FortWayneNews highlights yet another example of our county prosecutor handing out the most lenient plea bargain possible for a child molester:
A woman who knew Martin told authorities she’d learned he had invited her young daughters to perform sex acts with him and had touched them inappropriately on several occasions, a probable cause affidavit said.
As part of a plea agreement, Martin pleaded guilty to one count each of child molesting and child solicitation. The agreement calls for him to serve four years on probation.
Probation? Are you kidding me? As I've said before if I were to make a list that ranks the most heinous crimes then child molesting would be near the top. Yet in this county we repeatedly slap these people on the wrist and send them back into our community. I'm sure if this guy would've had some sort of illegal narcotic on him then he would've found his way to slammer quickly - where are our priorities?
Are county voters going to continue to tolerate this? Have party politics taken over so much that no other Republican will challenge Richards? Is this the best our community can offer? Karen Richards must go...
7 comments:
Jeff, once again I'm dismayed to see you going off half-cocked at Karen Richards. Want to earn a reputation as a hotheaded half-educated bilious ass like AWB? This is how you do it.
Consider, for a moment, the vastly larger number of sex offenders in Allen County who are sentenced harshly. When the rare lenient plea agreement occurs, there can be any number of factors at play, most likely:
1) The prosecution's case is too weak to go to trial;
2) The accuser and/or witnesses have such serious credibility issues that going to trial would result in a substantial risk of letting the accused walk free.
Remember, Jeff, under the rule of law one is innocent until proven guilty. And you're presuming guilt where some of the best legal minds in the community obviously had some doubt about prevailing at trial. So I think it's irresponsible to make the inane suggestion that the prosecutor loves and coddles child molesters, especially when you see tbe enormous volume of cases where this clearly isn't so.
You seem to harbor some sort of personal animus toward Ms. Richards. Or maybe it's just because she's a Republican, which would be petty of you. And I'm speaking as a Democrat. And as a friend of Karen Richards who knows exactly how she feels about putting away sex offenders.
de_tokeville,
What's the deal? "Are you for Eric S. Martin, 23, of the 4200 block of Winterfield Run, who was arrested in October on two counts of child molesting and two counts of child solicitation to go free?"
Do you have children, will you have children, are you married?
What future do you want this guy to see?
I really fail to see why we’re letting these people off with mere probation.
Explain your position.
de_tokeville,
I appreciate you reading and taking the time to comment. I'll try to respond to each one of your points.
First, I'm not worried about earning "a reputation as a hotheaded half-educated bilious ass like AWB?" Some people agree with things I say and some don't - that's the nature of opinions. You're entitled to yours.
"When the rare lenient plea agreement occurs, there can be any number of factors at play, most likely:
1) The prosecution's case is too weak to go to trial;
2) The accuser and/or witnesses have such serious credibility issues that going to trial would result in a substantial risk of letting the accused walk free."
I wouldn't call these cases "rare" and unless you are going to present data to back that claim then it's irrelevant. I don't believe for a second that somebody would plead guilty to child molestation and all the stigma associated with it unless they were truly guilty. And if they are guilty then they should go to jail - for a long damn time. Would you consider probation for a murderer? I put child molestation in the same category.
"Remember, Jeff, under the rule of law one is innocent until proven guilty. And you're presuming guilt where some of the best legal minds in the community obviously had some doubt about prevailing at trial."
The presumption of innocence goes away when the accused pleads guilty. And what would going to trial actually lose in this case? The man isn't even going to jail. I'd take my chances with a jury - in the worst case we'd have nearly the same outcome as the plea.
"it's irresponsible to make the inane suggestion that the prosecutor loves and coddles child molesters, especially when you see tbe enormous volume of cases where this clearly isn't so."
Please present this enormous volume of cases - I'm sure we'd all be interested. Also, I never said the prosecutor "loves and coddles child molestors".
"You seem to harbor some sort of personal animus toward Ms. Richards. Or maybe it's just because she's a Republican, which would be petty of you."
Well you're right on one account - I do harbor personal animus towards Ms Richards but it isn't because she's a Republican - that suggestion is assinine. I think she's a poor excuse for a prosecutor that doesn't punish child molestors the way the rest of the community feels they should be punished. She continues to release these scumbags back into our community with little justice whatsoever.
"And I'm speaking as a Democrat. And as a friend of Karen Richards who knows exactly how she feels about putting away sex offenders."
This isn't a political issue so I'm not sure why you would attempt to inject politics into the matter. Obviously you and Karen Richards feel that child molesters that plead guilty should be allowed to serve no jail time. Let me be clear here - under NO circumstances would I ever let someone that plead guilty get away with nothing but probation. Just think of what you're saying here. These are children in our community and you're going to turn this guy loose back into that very community? Where is the justice. I would argue, and I think the majority would agree, that you and Richards have a very warped sense of justice...
Jeff--
It's obvious that you aren't terribly familiar with the legal system. A plea of guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence isn't an admission of guilt. It's an admission of fear of what might happen at trial. If you stand to spend the rest of your life in prison after being falsely accused of something, you might very well choose to cut your losses if the option is on the table.
Understand that an accusation is just that. And if the prosecution doesn't have credible evidence and witnesses to back up the accusation, the case doesn't proceed to trial. That's plainly what's happening here.
As for data to back up my assertions, go to the sex offender web site and see the five hundred plus registered offenders in the city of Fort Wayne. Read the paper every day and see the people getting 25 years or more.
For all we know, Bobett, Mr. Martin of Winterfield Run is guilty of nothing more than having dated a really messed up woman who paid him back this way for breaking up with her. And perhaps when the authorities interviewed the children it was evident that they'd been coached by mom to say things that they otherwise didn't understand. It happens. The accused still gets shamed in front of the community and people like you will believe he's guilty no matter what. But what if he's not?
In short, what I'm telling you is that when you see a plea agreement, it doesn't mean the prosecutor fucked up. Not at all. It means that the evidence has been thoroughly examined and is too weak to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. It means that the authorities don't take every accusation at face value. It means the system, imperfect as it might be, is actually working.
So you really ought to be praising Karen Richards. You can be relatively confident that when some vindictive bitch calls the cops claiming you felt up her kid, and your only offense was to break up with her because she's a drama queen, the worst that can happen to you is probation.
de_tokevill,
Let's analyze your last statement. Essentially you're stating that even if Richards doesn't believe the accused is guilty she would go ahead and move forward with a plea bargain. That's not only unjust - it's immoral.
Now I think what you were getting at is that sometimes getting a conviction can be difficult given the evidence and in these cases a plea bargain may be the best bet for everyone involved.
However, we should never plea child molestation down to probation. If the prosecutor doesn't believe the accused is guilty then she shouldn't move forward with the case. Otherwise she should seek a tough sentence and probation would hardly qualify...
I understand why you would think this is immoral, Jeff. But the cold, hard reality is that the prosecution doesn't concern itself with the accused's innocence. The prosecution is always strictly focused on whether the evidence is sufficient to obtain a conviction. When you see a plea agreement like this one, you know just how flimsy the evidence had to be.
You can't "plea child molestation down to probation" in the absence of sufficient evidence that child molestation actually occurred. There may be some evidence suggestive of guilt; on the other hand, the accuser may make such a poor witness on her own behalf that a conviction would be highly unlikely if not impossible.
Sometimes you just have to trust the best minds to make the best decisions under very difficult circumstances. No political party has a monopoly on that quality. We're lucky someone of Karen Richards' caliber is willing to serve in that job.
Show us evidence of prosecutorial abuse, like manufactured evidence and innocents put on death row as you see is commonplace in cities like Chicago. Then you'll be within your rights to call for her ouster.
From someone close to the Eric Martin case, I thought I would try and shed some additional light on the Eric Martin case for all to better understand.
The Prosecutor and Victim Assistance staff did a fantastic job in this case. The Prosecutor wanted Eric to serve prison time for his actions, but due to the relationship to the Defendant and due to other situations in Eric’s upbringing, the Complainant’s family pushed for Eric Martin to serve 6-months of house arrest, 4-years of strict probation, 4-years of extensive counseling, and Eric to be on the Sex Offender list for life. In the event the case was lost, Eric Martin would not be placed on the sex offender list at all.
If you read the strictness of the sex offender list, Eric will never have a normal life. Sex offender cases are generally a “he said, she said” type of cases. A Victim will say he did it and the Defendant says it never happened. In this case, there was additional collaborative evidence, but the parents did not want to subject the 5 & 8 year old girls to more pain and harm by putting them in a court room to testify.
Other facts of interest in this case are as follows:
1. Initially, there were two charged counts of molestation, and two counts of solicitation, but the Plea Agreement allowed Eric Martin to only admit to one count of molestation and one count of solicitation with two different children.
2. Additional counts could have been filed against Eric Martin with the same girls.
3. Eric Martin was not defended by a Public Defender, but he was defended by the best Defense Lawyer money could buy.
4. Eric Martin clearly failed his own attorney’s requested lie detector test, which was not admissible in court anyway.
5. Eric Martin showed no shame or remorse when he pled guilty to the two counts.
6. Eric Martin showed no shame or remorse when he was sentenced.
7. When Eric martin was asked by Judge Fran Gull if he has anything to say to the family, he said, “NO”.
8. We believe Judge Fran Gull wanted to put Eric Martin in jail because she said to Eric Martin, “You don’t realize the gift you are receiving here today, but I am going to accept the negotiated Plea Agreement between the Prosecutor and the Defendant”. She then sentenced him accordingly.
9. Post guilty Plea and Sentencing, Eric Martin has divided a family by now claiming he is the victim in this case and that the two young girls made up the story against him.
10. Had the Complainants family known Eric would not be remorseful, would not have displayed shame, and would continue to hurt the girls by now blaming the girls for lying, the Complainant would have allowed the case to go to trial and they would have tried to impose as much of the 23-years of possible jail time on him as the charges in this case allowed.
11. Eric Martin pled guilty because he was guilty and all the facts and evidence support his guilt. All parents should protect their children from Eric Martin.
I hope you better understand the facts of the case.
Post a Comment