "defense" was an incompetent shyster who was too busy counting the money he milked out of my father to give a damn about my innocence or winning my case. My trial, from beginning to end, was a total farce!
 The first example of my defense attorney's incompetence can be found in the grand jury indictment charging me with the crime of rape in the first place. This indictment was issued in 1986. If my attorney had even bothered to review this indictment, which is one of the most basic features in preparing a case for trial, he would have found that this indictment was invalid. A grand jury indictment is where a district attorney presents evidence of a supposed crime to members of a jury, the grant jury, and then they consider whether or not have the state file formal charges. A grand jury has the power to either pursue criminal proceedings; arrest of accused, trial and so on--or to vote that no charges are to be filed.
 In the State of Oregon a grand jury must have at lease seven members present to make an indictment valid. This is in Oregon's Constitution to prevent corrupt district attorneys from having indictments filed with only two or three jury members that he could easily sway. The grand jury indictment lodged against me was made by fewer than seven grand jury members. The indictment was illegal according to Oregon's own Constitution. The indictment charging me with rape was invalid! A simple check by my attorney would have found this out. I should have never even been charged with a crime, let alone face a trial and risk 20 years in prison. On my own I have found out about my improper grand jury indictment and have appealed the issue. This indictment was the first in a long list of injustices I would face in my "fair trial".
 Before my trial began, I had my attorney file a motion to have blood tests performed on myself, my "victim," and her child to prove I was not the father of her child, as she had long claimed. The judge remarkably ruled that a blood test should be done. This is the only motion he ruled in my favor throughout my entire trial. He ordered the tests to be done immediately. I wanted to have these tests conducted to show that not only was my "victim" lying about me being the father, but she was lying about this whole alleged rape.
 I had blood drawn a few days after the judge's order. When it came time for the "victim" to have her blood drawn she refused the judge's order. With this refusal she was in direct "contempt of court," and any other judge would have dismissed the whole case for her defiance. Her plan all along was to sue me for child support. This plan was now void. But when she admitted her lies, the judge seemed to forgive her for refusing his order, and now the trial could go on as before, with no action taken by the judge for her "contempt of court."
 As my trial date neared, I was enjoying what would be my last days of freedom. The judge made some outrageous decisions that ensured my conviction. This judge's calendar, like most court calendars, was full, mostly with civil and misdemeanor cases. He decided because of his "full" calendar to hold my trail at night. This is unheard of in major criminal trials. I was facing 20 years in prison! and he wanted my jury to decide my fate at night while half asleep. My jury could not possibly make an accurate decision or pay full attention to the upcoming proceedings after having worked all day, being tired and fatigued.
 This is exactly why major criminal trials are not held at night! Most people want to get home after work, not sit on a jury during a rape trial. This put undue prejudice on me and my case. My jury seemed to want the case over quickly so they could get to bed.
 My attorney filed a motion with the court for a day trial. The judge stood firm: No day trial. My attorney could have pressed the matter knowing full well the injustices of night trial, but instead he dropped the subject. He filed no further motions on this matter. My trail was to be held at night. My attorney then filed a motion that before my trail was to begin my accuser should be examined by a psychiatrist to see if she was competent to stand trail because of her past bizarre behavior and mental illness. The psychiatrist would then tell the jury of his findings.
 Past psychological exams showed her to have a number of emotional problems and mental illness years before I ever met her. Tests showed that she viewed herself as a victim of her life's short comings. She had stated in the past that she hated men and was victimized by all men. By introducing this evidence to the jury I could show considerable bias on her part. She was accusing me of rape to get back at men. In her twisted mind, men were to blame for her unemployment, alcoholism, drug addictions, and past suicide attempts. A psychiatrist's testimony about this would show that she would be very much more inclined to make up a rape story than a "normal" woman.
 The judge ruled that no psychiatrist exam would be allowed on this "victim," and furthermore no references would be allowed in front of the jury about her sordid past. This ruling fell under rape shield laws that were intended to protect a woman's privacy in rape trials, but in reality hide vital evidence of men's possible innocence and makes fair trials impossible in rape accusations. Again my attorney filed no new motions against this decision. The woman the jury saw on the stand was a fake! By the judge not allowing psychiatrist's testimony nor allowing any references about this woman's unstable mind I was denied my most basic right in what is supposed to make up a "fair" and "impartial" trial, the accused's right to confront his accuser, his true accuser, in front of a jury and cross examine her.
 My attorney then filed a motion to the court to present the evidence that my "victim" had a history of making false accusations of rape. This the judge could not possibly refuse. If a man had burned down homes on numerous occasions before and then burned down another to collect the insurance, a judge would never disallow his former acts of arson in a trial. By presenting my "victim's" past false accusations, a jury would have considerable doubt that she had been "raped again" with no evidence to back up her already tainted word.
 Oregon's OEC 412 (Rape Shield Law) states, "A defendant to cross examine the complaining witness in front of the jury other accusations she has made if 1.) she has recanted them; 2.) the defendant demonstrated to the court that those other accusations were false; or 3.) there is evidence that the victim has made prior accusations that were false." With this clause, no judge could possibly deny my right to expose my "victim's" past false accusations to the jury, but this is exactly what the judge did. Another one of my attorney's motions was again denied by the judge. It was apparent that the judge was trying to stack the odds in favor of a conviction. My defense attorney would not be allowed to mention or question my "victim" on her many past false accusations. He could have pressed the issue but he dropped the matter. He didn't think it would be worth his time to file more paperwork, even though he was paid handsomely by my father.
 My trail began the night of November 27, 1989. The first stage of my trial was the jury selection. A succession of potential jury members were asked a series of questions by the prosecutor and defense. The hope was to pick the best jury that would be most likely to either convict or acquit, depending on what side you were on. This process is extremely important for a defense.
 In a rape trial, the prosecution would want all women, preferably older women. The defense would want an educated jury of either men or women, who would rule by the facts of the case rather than by their emotions. My attorney asked me to pick what jury members I liked best. He was the supposed professional. How would I know who to pick for the twelve members for my jury? At that time I was still uneducated about the legal system and one juror would be just as good as another, I thought. My attorney, it seemed, had never been involved in a jury selection, nor did he seem to know the importance of this procedure. The jury of "my peers" who were to decide my fate consisted of ten women, mostly 50 years old or older and two men. Even the jury, I have come to realize, was stacked against me. The trial began the next day. I went home but wasn't able to sleep.
 The next day my family and I went to the court house. I was a little intimidated by the vast official building. I was still confident that the jury would easily see that this woman was lying in order to make some easy money. How could they possibly believe a woman with such a sordid past, who had made prior false accusations, and was now making another? How could they ever believe her with no evidence when all the witnesses present at the time of the alleged rape testified she was lying? My attorney conveniently forgot to tell me that none of this woman's past could be used in court. He again assured me instead that I had nothing to worry about. But in reality, because of the way the trial was rigged, my conviction was just a matter of time. Had I known this I would never have shown up for this so-called "fair trial."
 In the court house I finally saw the woman who had caused me and my family so much unnecessary pain. She looked pathetic. The prosecutor had positioned her right outside the courtroom door. She was sitting with her mother, who, according to the so-called psychological exam, had tortured her as a child years earlier. Sitting on the other side of her was a rape crisis counselor. All three of these women were crying and wailing in an Oscar winning performance for the incoming jury members.
 My family sat in the viewer's benches in back of the court room and I sat with my attorney in the accused's chair facing the judge's desk. My attorney shook hands with the DA. They wished each other luck as if "old friends." I found out later, after I was in prison, that my attorney also worked in the same county in which I as being prosecuted as a city attorney. He probably saw the prosecutor who was wrongly trying to send me to prison every working day. Maybe he even ate lunch with him or played golf with him. This, of course, is a "conflict of interest." My attorney never informed me of his dual alliances.
 The jury entered the court room and I could tell right away the prosecutor's tactic of having the incoming jury view the spectacle of three wailing women outside the court room doors worked. The stares I received from my "impartial" jury were frightening. I could tell by the looks in their eyes I was already guilty and that any evidence I would have to offer would be lies anyway. The judge finally entered the court room and the jury's icy stares were momentarily diverted.
 Before my trail, my attorney insisted that I not testify. He did not want me to say a word in court. His reasoning was that if I did not testify the prosecutor could not question me on my former felony weapon charge and my misdemeanor alcohol offenses and that wouldn't look good to the jury. I thought that this was not right and that I should testify. Wouldn't the jury think I was guilty if I did not personally answer the accusation? He assured me that my former police record must be hidden, and anyway the prosecutor did not have enough evidence to convict me. He directed me not to make a sound, and if I saw anything wrong in the trial to inform him and he would bring it up later. I agreed not to testify.
 This was a major mistake on my part and it only helped the prosecution. I have come to realize it is imperative in "she said/he said" rape trials that the accused testify on his own behalf. I trusted my attorney in advising me not to testify. This trust was another major mistake.
One of the first witnesses testifying for the state was the doctor who examined the "victim" in the supposed crime the next day. The doctor testified that, yes, he examined the girl, and yes, semen was found. I had all along told the truth, saying I did have sex with her and it was purely consensual. He then testified that the woman had no injuries, "not a scratch on her." This lack of evidence goes directly against what this woman described as a "violent attack" that she claimed she went through. Would she not have at least a "scratch" on her from fighting off an attack as she claimed she had done? From this doctor's testimony would seem that I was telling the truth and that the sex between this woman and me was in fact consensual. This doctor was the only witness that was helpful to my defense.
 Other witnesses were called by the prosecutor. One was a woman police officer who took my accuser's report on when she was supposedly raped the day before. This state "expert witness" testified that my accuser showed the "classic" signs of a rape victim. By her comments the jury was led to believe that this state "expert" on rape victims was assuring them that the "victim" should be believed, was a bona fide rape victim, and that I should be convicted.
 It has been a long standing rule of law that no witness may directly testify to the credibility of another witness. But this state "expert" on rape cases, who in fact was only a "beat cop" led the jury and suggested they should believe the "victim." This "beat cop" was testifying to the "victim's" credibility.
My defense attorney offered little cross examination. The next witness was the private detective that had come to see me in the Kenai County jail over eight months earlier. The state had flown this detective down from Alaska to testify for the prosecution! This private detective, I would later learn, was an ex-police officer who more than likely would have leanings for the "state." He read the mere one page report that he wrote from our hour and a half conversation about this alleged rape. The concerned and caring private investigator I had met in Alaska had now been transformed into a man only filled with contempt for me. After he read his short report he talked in a tone that suggested disgust. This witness only furthered the jury's already prejudicial attitude toward me. Again, little rebuttal was offered by my attorney.
 The next day the staff of the alcohol treatment center testified to the facts of what they saw the night of the alleged rape and the events of the next day. These five staff member's testimony went totally against that of what the "victim" gave.
Surely the jury could not possibly ignore five different testimonies that in short said the alleged victim was a lying fraud. Surely they would see the "victim's" twisted and bizarre testimony for what it was: lies by a very sick woman who was after a quick buck in the form of a lawsuit.
 The first staff member testified that on the night of the supposed attack that he did count all the patients every two hours and that on each count the "victim" was sound asleep. This goes against what the "victim" had earlier said in reports and what she testified to. In one report she said she stayed in her room all night and cried. In another she said she went to the bathroom and then back to her room and cried all night. In front of the jury she testified she went to the bathroom after being violently raped, locked herself in one of the stalls, cried all night, and didn't come out until morning. Is this the same woman this staff worker saw sleeping soundly throughout the night? Who was lying? And why?
 The other staff members testified the day after the supposed rape that the "victim" appeared to be doing fine. She ate breakfast and did not appear to be disturbed in any way. Two of the staff testified that on several occasions the "victim" and I were seen together talking and laughing.
I was even reprimanded for flirting with her. These witnesses' testimony went against what the "victim" said--that she never met me or talked to me.
 On the last day of testimony a female alcohol counselor testified that the "victim" had refused to own up to her drug addictions and would not participate in any further treatment as recommended. As a result she was asked to leave the detox center. Other than her refusal for further treatment, she appeared well and made no complaints. This testimony contradicted what the alleged "victim" said took place.
 The "victim" testified that in the morning after the "rape" she was so upset she could not eat and that she desperately tried to tell the staff and fellow patients that she was violently raped the night before, but no one would listen to her. She also testified that she tried to tell this female counselor that she had been raped, but the counselor didn't believe her, was mean to her, and finally kicked her out of the detox.
Could the jury possibly believe that this female counselor was so cold and uncaring that she would not listen to another woman who said she had been raped? What motive would this staff member or others have to lie? Could these staff members by lying to cover up a rape and protect a violent rapist? Could they be committing perjury to save my skin?
 During the cross examination by the prosecutor, all five of these witnesses were grilled on their histories. Defense witnesses' life histories are an open book in the courtroom during a rape trial, while the accuser's life history is completely hidden.
All of these witnesses were recovering alcoholics and two of them had police records that were years old. All of these witnesses were badgered and harassed by the prosecutor. These five dedicated counselors trying to help other addicts overcome their own addictions, as they had done, were made to look like five drunken ex-cons who were covering up a violent rape to save their jobs. The jury seemed to believe the prosecutor's wild accusations of deceit, even though three of the five no longer even worked at the treatment center.
 My "fair trial" was not going well. I was beginning to get worried.
During the three late nights of testimonies, I noticed several of the older women jurors actually sleeping. How could they make a fair and accurate decision based on all the information when they had missed half of it because they were sound asleep? I informed my attorney of the sleeping jurors. He said he would make a note of it and inform the judge later. He never did. I should have informed the judge myself, but my attorney kept on me not to say a word in court and let him do all the talking.
 One of the last witnesses to testify was the alleged "victim." She really put on a performance. Tears flowed as if on cue. She gave her testimony as if reading from a well rehearsed script, which it was. She said I entered her room, ripped off her clothes, dragged her to the floor, and violently raped her. She said she tried to fight me off, but I was too strong. After the "attack" she said she didn't wake any of the other patients but did try to tell the night shift staff. He was sound asleep and she couldn't wake him, she said. Instead she locked herself in a bathroom stall and cried all night. She claimed she didn't eat breakfast the next day and tried to tell someone, any one, of the "rape," but all the people she told were mean to her and wouldn't believe her. Then they kicked her out of the treatment center because she had been "attacked." The staff and her fellow patients were all against her! After she was kicked out of the treatment center she was in a daze, she claimed. While walking home in tears she passed a hospital. Surely they would believe her, she told the jury. They did, and so did the jury.
 Her testimony at trial greatly differed from earlier versions she had related in police and investigator reports. I guess she thought that this "version" would have greater dramatic impact. Her testimony at trial went totally against common sense. How could anyone believe such a bizarre story? I pointed out numerous discrepancies to my attorney about the "new and improved" version, but he didn't seem to know what I was talking about.
 All during her testimony, the "victim" cried and carried on. This performance worked like a charm for the jury of mostly women. The jury was also in tears and shot me looks that would kill.
 In the closing arguments my attorney, as usual, had little to offer. The prosecutor, though, had plenty. He leaned over the defense counsel's table and screamed two inches from my face, "You're the scum of the earth! And I'm going to see you wind up where you belong--behind bars!"
I looked at my attorney to somehow help me in this verbal attack. He was looking at the floor as if ashamed. The prosecutor went on. Why would this woman lie about being attacked? She had no motive. Look at what I had done to this healthy woman! All the time he was claiming these things, he knew she had made a career of accusing men of rape and was deeply mentally disturbed. Everyone knew the vile past of my accuser except the jury. The judge and his partner in crime, the DA, made sure they didn't know.
 The trial was over and I went outside to smoke a cigarette while the jury deliberated my fate. What I had been through these last three nights was not a trial but an inquisition. I was in shock. I should have run right then and there. I was ordered back into the courtroom to await the jury's "fair decision."
 The jury gave their verdict: "Guilty as charged!" I had only two words for the jury. The only two words I would speak through the whole trial. It didn't matter now. My attorney's advice not to say a word in court aided in my conviction. I told the jury, "I'm innocent" as the courtroom guard applied the shackles to my wrists and ankles. My defense attorney raced out of the doors without saying a word. I turned to see my family in tears. The insane woman who did this to me, along with the "rape crisis counselor" and the "victim's" mother broke out in laughter. The judge congratulated the jury on their fine decision. I was taken away to the county jail to await sentencing.
 My attorney finally showed up at the jail a few days before my sentencing. He had since quit accepting my collect calls from the jail. He told me a pre-sentence report would recommend to the judge that I serve six years in prison and judges always go by the pre-sentence report. The six year prison term for a first degree rape conviction was very low, he said, and I received such a low sentence because I had no history of a major violent crime. He said he would start the appeal process just as soon as he received more money from my father.
 At my sentencing the judge asked the rape crisis counsellor for her comments. She said I deserved the maximum sentence for causing so much pain to the "victim." She then said that the money the "victim" was awarded from her civil law suit ($24,000) was not nearly enough for all the pain and continued suffering she endured and she needed more. After my prison term she said I would be made to pay the "victim" $10,000 for "restitution." the "victim" of course cried loudly for more money. The judge flatly refused this request for more blood money, saying, "I think the victim has made enough money off this."
 Then came the prosecutor's turn. He said because the crime was so violent and that because I showed no remorse for the "attack" that I should be sent to the State Mental Hospital for violent sexual deviants and then after "treatment" spend twenty years in prison.
 Next came the "victim's" turn. After she composed herself and wiped the tears from her eyes all she said was, "I hope he gets raped in prison."
That did it. I could not control myself any longer. I shouted, "She's lying pig and did this just for the money!" Then I told the court what a joke of a trial I had gone through and what I thought of this "justice." The court room was in silent shock.
 This outburst cost me four extra years in prison. The judge overrode the pre-sentence report and sentenced me to ten years in prison, but he said the case does not warrant my being sent to the State Mental Hospital. I was again shackled. My attorney said he was sorry and was out of the door in a flash. I never saw him again. My father would not throw away any more money on this shyster. In all, he had been milked out of more than $15,000.
 I was taken to Oregon State Penitentiary, Oregon's toughest prison, holding the most violent offenders in the state. I slowly adjusted to the harsh realities of prison life. Six months later I was taken in front of five members of the Oregon Parole Board to decide if I would spend the whole ten years the judge had sentenced me to in this hell hole.
 Also present at my hearing was the DA who wrongfully prosecuted me, the hate filled rape crisis counselor, and the "victim," looking again pathetic. Throughout the hearing the "victim" cried and blubbered repeatedly, but this time her "show" didn't work.
 Since this was not a rape trial, I could present all the evidence to the parole board. I presented them with the "victim's"" past psychological reports that showed her to be very unstable long before I ever met her. I showed them how she lied that I was the father of her child, her motive in making her claim of rape in the first place, the $24,000 profit she gained by her imaginary "attack," and her past false accusations of rape.
 These "three stooges," the DA, rape counselor, and the "victim," were stunned. the DA said I was dangerous and had been caught in Alaska with a "loaded" shot gun. I showed the board the arrest record saying the gun was unloaded, nor did I have any shells on me. The DA was warned not to lie to the parole board. The rape crisis counselor said that even though there was no physical evidence nor was this poor girl harmed in any outward appearance, she had suffered greatly and was now under a psychiatrist's care. Again she begged for the "victim" to receive more money.
 The Parole Board concluded that "the victim" was not harmed in any way, physically or emotionally, and there were not even threats of violence. The chairman of the parole board questioned the "victim" on her lies that I was the father of her child and also stated there was evidence this "victim" aided in the criminal episode. Six years would be deducted from my prison term.
 This still left me to serve four years in a prison for a crime I did not commit. A month after this hearing I escaped from prison. I was a "free man" for 18 months until my recapture. I was sent back to prison in Oregon and given more prison time.
As for my "victim," I hear she bought a new truck with her "blood money" and spent the rest of it on drugs. She is now broke, back on welfare, and continues with her sorry life. I wonder if she has been "raped" again and has filed another law suit for "damages." It was easy enough the first time.