ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Dec 14 – Phone | details (2020 Dates added)

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

General News

Kat’s Blog: TN Man Avoids Registry for Second Time

A Tennessee man accused of sexual offenses for the second time, has once again avoided the registry.

In 2004, ______ was accused of allegedly molesting a 15 yr. old that had been hired to babysit his children. ______ denied molesting the girl but stated he pleaded guilty to a charge of reckless aggravated assault and a misdemeanor, to spare his family (he is the father of 3) and because his attorney at that time had advised him it was in his best interest. He was sentenced to 3 yrs. probation which was later reduced to less than 1 yr. and was not required to register as a “sex offender”.

In 2015 ______ was again accused, this time the accuser was a 14 yr old girl, the charges are rape, statutory rape by an authority figure and especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor.

The accusers are not named in the news account, even though the current accuser is now 18.

Here’s a snippet of the news account from The Knoxville New Sentinel 9/24/19:

 “After nearly five days of testimony last week, a Knox County jury of nine men and three women was set to hear closing arguments in the case Tuesday.”  The article goes on to state “Jurors were not allowed to hear about similar charges ______ faced in 2004 for allegedly molesting a 15-year old girl he had hired to babysit his children.”     

This article made the front page of the newspaper. The story as written gives enough details of the 2004 charges and court case proceedings that anyone on the jury reading the morning paper now knows all they may think they need to know about the man’s prior conviction and to form negative thoughts about Mr. ______ that could affect his current case.

The fate of Mr. ______ rested in the hands of 12 jurors who weren’t supposed to know anything of his past offenses so that they could decide his fate based only on the current facts before them.

Under the circumstances, I didn’t think Mr. ______ stood a chance, I figured his past offense information would somehow make its way to the jury and he’d be found guilty, this time he’d surely end up on the registry.

But today there was a strange turn of events.

 A mistrial was declared after the jurors reached an impasse. After 8 hours and two days of deliberation, the jury was hopelessly deadlocked.  

The prosecutor’s case hinged mostly on the accuser’s testimony, which according to the defense attorney, had inconsistencies and seemed to expand and become more elaborate during cross-examination.  

The defense attorney questioned whether authorities were pressured to pursue charges despite a lack of evidence. (The accuser had first disclosed the alleged abuse to a family friend who is employed with the Knox County District Attorney’s office.)

Twice accused. Twice set free. Twice avoided the registry.

Sept. 28 2019 update: Prosecutors are pursuing a new trial, a status hearing is set for Nov. 1.

 

Join the discussion

  1. Tim in WI

    Official Actions require necessarily privacy loss by the complainant. Prosecution must be public for all parties involved. Secret Courts were forbidden under our constitution. Fairness requires the rights of the accused to PUBLICLY confront those who bears witness against his character. Victim’s Advocates had successfully overcome that fact of necessary process by limiting the access to ‘ sealed case’s DEPT information released to provide anonymity via non disclosure. Victims advocates both desire both freedom from public scrutiny in complaints about others AND freedom from the process necessary and sufficient to provide final resolution of conflict. I can find no constitutional clause regarding right to anonymity from the whole truth.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.