MI: Macomb County prosecutor appeals sex assault case to U.S. Supreme Court

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.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. 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.  
 

1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

…… 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.