Wealthy Child Molester Gets Probation, Wouldn't Fare Well In Prison
 

HEIR DODGES PRISON FOR CHILD RAPE BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T 'FARE WELL'

One Percenter Convicted Of Raping Infant Child Dodges Jail Because He 'Will Not Fare Well'

I once had a similar case where I obtained a suspended sentence for similar reasons. Big difference was that in my case, the victim was a 14 year old prostitute who had subsequently attempted to burglarized my client's (an octogenarian) home. Not the most sympathetic of victims.

As far as what his ex-wife says, if she's after money, I'd take what she says with a grain of salt. It's hard to know what really happened.

As far as the actual child rape goes, he may have admitted to doing those things, but may not necessarily have done them. Imagine the terrible choice of having to choose between admitting you raped your own children and get a suspended sentence and get to live with all of your money or deny it, risk conviction carrying a 10-year mandatory sentence per count.

It's really hard to know what all happened here, what the Judge knew, what the prosecutor who signed off on this deal knew, etc. Tough to know.

That said, in the civil trial he's already guilty/liable. The only question will be how much he's going to have to pay. I'm guessing that's a lot. I'm also guessing that's one reason the prosecutor and probably the mother didn't protest much when the deal was made.

No. It's not hard to know what really happened. This man raped a child. I know you are a defense attorney, but rape apologism like this is one reason victims have such a hard time coming forward.

And how do you know for a fact that it happened?

You don't.

These things tend to have a lot of moving parts. Especially here where there's going to be a major civil lawsuit. I've had to defend people accused of raping their children before on more than one occasion. On one occasion, it was a case very similar to this in facts (except my guy wasn't a DuPont) When we're talking about a young child, in this case, age 3, you have a VERY unreliable witness.

Think about it--you can get a 3 year old to believe literally anything. If their parents tell them there's this fat guy in a red suit who flies around in a sleigh pulled around by reindeer, and [spoiler alert] he knows if you're naughty or nice, that 3 year old has no doubt that Santa Claus is very real.

If you can convince a 3-year-old of that with very little difficulty, how tough is it to convince them that daddy touched them inappropriately?

So here, mom who feels slighted by being divorced by the rich ne'er do well heir, wants more money. Maybe the way the trust is paid out deprives her of what she thinks she should be getting for child support and support alimony. Mom hatches a scheme to get the child to cry rape (you would be surprised how very common this is in child custody cases) and now, basically, dad has to prove it didn't happen.

There are a number of ways to lend credibility to dad. The child will typically undergo a forensic interview. If the child, however, has been adequately prepared for the forensic interview, or somehow just answers the questions the way they need to be answered, forensic interviews aren't 100% effective.

Then you can subject dad to a psychosexual evaluation. This would usually entail all the usual stuff, MMPI, other assessments and sometimes include a Penile plethysmograph test, something I would find utterly humiliating if subjected to. In one case, my guy got a clean bill of health from that test, except it came back that he also might be a sociopath... so again, these things have limited value.

I'll bet you're just as sure this guy is guilty as you were certain of the Duke Lacrosse team's guilt or that Zimmerman would be convicted.

You need to learn the difference between fact an opinion.. or at least review it.

Thank you.

I agree with what DeltaBetaBaby said, but at the same time, we have to realize that charged does NOT mean guilty. Innocent people are arrested and charged all the time for crimes that they didn't commit or crimes that are an exaggeration of what actually happened. There has to be a balance between emphasizing that the victim is NEVER at fault, but also investigating each case to make sure that the rape actually occurred and the alleged victim is telling the truth. False rape claims, while rare, do occur and that means that each case must be thoroughly investigated.

These are not rare at all when it comes to child custody cases. On any given day, I have at least one of these cases I'm defending when representing dad.

What you read in the media and what is really happening is often two different things. For example, last year, I had a case which was prominently mentioned on the crime page of the Huffington Post. It made local and national news. You never heard about the work I did because it's all confidential.

Suffice to say, this mom and dad were accused of just horrible, despicable things, now has their family back when it should have never been torn apart because the intake process was incredibly botched and the state went off half cocked when they should have worked it differently.... but guess what made the headlines anyhow.

I don't know, Kevin. Most people wouldn't "admit" to committing such heinous acts, even if it meant saving money. Child molester is pretty much the worst title any person can carry. I don't know too many people that would take on such a title to save money. As someone who has worked in child protective services, I can tell you that I have seen some people try to use their children as pawns but, to assume that could be the case is problematic. This attitude that children will believe anything told to them is the same attitude that made our DA choose not to prosecute someone who was otherwise guilty because, "Well, the kid looked coached." Even though CPS knew he was guilty, the DA didn't want to do her job or thought it might be too tough to make a case because the kid was young. I agree with DBB. We need to stop victim-blaming as a society or people will not feel comfortable coming forward.

I just had a client "admit" to having control of meth, paraphernalia and a gun because the state offered a seven-year deferred sentence. She was looking at 20+ to do. I'll bet I'd have won that trial, but sometimes, when your client is looking at serious time, they'll admit to a lot in order to stay out of the pokey. Her real crime was hanging out with the wrong crowd and not inspecting her "friend's" backpack before letting him in her car.

With her sentence, assume she stays clean and sober and commits no serious crimes for 7 years, the whole thing comes off of her record.

I think you misread the article. He was looking at 10 years minimum on the original charge. And that may have been consecutive sentences, so he was looking at potentially 20 minimum (I'd have to read the guidelines to know for sure, but whatever it is, that's serious time).

I always take issue with CPS saying they "know" someone is guilty. I'm not sure what kind of training you have, but around here, you can be a CPS caseworker so long as you have any bachelor's degree from anywhere and can pass a background check. Limited language skills? Terrible personality? Tendency to lie under pressure? No problem, you're hired. On top of the lack of qualification, here they get a caseload no ordinary human could keep up with, have supervisors who are products of the Peter Principle, who have their own various agendas, a Supreme Court dumping new rules on them every so often, etc. So when they say they "know" something, my eyes can't help to roll back just a little.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply stating that no one knows that's not the case, and therefore to state they KNOW he's guilty... well, there's just not enough information here to really determine that except that as a legal fiction, yes, he's plead guilty and legally he's now guilty of 4th degree rape.

Mom does potentially have a HUGE financial motive here, but put yourself in this guy's shoes. Even if you're not a convicted sex offender, would you rather spend potentially 20 years as a convicted sex offender out in the world with a large trust fund or 20 years in the penitentiary?

Wow to all of this. Admitting to having a controlled substance such as meth is no where near child molestation charges. As someone who works in addictions, I'd be willing to bet that her real crime wasn't simply "hanging out with the wrong crowd." Come on! I don't care how many years you are looking at--when it comes to something seen as the most heinous of crimes, no one wants to admit to being a child molester. No one! As far as the CPS worker qualifications, I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. Yes, there are many people who probably shouldn't be in that field because they are definitely not qualified. Couldn't we say that about any profession though? I know a few attorneys that should not be doing what they do. I hold multiple degrees and still would not assume that just because someone holds a particular degree, he or she must be qualified to do something. Having said that, I find it offensive that you would just "roll" your eyes at some of these people because you figure they are a bunch of uneducated or unqualified knuckle-dragging cavemen. I'm thinking you aren't too popular with people who work in social services, are you?

Typical CPS worker... making up your mind without having all of the facts. One of the first things I do with criminal clients with drug charges is send them off for a hair follicle the same day they come in to see me. Criminal clients have a way of lieing and I like to know--really know what I'm dealing with. In this case, when she came in to see me, she was clean. Also, without going in too much on the details, she was simply giving the wrong person a ride and consented to a search not knowing that there were drugs and a gun in her car.

Well again, you don't understand the choice this man faced. Either 1) admit you did it, get a suspended sentence or 2) don't admit you did it, go to trial, potentially retraumatize your child (which will happen whether you're actually guilty or not) and face the potential of 20 or more years in the penitentiary where you will still be a convicted child molester. What a choice. Most attorneys, if the state's evidence includes an interview with the child (even a three year old which a good defense attorney can have a field day with) are going to recommend 1) --take the deal, pay some money and enjoy being wealthy and free.

I can think of no other profession where a person with such low qualifications can have such huge responsibility and power.

You're putting words in my mouth. I roll my eyes because I know how little they typically put into a case before making huge life changing recomendations for families, including termination. A good example is that sorta famousish case I had last year. We had a botched pickup where the intake worker really just did an awful job. Our original petition was going to be for a recomendation of termination based on "shocking and heinous" allegations. It all turned out to be a misunderstanding which probably should have been worked prevention in the first place. In this case, I got lucky. The difference was some arbitary change in supervisors and a supervisor who gave the case a second glance.

I defend parents quite often where caseworkers have lept to conclusions because of the sort of thing you sort of said earlier--"In my experience with meth cases, blah blah blah." That's the sort of crazy reasoning I hear from caseworkers sometimes. Utterly mind blowing. So yes, I'm the first person to question the caseworker's report. It's my job to do that.

Come on attorney, I know you can read better than that. I said I used to work as a CPS worker. I now work in addictions--and not as a caseworker. I've seen all these "wrong place at the wrong time" situations. I don't buy it. You also stated that CPS caseworkers are some of the most unqualified people and it's one of the few careers where such unqualified people can work and have such power and responsibility. Many would say the same thing about some attorneys. Like I said before, just because someone has a particular degree or letters behind his or her name, does not make that person an expert in my eyes. I've seen many "attorneys" who shouldn't be practicing. Yes, it happens in all fields. Would you disagree with that statement? You seem to make excuses for this man who may be a sex offender. Just because you make a living by defending people like that doesn't mean that every time a young child comes forward with an allegation that it isn't true. This is why you are probably very good at defending sex offenders and not working on the side of the child. Do you believe all children should be seen and not heard (or believed)? It appears so.

The disparaging way you talk about those "unqualified" caseworkers is a prime example why those overworked people with such low qualifications probably don't like working with you. Do you even realize how dangerous it is to be a CPS worker? They are very underpaid. No one truly goes into CPS work because the money is good. You owe these people a little respect. Please don't act as though you are better than those lowly workers because you have J.D. behind your name.

The power/ability to remove a child from his/her parents' home is huge. Huge. There should be a tremendous amount of preparation required for someone to enter the CPS field. Why isn't there?

I don't know that Kevin's making excuses for this man who, as you yourself even said, "may" be a sex offender. He hasn't yet been convicted, right?

I can't imagine the kind of shit Kevin must see every day in his line of work. Family law is brutal. If you worked in an environment where you saw women coaching their kids to lie just to screw over the dad, you'd probably be reluctant to blindly agree with anything any kid says, too. That doesn't mean Kevin believes all children should be seen and not heard (or believed). That's a crazy leap.

To be fair, he's convicted. I'm just suggesting that it's entirely possible that he didn't do it and being so certain that he did is a little ridiculous given the fact that all we have are a couple of incendiary articles.

The people expressing certainty here really have no idea if it really happened or not, but considering the alternatives--suspended sentence and freedom and a trust fund vs. possibly 20+ years to do, most of these folks would have taken the same deal if in this guy's situation. Guilty or not.

Getting a suspended sentence for child rape isn't unheard of or reserved for the top 1%. I don't know if I said above, I recently had a client who was guilty as hell of doing things with a prostitute who turned out to be 14. Prior to hiring me, but after admitting it to the police, he had gone on the news and said something to the effect of "I'm not going to lie, I did what they said I did." I still managed to get a suspended sentence.

Most of y'all have zero idea of what goes into a plea or the fact that innocent people plead guilty to crimes all the time when facing significant time in the penitentiary vs. walking free.

So you admit you're prejudiced and can't be objective in these sorts of situations. While there was meth in the above case mentioned, please keep in mind that when she came to me, she had at the very least not used in 90 days. How many meth addicts can go 90 days without a fix just on the off chance that their attorney will send them to do a hair follicle the first time he meets them?

Baby lawyers I might agree with, but few of those are working totally unsupervised. None of them have the power to do anything at all without a judge's blessing and in 99% of the cases I've worked, the judge just goes along with whatever CPS says regardless of how screwed the parents are or how specious the evidence is.

To a degree, yes. Those letters after my name took more work than any you have after yours. I passed a bar examination and someone thought I was good enough to pay me lots of money for my services. Case workers cannot say the same.

He's a sex offender.

Actually, the majority of my juvenile work is pro bono representing children in deprived cases for an outfit called Oklahoma Lawyers for Children. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be blind to the fact that my client could be manipulated by a parent with an agenda to make horrific charges against the other parent. As far as a three-year-old, I would almost NEVER hang my hat on their testimony being reliable. I'd certainly take it into consideration, but would be more interested in the accused parent getting a psychosexual examination. I would absolutely never assume guilt based on the word of a three-year-old and if you're a former caseworker, it's frightening that apparently you would.

Nah.. most of my caseworkers love me. In representing kids, I am generally one of the lawyers defending them against the bad 'ol private attorneys who dare to question them. And frankly, many or most are unqualified for the level of responsibility they handle. The job I do isn't all unicorns and rainbows either.

Everyone in this thread is prejudiced. No one in this thread is objective.