Source: detroitnews.com 9/8/34
The Macomb County Prosecutor’s Office is appealing a case to the U.S. Supreme Court after a new trial was awarding to a man previously convicted of sexual assault.
The Michigan Supreme Court found the Macomb County Circuit Court violated Anthony ____’s Constitutional rights during his jury trial for sexual assault when the judge closed the courtroom during the child victim’s testimony without putting specific reasons for the closure on the record. The court sent the case back to Macomb County for a new trial for ____.
Lucido is appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court to answer the question of if a child rape victim should have to go through a second trial because of a technicality when there are “ample and obviously reasons in the court record justifying the closure of the courtroom during the child victim’s testimony, even if the trial court does not expressly state those reasons on the record,” according to a press release from his office.
“We are determined to do everything within our power to shield the sexual assault victim from further trauma and ensure that justice is served,” Lucido said in a statement. “We are appealing to the United States Supreme Court to address the critical question of whether a technicality should force an already brave survivor to relive her painful experience again in court. We firmly believe that the pursuit of justice should not come at the cost of her well-being, and we await the highest court’s decision regarding whether to hear this case.”
____ was convicted in 2017 of seven counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. He was convicted of sexually assaulting his daughter when she was 15 and 16 years old.
He was sentenced to 20 to 60 years in prison.
Before closing the courtroom, Judge Joseph Toia was supposed to have considered alternatives on the record, which he did not do, the justices concluded. Toia granted the prosecutor’s motion to close the courtroom because the defense did not object at the preliminary exam and because other family members were sequestered as potential witnesses.
…… to shield the sexual assault victim from further trauma and ensure that justice is served……. whether a technicality should force an already brave survivor to relive her painful experience again in court. We firmly believe that the pursuit of justice should not come at the cost of her well-being….
Oh yeah? I don’t know the specifics of this case, it could have involved harmful forceful assault OR a father who caught his daughter walking around after a shower in barely nothing and they both took things too far. Either way this is the same language used to inflate all cases to most extreme amount of harm possible, all while emphasizing trauma, experiencial pain and how the victim deserves to be elevated on a pedestal as a brave survivor all while pursuing justice by destroying someone all while protecting the well being of the court labeled victim. If this man did sexually assault his daughter then yes, there would have to be a punishment. However this is the same language used in statutory rape cases, or cases where some sexual event triggered a court proceeding. These are the cases where this language is only used to promote hate. Not all sexual events are of such an egregious magnitude that they all should warrant such language or action. However this is what happens time and time again. I’m sure the 10 yr old taking pictures of herself would have such language used in court against whoever as well. This…. This is what I mean by context and rational laws.