Man's 50 year prison sentence - for alleged sexual molestation - is cut short because accuser lied.

[MicroBrew]

An Oregon man was convicted last year of sexually molesting a minor and sentenced to 50 years in prison.

The accuser told the court the man shot and killed her dog (black Labrador) and threatened to kill her other animals if she went to the police.

The accused denied the accusations. The Oregon innocence project took up the guy's case and with assistance from the District Attorney, they set out to track down the whereabouts of the black Lab. They eventually found the animal, alive living with another family !!

Owing to this new development, the guy's conviction was voided and he was released from prison.

The D.A. says he is not certain the accused did not molest the kid ; but "he is not convinced he did".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/discovery-dog-saves-oregon-man-sex-crime-conviction-234805093.html

-

When people lie on such a major issue, they should be held accountable. Huge props to the Innocence Project and the D.A. for willing to keep an open mind.

 

[JamesRussler]

An Oregon man was convicted last year of sexually molesting a minor and sentenced to 50 years in prison.

The accuser told the court the man shot and killed her dog (black Labrador) and threatened to kill her other animals if she went to the police.

The accused denied the accusations. The Oregon innocence project took up the guy's case and with assistance from the District Attorney, they set out to track down the whereabouts of the black Lab. They eventually found the animal, alive living with another family !!

Owing to this new development, the guy's conviction was voided and he was released from prison.

The D.A. says he is not certain the accused did not molest the kid ; but "he is not convinced he did".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/discovery-dog-saves-oregon-man-sex-crime-conviction-234805093.html

-

When people lie on such a major issue, they should be held accountable. Huge props to the Innocence Project and the D.A. for willing to keep and open mind.

Perhaps the DA should have vetted these allegations beforehand.

 

[Swing]

"To be able to establish that a person should not have been convicted, you need something objective," Wax said in a telephone interview. "In most child sex abuse cases, there is no evidence. Finding Lucy alive showed the complainant lied under oath in her testimony."

I know they're talking about material evidence, and I understand why that wouldn't be easy to come by; but that's still pretty unnerving.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Perhaps the DA should have vetted these allegations beforehand.

This. Also, plainly false accusations should carry at least 50% of the sentence as the crime

 

[Otto!]

I’m just glad the pooch is safe! And that liar should be jailed for making a false accusation.

 

[NakamuraNutShot]

Perhaps the DA should have vetted these allegations beforehand.

I believe that’s the purpose of court proceedings, as far as the DA’s role in the matter. “Vetting” (investigating) should’ve been the cops’ job.

 

[JamesRussler]

I believe that’s the purpose of court proceedings, as far as the DA’s role in the matter. “Vetting” (investigating) should’ve been the cops’ job.

No, you don't vet allegations in court proceedings, you prove them. DAs are responsible for vetting every allegation they allow to be made in a court proceeding. The standards for DAs are higher than for police.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Perhaps the DA should have vetted these allegations beforehand.

It's a career case. Guilty/Innocent is irrelevant. He wants the notch on his belt.

 

[NakamuraNutShot]

No, you don't vet allegations in court proceedings, you prove them. DAs are responsible for vetting every allegation they allow to be made in a court proceeding. The standards for DAs are higher than for police.

True, but they can only go off police reports and victim/witness statements. DAs don’t go out in the field and reinvestigate stuff.

 

[JamesRussler]

True, but they can only go off police reports and victim/witness statements. DAs don’t go out in the field and reinvestigate stuff.

In this case, victim witness says “he shot my dog.” Okay, where’s the dog? When did it happen? Where’s his blood? Where’s the gun? That’s an easy claim to vet TBH. Unless the VW was a very convincing liar, I’d wager the DA probably didn’t bother asking. The judge prolly let the witness make this allegation in open court as “other acts” impeachment (that’s how this stuff usually comes in unvetted), and then judge either restricted cross examination or the defense attorney didn’t make an objection. Either way, the DA at minimum needs a good faith basis for believing that this happened, and it usually must be more than “because the witness was willing to testify to it.” The DA has staff investigators. Since he’s trying to put a guy in jail for 50 years, at least have them verify the witness’s claims.

 

[Son of Jamin]

I applaud the Innocence project for chasing tail, while the D.A was barking up the wrong tree!

 

[MicroBrew]

In this case, victim witness says “he shot my dog.” Okay, where’s the dog? When did it happen? Where’s his blood? Where’s the gun? That’s an easy claim to vet TBH. Unless the VW was a very convincing liar, I’d wager the DA probably didn’t bother asking. The judge prolly let the witness make this allegation in open court as “other acts” impeachment (that’s how this stuff usually comes in unvetted), and then judge either restricted cross examination or the defense attorney didn’t make an objection. Either way, the DA at minimum needs a good faith basis for believing that this happened, and it usually must be more than “because the witness was willing to testify to it.” The DA has staff investigators. Since he’s trying to put a guy in jail for 50 years, at least have them verify the witness’s claims.

Yeah it is shocking that the authorities did not investigate the claims about the dog. They just accepted at face value the claims of the accuser. Maybee there is a built in bias in our justice system to assume an a minor accuser is honest, in sexual molestation cases??

 

[EGarrett]

This. Also, plainly false accusations should carry at least 50% of the sentence as the crime

Yes. This is basically the same as attempted murder.

 

[Alphaboy]

This is such bullshit how the law could just "oops my bad bro" after handing out a 50 year sentence.

These are people's lives.

 

[mjmj]

Did none of you read the article before spouting off?
It specifically said the dog being shot was never even mentioned until the trial. By that time all investigation is over and it wasn't really a highlight of the trial. It was just one sentence of her testimony.

 

[NakamuraNutShot]

In this case, victim witness says “he shot my dog.” Okay, where’s the dog? When did it happen? Where’s his blood? Where’s the gun? That’s an easy claim to vet TBH. Unless the VW was a very convincing liar, I’d wager the DA probably didn’t bother asking. The judge prolly let the witness make this allegation in open court as “other acts” impeachment (that’s how this stuff usually comes in unvetted), and then judge either restricted cross examination or the defense attorney didn’t make an objection. Either way, the DA at minimum needs a good faith basis for believing that this happened, and it usually must be more than “because the witness was willing to testify to it.” The DA has staff investigators. Since he’s trying to put a guy in jail for 50 years, at least have them verify the witness’s claims.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I’m not saying 50 years is to much, but 50 sounds quite ambitious when most child molesters get about 5-10.

 

[Brodels]

I’m just glad the pooch is safe! And that liar should be jailed for making a false accusation.

They should make her kill the dog

 

[LMP]

If the guy didn't do the crime then this is good, and it's a shame he got locked up to start with. If the man did the crime it sucks that he just got a get out jail free card. I wish the information about the dog had been investigated a lot better. Why did the police never look for the dog? Completely unacceptable IMO.

 

[MicroBrew]

If the guy didn't do the crime then this is good, and it's a shame he got locked uu to start with. If the man did the crime it sucks that he just got a get out jail free card. I wish the information about the dog had been investigated a lot better. Why did the police never look for the dog? Completely unacceptable IMO.

With all the advances in technology, wonder if we will ever get a dam near foolproof polygraph , within my lifetime.

 

[LMP]

With all the advances in technology, wonder if we will ever get a dam near foolproof polygraph , within my lifetime.

I doubt it. There is all sorts of factors that make polygraph unreliable. I don't think there is anyway to get 100℅ truth out of someone without then willing telling you.