Showing posts with label My Wrongful Conviction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label My Wrongful Conviction. Show all posts
Sunday, August 7, 2011
The Bullet with My Name on It
Back in April of this year I went thru a Sex Offender Raid (Compliance Check) at the Hotel I am forced to live in due to residential restrictions in CA for RSO's on parole. It was an absolute nightmare. A literal army of State and Federal Law Enforcement Agents from The FBI, State Parole Agents, State Police, and local Police came in like Storm Troopers and searched dozens of rooms. They were kind enough to let the local TV News Stations in on their "raid" which they exploited for maximum effect. All 4 local news stations filmed the circus and aired It morning, noon, and night for 4 days. My face was on camera while I was handcuffed outside my room. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Sex_Predator_Bust_in_Santa_Clara_Bay_Area-120438359.html .Our neighbor's were in an uproar and wanted all us RSO's heads on a platter. After the news reports I was photographed by strangers as I left the hotel. Once I was in my car and another time while I was in the parking lot. It's very creepy to be filmed or photographed by strangers, especially when your neighbors want to run you out of town or have you shot. My room overlooks El Camino Real, one of the busiest streets in my county, and 3 of my 4 walls have windows. I wonder when that bullet with my name on It will come smashing thru the window or a Molotov Cocktail (bomb) thrown thru It? I'd move if I could, but I can't. 75% + of this county is off-limits to me to live in and the other 25% probably would not rent to me. So it is either the hotel I currently live in or the streets where my only daily concern is finding a place to charge up my GPS Shackle that has to be charged every 10 hours. I have done prison time in 2 states (CA and OR) after being falsely accused in 1985 and served 16+ years, so I am no wimp. I walked The Mainline in both states in about 10 joints and few things scare me now. However; thinking about having my head blow off or burning alive by some unknown enemy kinda freaks me out. Some people think I'm paranoid, but just check out this website - RSO Vigilantism at http://www.youtube.com/user/RSOVigilantism . I can't wait to get out of this state! My life may depend on it.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Taking a Break
After the trauma I went thru 10 days ago I need a break from my activism for a week or two. On April 21, 2011 a squad of 20+ Law Enforcement Agents did a RSO Sweep on the Hotel I am forced to stay in and along for the ride were all the local TV medias. Not only was my room torn apart and I was made to sit in front of my front door in handcuffs, NBC Bay Area put my face on the news under the announcement saying this was a "Child Sexual Predator Raid". My life has been hell ever since. Click on link to see news report of raid
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Sex_Predator_Bust_in_Santa_Clara_Bay_Area-120438359.html
I did give them an interview about the truth of Jessica's Law, but It was cut. Not sensational enough for them. What they also failed to mention was that my "victim" was 24 years old, had a history of falsely accusing men, falsely accused me for a one million dollar lawsuit, that my "crime" was 26+ years ago, the only evidence was her tainted word, I have passed lie detectors tests, have always maintained my innocence, have been back and forth back to prison for refusing to register as a SO, and on and on. The truth rarely finds Itself on network news. Here's what other networks aired about the raid.
http://www.kron4.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=851
http://www.ktvu.com/news/27633419/detail.html
I want to find a new place to live. If that is what you can call it living "life" under Jessica's Law. I call It existing. Things were going as best they could before this raid, but now? Will be back soon hopefully. If some vigilante doesn't put a bullet in my head first. I have received plenty of name-calling and even death threats in the past due to my activism in trying to expose The Sex Crime Witch Hunt and Jessica's Law, but never before has my face and exactly where I live been on the TV news. Kinda scary.
I've been in the fight for over 20+ years now and spent time on some of the toughest mainline prisons in the country, but this is new. Who knows who's out there with a bullet with my name on It.
I will regroup and be back. Take care for now and get involved!!! below are links that will aim you in the right direction.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Sex_Predator_Bust_in_Santa_Clara_Bay_Area-120438359.html
I did give them an interview about the truth of Jessica's Law, but It was cut. Not sensational enough for them. What they also failed to mention was that my "victim" was 24 years old, had a history of falsely accusing men, falsely accused me for a one million dollar lawsuit, that my "crime" was 26+ years ago, the only evidence was her tainted word, I have passed lie detectors tests, have always maintained my innocence, have been back and forth back to prison for refusing to register as a SO, and on and on. The truth rarely finds Itself on network news. Here's what other networks aired about the raid.
http://www.kron4.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=851
http://www.ktvu.com/news/27633419/detail.html
I want to find a new place to live. If that is what you can call it living "life" under Jessica's Law. I call It existing. Things were going as best they could before this raid, but now? Will be back soon hopefully. If some vigilante doesn't put a bullet in my head first. I have received plenty of name-calling and even death threats in the past due to my activism in trying to expose The Sex Crime Witch Hunt and Jessica's Law, but never before has my face and exactly where I live been on the TV news. Kinda scary.
I've been in the fight for over 20+ years now and spent time on some of the toughest mainline prisons in the country, but this is new. Who knows who's out there with a bullet with my name on It.
I will regroup and be back. Take care for now and get involved!!! below are links that will aim you in the right direction.
Must See Links
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Personal Update
Come this Saturday I will have been out of prison for 6 months ( I was sentenced to 4 years for refusing to "register") and life has been a nightmare because of CA's Jessica's Law/Scarlett Letter. Who would of ever thought I would still be fighting this battle in 2011 when I was wrongly convicted in 1989? I am still living in the same Hotel I moved into the day I got out due to Residential Restrictions for RSOs on Parole in CA. I can not find anywhere else to live. Feel like I've been banished from society. I'm not allowed to live in 70+ % of this county. Still have on this damn GPS Tracking Shackle ( It costs CA taxpayers $60,000,000+ a year for the GPS for RSOs on parole scam) locked onto my ankle that I have to charge up about 3 hours a day or go I back to prison. Have not found a job yet because I'm in an Out-Patient program for PTSD and alcoholism that takes up alot of my weekday time, but I've been down to the employment office and the Vet Rep is going to help me get a part-time job ( I'm a U.S. Air Force veteran). Even though life under CA's Jessica's Law is a surreal nightmare, all is not bad. I haven't had a drop to drink since I've been out, haven't cut off this damn shackle yet ( I promised myself I will never live as a Fugitive from Justice again), this blog has turned out better than I ever imagined, got off the sleeping pills I was on due to all the stress of Jessica's Law, I still have my old van I brought because I thought I would end up sleeping in It, and I have a small measure of hope that someday I can have a life. Not a life in prison. Not a life as a wanted man on the run. Not a life as a social outcast. A life that The U.S. Constitution promises ALL Americans - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Jessica's Law denies them to RSOs, but hopefully this insane "law" that protects no one and costs CA taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year will someday be overturned. Hopefully in my lifetime. Take care you all and keep fighting the good fight! I've been fighting The Sex Crime Witch Hunt for over 20 years now. Good luck my friends. J.A.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
How to Survive prison as an Innocent SO
|
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Excluded Evidence
Excluded Evidence
The dark side of rape shield laws
Many continuing threats to civil liberties in America are completely unrelated to terrorism or to national security. Furthermore, many civil libertarians are silent about these abuses, because they are motivated by "progressive" goals -- such as ostensibly protecting women from abuse.
Consider the widening reach and the unintended consequences of rape shield laws. These statutes, hailed as a way to keep victims from being smeared as sluts in court, have sometimes kept juries from hearing evidence highly relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
On November 1, a court in Manhattan dismissed all charges against Oliver Jovanovic, a student at Columbia University. Jovanovic was at the center of a notorious "cybersex" case involving an Internet acquaintance, a real-life date, and accusations of kidnapping, sexual assault, and sexual torture.
In 1998, Jovanovic was convicted of attacking Barnard College student Jamie Rzucek (whose name has been disclosed by some media outlets after the case was dismissed) and was sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in prison. Rzucek claimed that Jovanovic held her captive in his apartment for 20 hours and subjected her to torture and sexual abuse. The defense argued that there was no torture -- Rzucek's claim that Jovanovic forcibly sodomized her was disputed by medical evidence, and the jury returned a not-guilty verdict on the counts pertaining to this act -- and that the bondage was consensual.
This argument was crippled by Judge William Wetzel's decision to exclude portions of the e-mail correspondence between Jovanovic and Rzucek in which she discussed her adventures in sadomasochism, including her sadomasochistic relationship with another man. The messages, the judge held, were inadmissible under New York State's rape shield law because they had to do with the accuser's sexual conduct.
In late 1999, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, by a 3-to-1 vote, set aside the conviction on the grounds that Judge Wetzel had applied the rape shield law improperly and left the jury with a "distorted view of the evidence." The case was sent down for retrial, but Rzucek proved reluctant to testify a second time, and prosecutors eventually sought a dismissal "in the interests of justice." Jovanovic's vindication came at a high price: as much as $500,000 in legal fees, not to mention 20 months spent in state penitentiaries.
Rape shield laws, which mostly date from the 1970s and are virtually universal today, enjoy broad public support. In surveys, about three-quarters of Americans agree that a woman's past sexual life should not be an issue in a rape case. Indeed, it seems obvious that to quiz a woman who says she was raped about whether she has had two, 10, or 20 sexual partners is not only cruel and degrading but irrelevant to the question of whether she consented to sex with the man in the dock. But in quite a few cases, rape shield laws have been applied to evidence that has a direct bearing on the credibility of the accuser (and, sometimes, only the most tenuous connection to her sexual past).
Prior to the Jovanovic trial, the most notorious case to raise these issues was that of sportscaster Marv Albert, who was accused by his longtime friend and sex partner Vanessa Perhach of oral sodomy and assault. At the 1997 trial, notable for tawdry details of transvestitism and kinky sex, Albert's attorneys wanted to bring up Perhach's alleged conduct with other men, particularly men who left her -- as Albert, who was getting married, was about to do. She had reportedly harassed and threatened a former boyfriend's family, and may have made false accusations of crimes as a form of revenge. A former lover was also willing to testify that biting, on which the assault charge against Albert was based, was a part of her sexual repertoire.
All this testimony was barred by Circuit Court Judge Benjamin Kendrick. (Meanwhile, a woman who came forward with a claim that Albert had sexually assaulted her several years earlier was allowed to take the stand.) With the defense's hands tied, Albert pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault. The outcome struck many observers -- even those, such as Geraldo Rivera, who are generally sympathetic to victims' rights -- as shockingly unfair.
And then there are the more obscure cases:
-- In Wisconsin in 1993, 18-year-old Charles Steadman was convicted of raping his 22-year-old foster sister Jessica in a he said/she said case in which physical evidence of force was absent and the defendant claimed that the sex was consensual. What the jury didn't know was that when Jessica filed the complaint, she herself was facing criminal charges of having sex with minors. (She eventually received probation with mandatory psychiatric treatment.) Clearly, this gave her a reason to lie -- particularly since she had had sexual relations with Steadman when he was underage. She might have thought that being a victim would improve her legal situation as a defendant, or she might have worried that if her encounter with Steadman became known, she would get in more trouble with the law. None of these possible motives could be introduced at Steadman's trial, since Jessica's legal problems were related to her past sexual activities and hence inadmissible.
-- In Oregon in 1989, James Anderson was convicted of raping "Donna R." while both were patients at a substance-abuse clinic. Anderson insisted that the sex was consensual and that Donna made up the charges in order to sue the clinic, which threw her out the morning after the alleged rape because she wouldn't sign up for long-term treatment. After initially claiming that she had tried to tell clinic staffers about the attack but was rebuffed, Donna reversed herself under cross-examination and said that she had not spoken about it to any of them because she was too embarrassed. In his summation, the prosecutor sneered that the defense expected a rape victim to "just walk up to one of the staff" and discuss "those most intimate details."
The jurors were never told that the day before, she had discussed equally "intimate details" -- an alleged earlier rape and childhood sexual abuse -- with one of the counselors. All records of this conversation were excluded from the trial under the rape shield law as pertaining to the accuser's sexual history; so was the fact that Donna had given several inconsistent accounts of her prior sexual victimization. Whether or not Donna was raped, the case seemed to leave ample room for reasonable doubt -- particularly if one knew that Donna was not a reliable witness.
When rape shield laws were first enacted as part of the rape law reforms initiated by the feminist movement, they were a response to truly abusive practices. Just 30 years ago, jurors in rape cases were often formally instructed to consider evidence of "unchaste character" (such as going to bars alone, extramarital liaisons, and use of birth control) as detracting from the complainant's credibility or indicating that she was more likely to have consented to sex.
But in recent years, even some feminist legal theorists, such as Vivian Berger, have expressed concern that the pendulum may have swung too far. Granted, the accuser's past sexual conduct is not automatically excluded -- just as, before shield laws, it wasn't automatically allowed. Her prior relations with the accused are generally admissible; so is evidence that the pregnancy or disease alleged to have resulted from the rape may have been caused by sex with someone else. In some states, other evidence may be admitted at the judge's discretion.
Most of the time, however, the burden is on the defendant to show that the value of this evidence to his case outweighs its "prejudicial effect" on the complainant. In several states (including Alabama, Iowa, and Washington), courts have held that excluding evidence of an earlier false or dubious rape complaint by the accuser does not deny the accused a fair trial -- even, perhaps, if the evidence is relevant to the question of his innocence.
In some cases, such as People v. Jovanovic, appellate courts have curbed the worst abuses of rape shield laws. But this is an issue that is overdue for a new look by legislatures, even if reforms are likely to engender a furious reaction from feminist groups.
Consider the widening reach and the unintended consequences of rape shield laws. These statutes, hailed as a way to keep victims from being smeared as sluts in court, have sometimes kept juries from hearing evidence highly relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
On November 1, a court in Manhattan dismissed all charges against Oliver Jovanovic, a student at Columbia University. Jovanovic was at the center of a notorious "cybersex" case involving an Internet acquaintance, a real-life date, and accusations of kidnapping, sexual assault, and sexual torture.
In 1998, Jovanovic was convicted of attacking Barnard College student Jamie Rzucek (whose name has been disclosed by some media outlets after the case was dismissed) and was sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in prison. Rzucek claimed that Jovanovic held her captive in his apartment for 20 hours and subjected her to torture and sexual abuse. The defense argued that there was no torture -- Rzucek's claim that Jovanovic forcibly sodomized her was disputed by medical evidence, and the jury returned a not-guilty verdict on the counts pertaining to this act -- and that the bondage was consensual.
This argument was crippled by Judge William Wetzel's decision to exclude portions of the e-mail correspondence between Jovanovic and Rzucek in which she discussed her adventures in sadomasochism, including her sadomasochistic relationship with another man. The messages, the judge held, were inadmissible under New York State's rape shield law because they had to do with the accuser's sexual conduct.
In late 1999, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, by a 3-to-1 vote, set aside the conviction on the grounds that Judge Wetzel had applied the rape shield law improperly and left the jury with a "distorted view of the evidence." The case was sent down for retrial, but Rzucek proved reluctant to testify a second time, and prosecutors eventually sought a dismissal "in the interests of justice." Jovanovic's vindication came at a high price: as much as $500,000 in legal fees, not to mention 20 months spent in state penitentiaries.
Rape shield laws, which mostly date from the 1970s and are virtually universal today, enjoy broad public support. In surveys, about three-quarters of Americans agree that a woman's past sexual life should not be an issue in a rape case. Indeed, it seems obvious that to quiz a woman who says she was raped about whether she has had two, 10, or 20 sexual partners is not only cruel and degrading but irrelevant to the question of whether she consented to sex with the man in the dock. But in quite a few cases, rape shield laws have been applied to evidence that has a direct bearing on the credibility of the accuser (and, sometimes, only the most tenuous connection to her sexual past).
Prior to the Jovanovic trial, the most notorious case to raise these issues was that of sportscaster Marv Albert, who was accused by his longtime friend and sex partner Vanessa Perhach of oral sodomy and assault. At the 1997 trial, notable for tawdry details of transvestitism and kinky sex, Albert's attorneys wanted to bring up Perhach's alleged conduct with other men, particularly men who left her -- as Albert, who was getting married, was about to do. She had reportedly harassed and threatened a former boyfriend's family, and may have made false accusations of crimes as a form of revenge. A former lover was also willing to testify that biting, on which the assault charge against Albert was based, was a part of her sexual repertoire.
All this testimony was barred by Circuit Court Judge Benjamin Kendrick. (Meanwhile, a woman who came forward with a claim that Albert had sexually assaulted her several years earlier was allowed to take the stand.) With the defense's hands tied, Albert pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault. The outcome struck many observers -- even those, such as Geraldo Rivera, who are generally sympathetic to victims' rights -- as shockingly unfair.
And then there are the more obscure cases:
-- In Wisconsin in 1993, 18-year-old Charles Steadman was convicted of raping his 22-year-old foster sister Jessica in a he said/she said case in which physical evidence of force was absent and the defendant claimed that the sex was consensual. What the jury didn't know was that when Jessica filed the complaint, she herself was facing criminal charges of having sex with minors. (She eventually received probation with mandatory psychiatric treatment.) Clearly, this gave her a reason to lie -- particularly since she had had sexual relations with Steadman when he was underage. She might have thought that being a victim would improve her legal situation as a defendant, or she might have worried that if her encounter with Steadman became known, she would get in more trouble with the law. None of these possible motives could be introduced at Steadman's trial, since Jessica's legal problems were related to her past sexual activities and hence inadmissible.
-- In Oregon in 1989, James Anderson was convicted of raping "Donna R." while both were patients at a substance-abuse clinic. Anderson insisted that the sex was consensual and that Donna made up the charges in order to sue the clinic, which threw her out the morning after the alleged rape because she wouldn't sign up for long-term treatment. After initially claiming that she had tried to tell clinic staffers about the attack but was rebuffed, Donna reversed herself under cross-examination and said that she had not spoken about it to any of them because she was too embarrassed. In his summation, the prosecutor sneered that the defense expected a rape victim to "just walk up to one of the staff" and discuss "those most intimate details."
The jurors were never told that the day before, she had discussed equally "intimate details" -- an alleged earlier rape and childhood sexual abuse -- with one of the counselors. All records of this conversation were excluded from the trial under the rape shield law as pertaining to the accuser's sexual history; so was the fact that Donna had given several inconsistent accounts of her prior sexual victimization. Whether or not Donna was raped, the case seemed to leave ample room for reasonable doubt -- particularly if one knew that Donna was not a reliable witness.
When rape shield laws were first enacted as part of the rape law reforms initiated by the feminist movement, they were a response to truly abusive practices. Just 30 years ago, jurors in rape cases were often formally instructed to consider evidence of "unchaste character" (such as going to bars alone, extramarital liaisons, and use of birth control) as detracting from the complainant's credibility or indicating that she was more likely to have consented to sex.
But in recent years, even some feminist legal theorists, such as Vivian Berger, have expressed concern that the pendulum may have swung too far. Granted, the accuser's past sexual conduct is not automatically excluded -- just as, before shield laws, it wasn't automatically allowed. Her prior relations with the accused are generally admissible; so is evidence that the pregnancy or disease alleged to have resulted from the rape may have been caused by sex with someone else. In some states, other evidence may be admitted at the judge's discretion.
Most of the time, however, the burden is on the defendant to show that the value of this evidence to his case outweighs its "prejudicial effect" on the complainant. In several states (including Alabama, Iowa, and Washington), courts have held that excluding evidence of an earlier false or dubious rape complaint by the accuser does not deny the accused a fair trial -- even, perhaps, if the evidence is relevant to the question of his innocence.
In some cases, such as People v. Jovanovic, appellate courts have curbed the worst abuses of rape shield laws. But this is an issue that is overdue for a new look by legislatures, even if reforms are likely to engender a furious reaction from feminist groups.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Victim of the Feminist State
The Backlash! - July 1996
Organization News - Society Against False Accusations of Rape
James Donald Anderson #6952487
Oregon State Correctional Institution
3405 Deer Park Dr SE
Salem, OR 97301 A victim of the feminist state
by James Donald Anderson, convicted rapist
Copyright © 1995 by James Donald Anderson
I have recently received more bad news and this nightmare I find myself in just doesn't want to end. I already have served over four years in prison for a so-called date rape I did not commit. A crime I was convicted of with absolutely no evidence, only my word against my accuser's.
I escaped from prison once and received additional pirson time. I view my escape as fully justified because I feel I am a political prisoner in the feminist controlled state of Oregon. Now, to add insult to injury, the Oregon Parole Board added 2 years to my prison term because I refuse to fully "confess" to a crime I did not commit and volunteer to enter "treatment" at the maximum security Ward 41B at the Oregon State Mental Hospital for violent sexual deviants and predators.
In January 1995 I filed my commutation papers with the Governor of Oregon to commute my prison term. My accuser was a former mental patient, drug addict, alcoholic, who had a history of falsely accusing men of sexual abuse and was falsely accusing me in order to file a 1 million dollar lawsuit (against an alcohol treatment center).
The judge overseeing my trial ruled that all this evidence could not be used in court because it could embarass the "victim," even though the only evidence of any crime was her word against mine. The Governor of Oregon has yet to rule if over 4 years out of my life is enough punishment for a crime I did not commit.
To make a long story short, I have rotted in prison for over 4 years because according to "feminist law" when a woman accuses a man of rape you cannot question her about her accusation or motives, even when there is no evidence of a crime. The so-called justice system is rigged to insure a conviction.
I was sentenced to serve 10 years in prison solely on the word of a deranged woman's accusation, who, in the past, told one of her many psychologists that she hated men and wanted to get back at them. This time, with the help of the local Rape Crisis Center where she was coached on how to act like a real victim, she succeeded in her demented revenge.
In 1990, a few months before my first prison break, I went in front of the "old" Parole Board to determine how long I would actually spend in prison. Also in attendance was my so-called "victim" and her buddy from the Rape Crisis Center. I was allowed to present the Parole Board with all the evidence that was not allowed in my trial. They deducted 6 years fropm my prison term and declared:
- the "victim" was not harmed in any way.
- the "victim" was not threatened in any way.
- the "crime" contained no violence.
- the "victim" may have aided in the "crime."
Shortly after this hearing, I escaped from prison, only to be recaptured 18 months later and given more prison time. I have now asked the Governor to release me from this continuing nightmare.
It is now 1995 and I should have been paroled from my unjust conviction and starting to do my 14 month prison term for the escape. However, the Parole Board in Oregon is "new and improved," reflecting political changes here in Oregon. The Parole Board now has only 3 members, 2 women and 1 minority male. White males are no longer allowed to serve, because this would be considered sexist and racist, even though the Oregon prison population is 70 percent white male and only 5 percent female.
One of the new members of the Parole Board even runs a Rape Crisis Center herself in Hillsboro, Oregon, when she is not giving men additional prison sentences to serve. Not that she would have any bias against men. Yeah, right.
A few weeks after I filed commutation papers with the Governor's Office, the new Parole Board retaliated by ordering that before they would parole me I must pass a State Psychological Exam to prove I am not a "danger to society." Well, I took their damn State Psych test and passed it. My father hired a psychologist from the streets and I passed his psych test, also. I went to see the Parole Board again on April 6, 1995, and presented them with these 2 positive psych evaluations, my college degree completed in prison, my excellent prison conduct (besides escape), and an outstanding "parole package" stating I had a job waiting for me and a place to live. My attorney was positive I would receive parole. The Parole Board would have no reason to deny it.
Think again. Not only did they deny it, but they added two years to my prison term. They stated that even though I had 2 positive psych evaluations, they did not have to consider them, and ruled that I: "(have) a severe mental and emotional disturbance that predisposes him to violent crime rending him far too dangerous for the safety of the community." Parole denied!
They had come to this conclusion with absolutely no evidence or anything that would suggest I am a "danger to society" and should remain behind bars. They also stated that in 2 years I will come in front of them again to see if I still have a "severe mental and emotional disorder" and should be given more prison time. I told the Parole Board I was done with them and would not see them again.
Because I refuse to confess to something I did not do, show "remorse" and apologize to my so-called "victim," and because of my pro-male activism in prison, my research into false allegations of rape, my organization -- S.A.F.A.R. -- and my outspokenness against Oregon’s feminist movement, I am evidently to spend endless more years in prison. Does Oregon’s Parole Board have no ethics, morals, or any sense of right or wrong? Or are these words totally foreign to feminists?
Another reason for my denied parole and continued imprisonment is that Oregon is in the middle of a huge prison expansion, with new prisons being built, and the Parole Board has expressed desire to double Oregon’s prison population from 6,000 male inmates to over 12,000 male inmates by the year 1998. It would seem that I’ve been caught up in Oregon’s prison boom industry and its desire for more warm, male bodies to fill their prison beds.
Seems like the only hope that I’ll find any sort of justice soon is through the Governor’s Office and if the Governor sees that a terrible injustice has been done and commutes my prison term. The last time the Governor’s Office commuted an inmate’s prison term was about 6 months ago when a woman walked free after serving less than 2 years for murdering her boyfriend, who she claimed hit her. If any readers would like to write to the Governor on my behalf you are more than welcome to, and I would really appreciate it.
Governor of Oregon
Honorable John Kitzhaber
State Capitol
Salem, Oregon 97301
And if anyone would like to contact me about my research, my activism, my case or would like to be put on the mailing list for the BI-monthly S.A.F.A.R. Newsletter, they can write to me (use first class mail) at the address above.
This added prison time hasn’t whipped me in the least. Nor will I ever allow these wannabe Nazis to castrate or brainwash me. No matter how many more years they hold me hostage to this hell. They will never break me and I will walk out these prison gates with my head held high, knowing I have done the right thing by not "confessing" to something I did not do!
I’m more determined than ever to fight the hate-filled propaganda against men, the Feminist Stormtroopers in Oregon and their weak, bootlicking male allies. The whole feminist philosophy is based on lies about men and manhood. Feminism has no foundation, it will fall and hopefully soon. You can believe that I, for one, am going to help stamp out the virus that is the modern day feminist movement.
[ HOME ] [ BACK ]
The Backlash! is a feature of Shameless Men Press
Email to the Editor
A victim of the feminist state
by James Donald Anderson, convicted rapist
Copyright © 1995 by James Donald Anderson
- the "victim" was not harmed in any way.
- the "victim" was not threatened in any way.
- the "crime" contained no violence.
- the "victim" may have aided in the "crime."
Honorable John Kitzhaber
State Capitol
Salem, Oregon 97301
Monday, January 24, 2011
Mad Dog Rapist in Prison
The Backlash! - April 1996
Organization News - Society Against False Accusations of Rape
James Donald Anderson #6952487 Oregon State Correctional Institution
3405 Deer Park Dr SE Salem, OR 97301 Confessions of a mad dog Rapist in Prison
by James Donald Anderson, convicted rapist
That's right, I'm a convicted rapist in prison. I know, I should be keeping that a secret and telling people I'm in "The Joint" for armed robbery, instead of some creepy sex crime, but hey, why lie? As a matter of fact, because I refused to plea bargain to a lesser charge, I was convicted of rape in the first degree, the most violent type of rape offense. Boy, am I lucky or what?
Gee, I sure don't sound remorseful or repentant for my terrible "crime." Well, guess what? I'm not! I will never apologize for my "crime." I don't feel one bit sorry for my "victim," and I don't take any crap from anyone about my conviction. I must be one bad-assed "rape-o" and the Maddest Dog Rapist in the entire US prison system to tell the world exactly how I feel. Just why is it that I seem to be at war with the world, anyway?
I'm at war because I am in prison for a crime I did not commit and I am pretty pissed off about it! What worse crime can a guy be accused of? I had sex with a woman I had just met, she turned around the next day and falsely accused me of rape in order to file a million dollar lawsuit. This woman needed no evidence, no corroborating testimony nor were her motives questioned. This fraud gained this woman some easy money in the bank and it has cost me years of my life. Yeah, I'm a little pissed off!
Twenty years ago this case would have been laughed out of the courtroom and seen for what it was, an extortion attempt. However, the US has been on a sex crime witch hunt for the past decade. Every accusation, no matter how bizarre or unfounded is taken as gospel, once a man is accused he must be found guilty and sent to prison. Courts now must make a conviction out of every allegation because according to Feminists and the media, women are being raped in record numbers and most men are born to be rapists and conditioned to enjoy abusing women. Rape has been so re-defined in these politically correct times that if a woman accuses a man of rape he must be guilty, no matter what the motive in allegation or lack of any evidence of any crime. I know for a fact this injustice exists in America. My life has been stolen from me, as I sit in prison with a ten year prison term because of it. I also have a fourteen month term on top of that for my 1990 escape from prison and this nightmare.
I know what you're thinking, "Oh sure you're innocent. You're just a rape-o freak trying to talk your way out of your conviction." Well, that's untrue, but I've learned that some people (like those in the legal system) neither want to see the truth nor care about it. Especially when a person is accused of a sex crime and claims innocence. All the evidence in my case pointed to the fact that the woman who accused me did so to win some money off a lawsuit. Everyone is a "victim" these days and it's taboo to question one about any accusations, even if it's obvious the so-called "victim" is lying through his or her teeth.
Don't get me wrong. Most men, myself included, find rape a horrible crime. Any many who would commit such an act isn't much of a man in my view. However, just as most women are not victims of rape, most men would never commit this appalling crime. We men are not the monsters the media try to make us out to be. Why men must realize is that some women do falsely accuse men. Granted, most women would never lie about being raped, but some do. We men have been programmed since birth to protect women, and rightfully so. We abhor violence against women and despite men who abuse women. This instinct to protect women also seems to incline us to refuse to believe that a woman would lie when saying she has been attacked. Today, any man can be accused of rape at any time, for any reason, and the sad thing about it is he won't be able to do a damn thing except pack his bags for prison.
Women today have an extremely devastating weapon they can use against men. All they have to do is point an accusatory finger, cry rape, and some poor schmuck is going to prison. Like I said, most women would never sink this low, but some do. Women have long used false accusations to get back at men and have a variety of reasons for doing so: revenge, blackmail, regret, mental illness, extortion, to explain a pregnancy, for attention, and for sympathy, to name a few.
Let's face it, lesbians, feminists, and other man-haters are not too thrilled with men anyway and to them, the more men in prison the better, and what better way to get rid of men than to accuse them of a crime that needs no evidence (except the accusation) and that is impossible to defend against. This is why the media portray all men as predators and rapists at heart. Feminist propaganda against men have all but manipulated our media into mouthing whatever the feminists want them to say. If a newspaper dares question feminist-created myths or over-inflated statistics, they are accused of being sexist or anti-woman by the feminist storm troopers and their allies.
There is another reason why feminists must promote the big lie that all men are out to abuse women and that all women are pitiful victims of men and need protection from the government: Rape Crisis Centers and Women's Shelters are multi-million dollar a year businesses in the US. Those who profit off these centers must keep the myth going that behind every tree in the US lies a rapist ready to pound on some poor, defenseless woman. These propagandists need those federal dollars and want to keep themselves in jobs.
Lesbians, feminists, and their boot-licking male punks love to whine and cry on how mistreated all women are and how here in the US we live in a "Rape Culture." They also tell us that when a woman is raped, it is not the act of one lone, sick freak, but all men are to be held responsible for the attack, because all men would commit rape if given the chance and have been conditioned to abuse women. Also that true rapists rarely seen the inside of a prison cell because the male-run justice system won't convict one of their own. These are bread and butter to feminists, who use them to promote their rape culture myth. The logic these days is that if a woman wakes up after a night of doing drugs, boozing and having sex, then feels regret, it is not her fault, she must have been raped and some man better go to prison for it!
Our justice system has bought their baseless propaganda hook, line and sinker. All that is needed to send a man to prison is the accusation, because if a court asks for some kind of evidence or questions the motive in the allegation, this is called "blaming the victim." An accusation doesn't need to be proved because all men are now considered rapists anyway. If a man is accused, he better prove his innocence completely, which in itself is impossible since the only evidence of the crime is that of your accuser saying it happened. We all know that a "victim's" word is better than that of some damn "rapist." Throw the freak in prison where he belongs!
The myth that women never lie in rape accusations is now so ingrained in America that a man accused finds it all but impossible to get even the facade of a fair trial, and if by some miracle he wins his freedom and is acquitted, he will always be known as "the rapist who got away." The stigma of just being accused is enough to ruin a man's life. That is, if he doesn't wind up in prison.
I will not receive parole or get any time off my sentence because I refuse to "confess" to the crime I was so easily convicted of. I will also not partake in any so-called sex offender treatment. I am not a freak and will not say I am one, even for early release. I would have been released years ago if only I would "play the game." But I did nothing wrong and owe them nothing. I have stuck by my innocence all my years in these gulags. It is about all I have left for which the state has stolen from me. The Parole Board and prison officials don't seem to understand the concept of integrity and honor. They say I'm "in denial," their favorite catch phrase.
The American system of justice used to be based on the tenet that a man is innocent until proven guilty. That concept of fairness is history, now if a man is accused of sex crime, then he is guilty no matter what, even if he is innocent.
Confessions of a mad dog Rapist in Prison
by James Donald Anderson, convicted rapist
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Statesman Journal article 02/05/2001
Statesman Journal (02/05/2001)
Man Contests Predator Label
A Salem ex-convict says public notification makes him a marked man
by Alan Gustafson
Drifting through the wreckage of his"rough and tumble" life, James Anderson has been called alot of things.
Commercial fisherman, Dangerous drunk, Rapist, Prison fugitive, Ex-convict, Activist.
Now, the Salem man will carry another label for the rest of his life: Sexual Predator.
Oregon State Police classified Anderson a predator on Dec. 11th, 2000 records show. It's a designation predicted entirely on his 1990 Marion Co. conviction of forcible rape- even though he maintains, AND a lie detector test supports, his innocence.
Citing Oregon's community notification law, the agency's Sex Offender Registration Unit informed Anderson by letter that police now have authority to make neighbors aware of his name, rape conviction, physical description, and home address.
Anderson, 39, reacted with anger.
Man Contests Predator Label
A Salem ex-convict says public notification makes him a marked man
by Alan Gustafson
Drifting through the wreckage of his"rough and tumble" life, James Anderson has been called alot of things.
Commercial fisherman, Dangerous drunk, Rapist, Prison fugitive, Ex-convict, Activist.
Now, the Salem man will carry another label for the rest of his life: Sexual Predator.
Oregon State Police classified Anderson a predator on Dec. 11th, 2000 records show. It's a designation predicted entirely on his 1990 Marion Co. conviction of forcible rape- even though he maintains, AND a lie detector test supports, his innocence.
Citing Oregon's community notification law, the agency's Sex Offender Registration Unit informed Anderson by letter that police now have authority to make neighbors aware of his name, rape conviction, physical description, and home address.
Anderson, 39, reacted with anger.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Letter to Parole Board (1997)
The Backlash! - December 1997
Organization News - Society Against False Accusations of Rape
James Donald Anderson #6952487
Oregon State Correctional Institution
3405 Deer Park Dr SE
Salem, OR 97301
An innocent man
An innocent man
Having served several years for a crime I never committed,
I refuse parole.
by James Donald Anderson, convicted rapist
Copyright © 1997 by James Donald Anderson
On April 10th, 1997, I am going to go in front of you to be judged again for a crime I did not commit. I have decided that to accept parole would be in conflict of my many years of proclaiming my innocence. I committed no crime to have all these years stolen out of my life and will not beg for parole. Being an innocent man, I refuse your parole offerings, which is my right under laws in effect at the time of supposed crime (September 5th, 1985). I will serve this prison term until my Good-Time Release Date at which time I will be released. See Bollinger vs. Board of Parole.
I have absolutely no remorse for the crime I was wrongly convicted of, I have not a shred of sympathy for my so-called victim, and I owe no one an apology for my actions. How can I have remorse, empathy, or apologize for something I did not do?
I realize my innocence means nothing to you and the fact I have served over six years in an Oregon prison for a crime I did not commit equally means nothing to you. I have come to realize that prisons and prisoners means more money for you and your kind. I refuse parole because I want nothing more to do with the "Corrections" industry in Oregon.
The woman who falsely accused me of rape on September 5th, 1985, did so in order to file a million dollar lawsuit, and because she is mentally ill with a history of falsely accusing men of sex crimes. I was wrongly convicted because vital evidence about my accuser's past and her motives were not allowed in the courtroom due to unconstitutional Rape Shield Laws that hide important evidence from juries in rape trials. And because rape crisis counselors in Salem, Oregon, gave her acting lessons and coached her how to appear as a real rape victim on the witness stand. My accuser,Donna Jean Rowland, of Albany, Oregon, was awarded $24,000.00 for her lies. Because I am not what you call a "sex offender" I will also be filing a lawsuit so I will not be forced to register as a "sex offender" once I am released from prison. I believe over six years out of my life is enough for the state of Oregon and I will not give up my privacy and dignity by being forced to register as a "sex offender." I believe these sex offender community notification laws are unconstitutional and a form of double jeopardy. I will not take part in this further injustice.
I will also not take part in any "sex offender" treatment programs or any other behavior modification classes. As I have stated, I am not a sex offender and was wrongly convicted of Rape because my so-called fair trial was rigged to ensure a conviction. Why should I subject myself to "sex offender" treatment? So some sex offender counselor can justify his job? Would it not be a waste of time for not only myself but also for Oregon's sex offender treatment industry, for me to partake in a "treatment" I do not need or want?
In 1990, another Oregon Parole Board said I should serve four years in prison for my so-called crime and be released. They stated for the record that:
I refuse parole.
by James Donald Anderson, convicted rapist
Copyright © 1997 by James Donald Anderson
On April 10th, 1997, I am going to go in front of you to be judged again for a crime I did not commit. I have decided that to accept parole would be in conflict of my many years of proclaiming my innocence. I committed no crime to have all these years stolen out of my life and will not beg for parole. Being an innocent man, I refuse your parole offerings, which is my right under laws in effect at the time of supposed crime (September 5th, 1985). I will serve this prison term until my Good-Time Release Date at which time I will be released. See Bollinger vs. Board of Parole.
I have absolutely no remorse for the crime I was wrongly convicted of, I have not a shred of sympathy for my so-called victim, and I owe no one an apology for my actions. How can I have remorse, empathy, or apologize for something I did not do?
I realize my innocence means nothing to you and the fact I have served over six years in an Oregon prison for a crime I did not commit equally means nothing to you. I have come to realize that prisons and prisoners means more money for you and your kind. I refuse parole because I want nothing more to do with the "Corrections" industry in Oregon.
The woman who falsely accused me of rape on September 5th, 1985, did so in order to file a million dollar lawsuit, and because she is mentally ill with a history of falsely accusing men of sex crimes. I was wrongly convicted because vital evidence about my accuser's past and her motives were not allowed in the courtroom due to unconstitutional Rape Shield Laws that hide important evidence from juries in rape trials. And because rape crisis counselors in Salem, Oregon, gave her acting lessons and coached her how to appear as a real rape victim on the witness stand. My accuser,Donna Jean Rowland, of Albany, Oregon, was awarded $24,000.00 for her lies. Because I am not what you call a "sex offender" I will also be filing a lawsuit so I will not be forced to register as a "sex offender" once I am released from prison. I believe over six years out of my life is enough for the state of Oregon and I will not give up my privacy and dignity by being forced to register as a "sex offender." I believe these sex offender community notification laws are unconstitutional and a form of double jeopardy. I will not take part in this further injustice.
I will also not take part in any "sex offender" treatment programs or any other behavior modification classes. As I have stated, I am not a sex offender and was wrongly convicted of Rape because my so-called fair trial was rigged to ensure a conviction. Why should I subject myself to "sex offender" treatment? So some sex offender counselor can justify his job? Would it not be a waste of time for not only myself but also for Oregon's sex offender treatment industry, for me to partake in a "treatment" I do not need or want?
In 1990, another Oregon Parole Board said I should serve four years in prison for my so-called crime and be released. They stated for the record that:
- The "victim" was not harmed in any way.
- No threats were made at the "victim."
- The "crime" contained no violence.
- And Vern Faatz, the head of the Parole Board in 1990, said that the "victim" aided in the "crime."
- The "victim" was not harmed in any way.
- No threats were made at the "victim."
- The "crime" contained no violence.
- And Vern Faatz, the head of the Parole Board in 1990, said that the "victim" aided in the "crime."
I was to be released from this charge in 1995, but as you recall you ruled that even though I presented you with two positive psych exams that I must have a mental disorder because I refuse to "confess," so I must be too dangerous to be released.
Now, another one of your bought-and-paid-for state psychologists who prostitutes themselves to Oregon's Parole Board interviewed me for half an hour and has come to the conclusion I am in "denial" of my crime, so I must be too dangerous for society. What a farce! His evaluation of my mental and emotional health is not worth the paper it is written on. The only reasons your State Psychologists label prisoners mentally ill is because you pay them, thus allowing you to take away parole dates, keep more prisoners to fill your prison beds, and expand Oregon's multi-million dollar Prison Industry.
The years that you and your kind have stolen out of my life is enough. I owe you nothing more. As a matter of fact, someone owes me and my family an apology. But I know that is beyond those who profit off the backs of innocence and that justice and truth are just empty words to those who line their pockets with money made off of prisons and prisoners. The Oregon Prison Industry has made enough money off my misery. I am not a commodity for your prison warehouses.
I want to be left alone and have my life back. I hope you understand I have too much pride, honor, and integrity to accept your gracious parole. Thank you for your time and effort.
Sincerely, James Donald Anderson
Friday, January 7, 2011
Rape Shield Laws Convicted Me
My accuser had a history of falsely accusing men of rape, was mentally ill, a drug addict, homeless, an alcoholic, and falsely accused me of rape in order to file an unjust million dollar lawsuit. There was no evidence that I raped her or that she was ever "raped". Her only evidence was her tainted word. Any jury could see that this woman was nuts and only accusing me for money. However; none of this woman's "past" could be used in court due to unconstitutional Rape Shield Laws that hides vital evidence from juries. I was convicted on the sole word of a whacked out, serial false accuser, on drugs, who accused me for money. To learn more about this insane law check out this article -
Do "rape shield" laws violate the right to a fair trial?
Obviously, laws that prohibit the media from naming a rape victim or even a woman who makes a false accusation (such as Crystal Gail Mangum from the Duke Lacrosse Case) are a flagrant violation of the 1st Amendment and have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn and Florida Star v. B.J.F).
However, aren't the similar laws that undermine the ability of the defense attorney to cross-examine an accuser a similar violation of the Constitution, since everybody who is accused of a crime is supposed to receive a fair trial?
I understand that radical feminists assert that it is traumatic for women who are accusing a man of rape to have to be cross-examined in a court of law, but isn't that argument beside the point? Afterall, aren't people who are accused of a crime supposed to be considered innocent until they are proven guilty and aren't they supposed to have the right to confront their accuser? If you accuse somebody of a crime, but are unable to handle being cross-examined by a defense attorney, wouldn't it be a better idea to just forget about bringing a criminal case against somebody in the first place rather than trying to deny the person you are accusing his right to a fair trial?
If a law was proposed to "shield" a person who accused another person of any crime other than rape (for example, a "theft shield" law), wouldn't everybody see that law as flagrantly unconstitutional?
Cathy Young, an excellent writer on men's and women's issues, did a piece on Rape Shield Laws for Reason Magazine and included my case in her article.
However, aren't the similar laws that undermine the ability of the defense attorney to cross-examine an accuser a similar violation of the Constitution, since everybody who is accused of a crime is supposed to receive a fair trial?
I understand that radical feminists assert that it is traumatic for women who are accusing a man of rape to have to be cross-examined in a court of law, but isn't that argument beside the point? Afterall, aren't people who are accused of a crime supposed to be considered innocent until they are proven guilty and aren't they supposed to have the right to confront their accuser? If you accuse somebody of a crime, but are unable to handle being cross-examined by a defense attorney, wouldn't it be a better idea to just forget about bringing a criminal case against somebody in the first place rather than trying to deny the person you are accusing his right to a fair trial?
If a law was proposed to "shield" a person who accused another person of any crime other than rape (for example, a "theft shield" law), wouldn't everybody see that law as flagrantly unconstitutional?
Cathy Young, an excellent writer on men's and women's issues, did a piece on Rape Shield Laws for Reason Magazine and included my case in her article.
Excluded Evidence
The dark side of rape shield law
Many continuing threats to civil liberties in America are completely unrelated to terrorism or to national security. Furthermore, many civil libertarians are silent about these abuses, because they are motivated by "progressive" goals -- such as ostensibly protecting women from abuse.
Consider the widening reach and the unintended consequences of rape shield laws. These statutes, hailed as a way to keep victims from being smeared as sluts in court, have sometimes kept juries from hearing evidence highly relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
On November 1, a court in Manhattan dismissed all charges against Oliver Jovanovic, a student at Columbia University. Jovanovic was at the center of a notorious "cybersex" case involving an Internet acquaintance, a real-life date, and accusations of kidnapping, sexual assault, and sexual torture.
In 1998, Jovanovic was convicted of attacking Barnard College student Jamie Rzucek (whose name has been disclosed by some media outlets after the case was dismissed) and was sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in prison. Rzucek claimed that Jovanovic held her captive in his apartment for 20 hours and subjected her to torture and sexual abuse. The defense argued that there was no torture -- Rzucek's claim that Jovanovic forcibly sodomized her was disputed by medical evidence, and the jury returned a not-guilty verdict on the counts pertaining to this act -- and that the bondage was consensual.
This argument was crippled by Judge William Wetzel's decision to exclude portions of the e-mail correspondence between Jovanovic and Rzucek in which she discussed her adventures in sadomasochism, including her sadomasochistic relationship with another man. The messages, the judge held, were inadmissible under New York State's rape shield law because they had to do with the accuser's sexual conduct.
In late 1999, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, by a 3-to-1 vote, set aside the conviction on the grounds that Judge Wetzel had applied the rape shield law improperly and left the jury with a "distorted view of the evidence." The case was sent down for retrial, but Rzucek proved reluctant to testify a second time, and prosecutors eventually sought a dismissal "in the interests of justice." Jovanovic's vindication came at a high price: as much as $500,000 in legal fees, not to mention 20 months spent in state penitentiaries.
Rape shield laws, which mostly date from the 1970s and are virtually universal today, enjoy broad public support. In surveys, about three-quarters of Americans agree that a woman's past sexual life should not be an issue in a rape case. Indeed, it seems obvious that to quiz a woman who says she was raped about whether she has had two, 10, or 20 sexual partners is not only cruel and degrading but irrelevant to the question of whether she consented to sex with the man in the dock. But in quite a few cases, rape shield laws have been applied to evidence that has a direct bearing on the credibility of the accuser (and, sometimes, only the most tenuous connection to her sexual past).
Prior to the Jovanovic trial, the most notorious case to raise these issues was that of sportscaster Marv Albert, who was accused by his longtime friend and sex partner Vanessa Perhach of oral sodomy and assault. At the 1997 trial, notable for tawdry details of transvestitism and kinky sex, Albert's attorneys wanted to bring up Perhach's alleged conduct with other men, particularly men who left her -- as Albert, who was getting married, was about to do. She had reportedly harassed and threatened a former boyfriend's family, and may have made false accusations of crimes as a form of revenge. A former lover was also willing to testify that biting, on which the assault charge against Albert was based, was a part of her sexual repertoire.
All this testimony was barred by Circuit Court Judge Benjamin Kendrick. (Meanwhile, a woman who came forward with a claim that Albert had sexually assaulted her several years earlier was allowed to take the stand.) With the defense's hands tied, Albert pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault. The outcome struck many observers -- even those, such as Geraldo Rivera, who are generally sympathetic to victims' rights -- as shockingly unfair.
And then there are the more obscure cases:
-- In Wisconsin in 1993, 18-year-old Charles Steadman was convicted of raping his 22-year-old foster sister Jessica in a he said/she said case in which physical evidence of force was absent and the defendant claimed that the sex was consensual. What the jury didn't know was that when Jessica filed the complaint, she herself was facing criminal charges of having sex with minors. (She eventually received probation with mandatory psychiatric treatment.) Clearly, this gave her a reason to lie -- particularly since she had had sexual relations with Steadman when he was underage. She might have thought that being a victim would improve her legal situation as a defendant, or she might have worried that if her encounter with Steadman became known, she would get in more trouble with the law. None of these possible motives could be introduced at Steadman's trial, since Jessica's legal problems were related to her past sexual activities and hence inadmissible.
-- In Oregon in 1989, James Anderson was convicted of raping "Donna R." while both were patients at a substance-abuse clinic. Anderson insisted that the sex was consensual and that Donna made up the charges in order to sue the clinic, which threw her out the morning after the alleged rape because she wouldn't sign up for long-term treatment. After initially claiming that she had tried to tell clinic staffers about the attack but was rebuffed, Donna reversed herself under cross-examination and said that she had not spoken about it to any of them because she was too embarrassed. In his summation, the prosecutor sneered that the defense expected a rape victim to "just walk up to one of the staff" and discuss "those most intimate details."
The jurors were never told that the day before, she had discussed equally "intimate details" -- an alleged earlier rape and childhood sexual abuse -- with one of the counselors. All records of this conversation were excluded from the trial under the rape shield law as pertaining to the accuser's sexual history; so was the fact that Donna had given several inconsistent accounts of her prior sexual victimization. Whether or not Donna was raped, the case seemed to leave ample room for reasonable doubt -- particularly if one knew that Donna was not a reliable witness.
When rape shield laws were first enacted as part of the rape law reforms initiated by the feminist movement, they were a response to truly abusive practices. Just 30 years ago, jurors in rape cases were often formally instructed to consider evidence of "unchaste character" (such as going to bars alone, extramarital liaisons, and use of birth control) as detracting from the complainant's credibility or indicating that she was more likely to have consented to sex.
But in recent years, even some feminist legal theorists, such as Vivian Berger, have expressed concern that the pendulum may have swung too far. Granted, the accuser's past sexual conduct is not automatically excluded -- just as, before shield laws, it wasn't automatically allowed. Her prior relations with the accused are generally admissible; so is evidence that the pregnancy or disease alleged to have resulted from the rape may have been caused by sex with someone else. In some states, other evidence may be admitted at the judge's discretion.
Most of the time, however, the burden is on the defendant to show that the value of this evidence to his case outweighs its "prejudicial effect" on the complainant. In several states (including Alabama, Iowa, and Washington), courts have held that excluding evidence of an earlier false or dubious rape complaint by the accuser does not deny the accused a fair trial -- even, perhaps, if the evidence is relevant to the question of his innocence.
In some cases, such as People v. Jovanovic, appellate courts have curbed the worst abuses of rape shield laws. But this is an issue that is overdue for a new look by legislatures, even if reforms are likely to engender a furious reaction from feminist groups.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)