AL: Charges Dismissed Against Former Child Sex Crimes Prosecutor For Lack Of Actual Minor In FBI Sting

Admin

(2012) There is an interesting ruling out of Mobile, Alabama where former child sex crimes prosecutor, ____ ____, was charged with solicitation of a minor over the computer. Special Judge Gaines McCorquodale dismissed the charge on a key missing element under the statute: an actual victim.

Since ____ was speaking with an undercover officer posing as a 15-year-old girl, McCorquodale ruled that there was no victim as required under the language of the statute for child enticement. Essentially, no child, no enticement, no charge. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So, this means they are not going to vacate the same charges brought against every person ever convicted of the same circumstances? I am sure Chris Hansen is up in arms!

0
Reply

Does this mean they’re prepared to throw out and re examine cases applied to people who aren’t prosecutors?

0

What about the other that have been charged with this crime?

0
Reply

What a total crock! I only hope someone can cite this case the next time LE entraps someone with their sting operations.

This is a shining example of the “good ol boys club” at it’s finest!!

0

People need to see how corrupt this entire system is. The judges protect their own to show the public that the laws ‘work”. This whole thing is some kind of demented joke. This guy’s next call could be to someone’s daughter. I hope he seeks help for his problem.

0
Reply

Laws are selectively enforced and convictions are selectively carried out. I guess some people are above the laws they use to enforce on everyone other than the enforcers. Well we did/do? have TSA assaulting women daily at the airport. Welcome the the selectively free United States of America.

0
Reply

Am I reading the info of the article correctly? This is from Dec. 7, 2012?

0
Reply

Yes, this article seems to be from 2012. The courts have apparently thrown out that argument and many people are being tried and convicted through these techniques. Essentially, they are being convicted of a “thought crime.” Does that mean if I go to someone’s house armed with a weapon, but leave without a even seeing anyone, does that mean I can be charged with attempted murder?? It’s all a conspiracy by law enforcement, judges, attorneys, and the prison industry to keep many individuals employed.

0

Here is the judge’s order.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/115626949/Document

0
Reply