Sheboygan judge lets serial pervert off the hook...

[Archae]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=186x22243

:argh:

[depakid]

1. Looks to me like he was following the law

Had the man been charged under some other statute, the prosecution would have had a conviction.

[redqueen]

2. Whaaaaa?

Usually it's DEFENSE atty's who appeal verdicts... how often does a JUDGE voluntarily overrule a jury verdict?

:wtf:

[Archae]

3. This same judge...

Fits the RW stereotype of "activist judge" to a T.

Just recently, he had a guy in his court, who had just been arrested for drunken driving, killing another driver, giving several false names, and fleeing the scen of the accident.
VanAkkeren (the judge) reduced the guy's bail to practically nothing, and yup, the perp took off, and was finally re-arrested several weeks later in Iowa.

Now he's letting a serial dope addict and serial pervert off the hook. :grr:

[redqueen]

6. *sigh*

I'd say 'unbelievable' but it's really not.

UGH!

[depakid]

4. Judges can and do overturn jury verdicts!

It's called judgment NOV, and the usually standard is where under the facts presented at trial, no reasonable jury could have found that elements of the crime have been proven.

As I implied- the remedy here was either to charge the man under a different statute- or for the legislature to amend the statute.

[redqueen]

7. Uh... yeah ... I know that...

Notice that I didn't ask you *IF* judges could do it.. I wondered how often it happens... and especially when the perp is a serial offender and poses a serious risk to the community.

[depakid]

9. It doesn't happen very often

but it's malpractice for the defense not to make the motion.

[redqueen]

10. Yup, cause it's the defense atty's job to look after the perp's interests...

but as you said... judges aren't supposed to get their hands dirty with overruling jury verdicts unless "no reasonable jury could have found that elements of the crime have been proven".

I don't see that this idiot's opinion that the thing wasn't secluded enough warrants overruling the jury. I hope the jurors are upset and get lots of media exposure for this, and get this head case off the bench.

[endarkenment]

13. The secluded part was essential to the charge. nt.

[redqueen]

15. Yup... and like I said... both the members of the jury and the DA

thought it was secluded. Why the judge thinks he knows better than anyone else is a mystery. It should have been left to the defense to appeal if they thought the area wasn't secluded.

From what I'm hearing this judge has made horrendous errors in judgment before.

[endarkenment]

16. Uh so why not charge him with murder?

You probably could get the jury to go along with that too, despite the lack of an actual corpse.

[redqueen]

17. What's the point in hyperbole? n/t

[endarkenment]

19. The point is that the charge has to fit the crime. DUH.

The hyperbole illustrates why the charge has to fit the crime.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. How would it be secluded...

if there were a number of bystanders and witnesses around?

[redqueen]

22. It's covered.

Maybe there are trees around.

I don't know, but apparently the jury agreed.

[endarkenment]

24. Do two minutes of research.

No walls no trees in plain sight of street and park. Not secluded. Facts are unpleasant details.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Well, that would make it secluded from Inspector Gadget's gadget copter.

But according to the story, there were several people around witnessing the whole incident, so that would make it decidedly non-secluded, and would explain why the judge disagreed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Serial has nothing to do with it.

The defendants history would have nothing to do with whether or not the prosecution failed to make the case.

[redqueen]

21. But the jury convicted... so...

seems like they did make the case.

:shrug:

[endarkenment]

23. what is the role of the guy in the robe?

[redqueen]

27. Oh for god's sake.

Y'all have at it.

I'm done.


inspector gadget's copter... :eyes:

[endarkenment]

29. so the guy in the robe?

What's he there for?

Huh?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. And the judge overturned it.

:shrug:

[redqueen]

28. Yup

the same judge who set a drunk driver free with a tap on the wrist.

Sorry... I'm fresh out of patience for cartoon character references and insults... you and endarkenment go ahead and pat yourselves on the back for a well-earned win.

:hi:

[endarkenment]

30. What you are out of is arguments that make sense.

The guy is still in jail facing other charges. This charge was wrong and the judge did the right thing with this charge. That is one reason we have judges, to act in just this way. The DA is appealing, and who knows, perhaps a higher court will see it differently. Or, the DA could file other charges that actually fit the crime, unless that would be double jeopardy, in which case the DA fucked up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. ...

"the same judge who set a drunk driver free with a tap on the wrist."

No explanation as to why, though. Probably had a good one. It's not like the judge did this to earn any friends. He had to have known that every knee-jerk reactionary was going to assume he had done something horrible without even bothering to look at the actual case.

"I'm fresh out of patience for cartoon character references and insults... "

Maybe you should have thought of that before arguing that the shelter's roof makes it secluded.

"you and endarkenment go ahead and pat yourselves on the back for a well-earned win."

I'd hardly call this "well-earned." You dug the hole yourself.

[redqueen]

33. "well-earned" is sarcasm

insults and hyperbole don't make for convincing arguments

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Heh

"get this head case off the bench."

[redqueen]

35. That is an example of me expressing my opinion about the judge.

I did not insult either of you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. Yes. And my Inspector Gadget remark...

was simply me expressing my opinion on your silly, silly argument.

[redqueen]

37. Thanks.

If you're done making fun of me, I'll say good day.

[Xithras]

5. The DA f'd up, not the judge.

He was incorrectly charged. You can't charge someone with trying to lure a child to a secluded place, if the place isn't secluded. It's that simple.

The DA should have charged him with making lewd and lascivious comments to a child. The sentence would have been shorter, but it's the crime he actually committed.

What we have here is a DA who overcharged a suspect to "get him off the street" by falsely inflating the nature of the crime. The jury, who obviously doesn't like men who proposition little girls, went along with it to get the creep out of their community. This judge, realizing that a man was being incarcerated for a crime he didn't commit, did the right thing by setting aside the verdict.

The DA should take this as a lesson. If he had charged the guy correctly, he would still be in prison right now. Because he decided to be a "hero" and bend the law, a child predator is free and walking the streets today.

[redqueen]

8. It's a judgement call, whether the place is secluded.

IMO it is secluded enough. Obviously the DA thought so too. And the JURY, too.

But hey... whatever.

[endarkenment]

11. The guy still is in custody.

A minor detail, pun intented.

The 'secluded' area was an open no wall park pavillion in plain sight of the street and the surrounding park area. The child molestor should have been charged with the crime he actually committted. The fact that the jury was willing to overlook the obvious is no excuse.

Why is it that we lose all sense and reason when hot button emotionally charged issues are involved?

[Archae]

12. Because I have a personal stake in it.

[endarkenment]

14. Then you know the guy is still in jail

and that the DA is going to appeal and that likely there will be a new and honest charge if the appeal is lost.

Rule of law requires that we use reason and logic to apply the correct laws to the actual incident and that we do not use our emotions to rationalize bad outcomes.

[redqueen]

32. The whole article is well worth a read.

http://www.sheboygan-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070913/SHE0101/70913031/1973

According to a criminal complaint, Pask approached the 9-year-old while she was with friends at Worker's Park on June 8, saying, “Look at those sexy little salty girls.” He repeatedly offered the girl candy while gesturing she should follow him toward the area of the shelter and the shelter’s bathroom, but she refused.

(snip)

“I told the jury up front, I said, ‘The evidence that you’re going to hear is going to establish that what my client did was disgusting, it was a proposition to a 9-year-old girl,’” he said. “‘But no matter how much that disgusts you, no matter how much you find that revolting — and what parent wouldn’t — that is not the issue today, the issue is whether or not it is a crime … and even though you’re not going to like it, the evidence is going to be clear that this was not a secluded area.’”

(snip)

“In our opinion, any area can be ‘secluded,’ including a park shelter, trees and large bushes — any area where a child may be sexually assaulted out of the view of other persons,” DeCecco said. “The jury, having visited the site of the incident, obviously concluded we had met that burden beyond a reasonable doubt.”

(snip)

“It’s very unusual, and I would think that no judge would do that unless they were pretty sure that the jury had made a mistake,” said Hersh, a Milwaukee criminal defense attorney. “From his perspective, it was probably a courageous move, because everybody is going to be up in arms about it — as they are — but it is the judge’s duty to do this if they feel all the elements have not been proved to the point they feel a reasonable jury could find guilt.”

Van Akkeren did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

[Archae]

38. It's up at Fark.com...

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3066744





The guy with the mustache is Pask.

:rofl:

[redqueen]

39. Hah.

What a sicko... :puke: