Civil Liberties

Kindergarten Teacher's Accuser: 'I Just Remembered'

|

Testimony today in the trial of Tonya Craft, a Chickamauga, Georgia, kindergarten teacher accused of molesting three little girls, provided more ammunition for skeptics like Reason contributor William L. Anderson, who argues that Craft is being railroaded. Craft was arrested two years ago and has since lost her job and custody of her two children. Anderson believes Craft, like the defendants in the McMartin Preschool case and other child molestation panics of the 1980s and '90s, faces false charges based on testimony from child witnesses who have been coached by therapists, police, and prosecutors to "remember" things that never happened. Today's testimony by one of Craft's alleged victims reinforces that impression. Here are excerpts from reporting by WCRB, the NBC affiliate in Chattanooga (emphasis added):

First witness called to stand is a 9-year-old female….Witness later describes Tonya Craft giving her a bath. The testimony is graphic [involving painful digital penetration of her vagina and rectum]. Witness uses hands to show how she was molested. Witness says molestation happened more than once….

Witness says she didn't tell anyone because she was scared. Claims Tonya Craft threatened to kill her mom if she told….

9-year-old witness says she is an actor. She has played in two movies, says she has also appeared in catalogs and magazines. Witness says she has played a character who was abused. This will be a key a part of the defense strategy in casting doubt….

Assistant District Attorney objects to the defense showing child's acting/model photographs. Defense wants to ask the child about her ability to remember rehearsed lines. The judge overruled.

Defense then showed child her resume from a movie web site, asking her about acting lessons….

Witness says she was abused by Tonya Craft when she [was] in her kindergarten class and while in the first grade. Defense attorney is asking child who she talked to about coming to court. The child said her therapist….

Witness asked what she thought of Craft as a teacher. Said, "I didn't like her." Defense trying to prove that isn't true. Defense reading letter written to Craft by child witness and her mother thanking Tonya for her teaching. Child looking at card she wrote to Craft at end of school year. It says "I love you."

Child witness changing story about where in Tonya Craft's house molestation allegedly happened, and when. Defense still probing for answers.

Defense: "Is there anything else?"

Girl: "There is more, but I can't remember."

Child witness then added that Tonya would mow lawn in short shorts & bra….

The witness on the stand says Craft molested her six or more times. When the defense attorney asked her why she didn't remember before, she said, "I just remembered."

Obviously, none of this is conclusive one way or the other, but if this is the general quality of the testimony against Craft (and presumably the prosecutors led with their strongest witness), reasonable doubt will be inescapable. Anderson notes that the usual line from accusers in cases like this is that we must "believe the children," but it's clear from overturned convictions and academic research (not to mention everyday experience) that little kids frequently will insist that something happened when it did not, especially if they are repeatedly coached by adult authority figures (who themselves may sincerely believe that abuse occurred). Here we have a 9-year-old recalling what allegedly happened when she was 5, with who knows how many intervening conversations aimed at eliciting descriptions of abuse. Furthermore, Anderson reports, several children who were at Craft's house when some of the abuse allegedly occurred insist that nothing untoward happened. If so, "believe the children" does not bring us any closer to the truth.

Anderson says the indictments in this case, which charge Craft with 22 counts of child molestation and aggravated sexual battery, are suspiciously vague about the timing of her alleged crimes, which compounds the difficulty of rebutting the prosecution's case. He also notes that the judge, who has been notably hostile to the defense, represented Craft's ex-husband in divorce proceedings as a lawyer, the sort of experience that could be expected to bias him against her. He rejected defense requests to recuse himself. After the prosecution, with the help of local media outlets, dragged Craft's name through the mud, the judge imposed a gag order that prevented her from defending herself in public.

Craft's supporters have a website.

Advertisement

NEXT: Income Tax Blast From the Past: How Many Taxpayers Does it Take to Support A Boondoggle?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The rational approach to child molestation charges is to simply dismiss them.

    1. The rational approach to libertymike’s comments is to simply ignore them. However, in this case I feel an urge to tell him to fuck off.

      1. Strike a nerve? Rational response much.

        1. And your hyperbolic post was completely rational…

          1. Attributing hyperbole where it ain’t is, well…hyperbolic.

            1. Two possibilities:

              a) You were exaggerating when you said all child molestation charges should be dismissed (hyperbole)

              or

              b) You actually think all child molestation charges are false, which is irrational.

    2. The troll troll to troll to troll troll troll is to troll troll them.

  2. Children’s minds are like a piece of clay. If a child’s testimony (especially one as weak as the one above) is all the evidence prosecution can come up with, Craft should be set free.

    “There is more, but I can’t remember” really struck me as something a coached witness would say.

    1. Absolutely, if the testimony sounds coached or there are other reasons to doubt it, the jury should discount it. However, SOP for molesters is to get the child alone and manipulate the child into not telling anyone after the deed is done. So testimony that was not immediately reported should not be automatically dismissed for that reason.

      1. agreed

      2. It seems to me that physical evidence would have to be pretty important in cases like this. Has there been any word on what evidence there is like that?

        There are few things worse than molesting a child, but being accused of molesting a child when you’re innocent is up there on the list. So is an abuser getting away with it. So one way or the other something awful has occurred here, and doing away with the presumption of innocence in these types of cases won’t mitigate that any.

        1. There’s not going to be any physical evidence if the child doesn’t report it immediately. But yes, it is a difficult situation, because we also don’t want innocent people being convicted. But consistently letting child molesters off is going to lead to vigilanteism.

          1. But consistently letting child molesters off is going to lead to vigilanteism.

            Your point being?

            1. If you give a shit about making sure innocent people aren’t punished, then vigilanteism is the last thing you want to see.

              1. So the State and it’s judicial system doesn’t punish innocents? Way to put Balko out of a job! Maybe he can go to the Sorbonne and study political economy or public policy or something. Get an unpaid internship with Veronique when he graduates.

                1. I’ll take the criminal justice system’s record over the record of lynch mobs any day.

                  1. I’ll take the criminal justice system’s record over the record of lynch mobs any day.

                    The child molestation scare of the ’80’s and ’90’s turned the criminal justice system into a lynch mob.

                    1. The Oxbow Incident did a pretty good job of brainwashing a lot of people.Where’s your libertarian respect of spontaneous order? Most lynchings were of scumbags guilty of heinous crimes.

                    2. What a mess. Being a juror in a case like this must feel like being at the Salem trials if there really were occasionally such a thing as witches.

                      But the judge was her ex-husband’s divorce lawyer? If that’s not grounds for recusal, what is?

                  2. Really? You’re pretty schooled in all this. Maybe you can be the prosecution’s expert in cases w/o physical evidence.

                    I only know one thing for sure. The outcome of this trial is irrelevant to Ms. Croft. From Day One, she was convicted and punished. Incarceration will be a welcome break for her.

                    1. Above is in response to Tulpa’s opining on lynch mobs vs Justice system.

                      No idea why it ended up here.

                      Also, you’d take your chances even with a biased judge? Tad irrational, no?

                    2. From Day One, she was convicted and punished. Incarceration will be a welcome break for her.

                      How so?

                2. I would gladly take an unpaid internship with Ms. De Rugy.

          2. :But consistently letting child molesters off is going to lead to vigilanteism.

            If there is no corroborating evidence, letting them go is the only right thing to do.

            It is said that child molesters are repeat offenders. I wonder why it never occurred to anyone to get a warrant to plant concealed and disguised listening and video recording devices in places where a suspected child molester might be alone with a child?

            1. Apparently they were too cheap and hurried to bring in Chris Hansen.

      3. Tulpa|4.14.10 @ 8:05PM|#
        “…SOP for molesters is to get the child alone and manipulate the child into not telling anyone after the deed is done….”

        Pretty obvious; if you are to molest a child, you wouldn’t do it in public, and you’d attempt to keep the child from talking about it.
        But that doesn’t address the vague claim that ‘there’s more but I can’t remember’.

        1. Oh, I agree that testimony stinks to high heaven, and if the defense brings other kids to testify that nothing happened I don’t see how this guy doesn’t get acquitted. I’m just challenging the idea that all child testimony should be ignored.

          1. I don’t think anyone’s arguing that. But what did in the McMartins/Buckeys was that the children’s testimony was viewed as unimpeachable simply because we didn’t want child molesters to get away with it.

            A professional jailhouse snitch’s testimony shouldn’t be ignored either. But it is fully within the defense’s rights to point out the vast amount of evidence out there that the testimony of children this age, particularly when they have been coaches by adults, is particularly unreliable.

            So I’d honestly want to know the full circumstances around the how and why these accusations came to light. You can’t really blame people for being concerned about folks getting fair trials in cases like this given what’s gone on in the past.

            1. Voros McCracken|4.14.10 @ 9:19PM|#
              “I don’t think anyone’s arguing that.”

              I’m sure not, but the testimony of children is *highly* suspect, and needs *very* careful corroboration.
              Kids (me, too, that long ago) are the world’s champions at imaginary friends, villains and circumstances. Hell, I ‘remember’ relations with all sorts of teachers. And fuzzy unicorns…
              This sort of a case needs the most objective judge a jurisdiction can possibly find; this judge’s history with respect to the defense attorney clearly doesn’t meet that criteria

              1. You had relations with fuzzy unicorns? That’s a little weird.

                1. Only consenting, legal-age fuzzy unicorns.
                  Unlike the teachers………

    2. “”There is more, but I can’t remember” strikes me as lying little brat making shit up as she goes along.

      1. In this case, I tend to agree. I also wonder if her parents are the type to placate the girl’s every wish and believe every word that drops out of her mouth.

        I do often wonder the motivation of parents that push thier kids into being the next child star or print model, besides the obvious of vicariously living through the child. I personally think this throwing gas on a fire, as children are naturally self-centered and given to magical thinking.

  3. It is SOP for molesters to get the child alone and manipulate the child into not telling anyone after the deed is done?

    You must watch a lot of Law & Order/SVU. I didn’t think you were a such a big fan of Marsha Coakley and Tom Reilly.

    1. DUde, it’s plain to see you don’t know a thing about child molestation. Why don’t you find another topic to blather about mindlessly before you embarrass yourself further with this one?

      1. Wait, Tulpa…just how much do you know about molesting children?

        1. Clearly more than Libertymike… by his own admission

          Perhaps we should organize an ad hoc vigilante mob. Who’s got rope?

        2. I know enough.

          1. That sounds ominous. Do you have to stay 1000 feet away from schools?

            1. Har dee fucking har.

            2. Do you?

              1. No, dipshit. One does not have to be a child molester to be aware of how they operate.

                By all means, continue casting aspersions on the motivation of anyone who disagrees with you. I wouldn’t expect the usual H&R suspects to behave out of character.

                1. My comment was directed to Episiarch. Not you Tulpa. My sincerest apologies for the confusion.

                  1. Actually, so was mine. I like the nested commenting structure, but you need to be able to discern more than 3 nesting levels.

                    1. more than 3 nesting levels

                    2. I like the nested commenting structure

                      I dont, because you cant tell at a quick glance where new comments have been added. Threading only works with accounts, so that messages can be marked as “new”.

                      Im okay with threading plus accounts.
                      Im okay with no threading plus no accounts.

                      3 levels deep is just stupid.

                      For a decent system, check out the forums at beeradvocate.com. Infinite levels – when you come back to a thread, new messages are marked for you. Works really,really well.

  4. Ten to one the prosecutor is planning to run for higher office.

    1. I fear you are right.

      These past few years have turned my suspicion of defense attorneys into hate of prosecutors. I’ve learned that prosecutors have way too much self interest in prosecuting the innocent. Their behavior will not change until their career incentives have changed. I pray for the day that honest prosecutors are promoted based on merit instead of rate of conviction.

      1. Their behavior will not change until their career incentives have changed. I pray for the day that honest prosecutors are promoted based on merit instead of rate of conviction.

        What we need are effective deterrents, such as vigilante violence against them.

        One or two high profile incidents will stop this, just like it stopped publications of cartoons of Mohammed.

  5. Well said.

    It pretty much comes down to what physical evidence they have. If there is physical evidence, by all means run her through the shredder.

    On the other hand, if the case has been brought with nothing but the word of a child who could have been coached and no other evidence, the prosecutor should be disbarred and run through that exact same shredder.

  6. I’m also willing to suggest that the child might have concocted the story to advance her acting career (I could be in a made-for-tv movie about myself!), and picked the teacher to get revenge for something.

    The whole idea that innocent little girls don’t flat out lie is just as stupid today as during the Salem Witch Trials. She might have just done it to see if she could get away with it.

    Especially child actresses … they’re easily the most evil of all children.

    1. “Especially child actresses … they’re easily the most evil of all children.”

      HAHA!

      1. Not kidding. Think about it.

        A) Vain
        B) Good liars
        C) Female

        All that adds up to EVIL.

        1. Female = evil?

          1. Fuck Yeah. Well maybe not zoltan. She seems pretty un-evil

          2. Girls are definitely more evil than boys. I’ve been through middle school.

            1. Mathematical proof:

              All boys know that getting girls takes time and money:

              girls = time * money

              Businessmen say that time is money:

              time = money

              so:

              girls = money^2;

              Philosophers say that money is the root of all evil:

              money = sqrt(evil)

              so:

              girls = (sqrt(evil))^2

              Simplifying:

              girls = evil

              QED

              1. girls = +/- evil (there is a negative root too).

                Which works out. They are either evil or the most awesome invention* ever. Often changing from one to the other within mere seconds.

                *Yes, I said invention. Call me a creationist if you want.

                1. Just realized your proof goes about things in a different way than Ive seen before, eliminating the negative root. But trust me, it exists.

    2. Ah, yes, The Children’s Hour, the movie that shows that even young girls are gossipy, backstabbing bitches.

  7. Dennis: Timmy, will you recite for our husky friend here the little courtroom speech we prepared?

    Timmy: I have a friend, his name is Wendell. He showed me funny movies with furry naked people in them. He gives me juice boxes that make me sleepy.

    Wendell: All right, I get it.

    Timmy: He’s silly. He’s a tickle monster!

    Wendell: Listen, kid, I said I get it, OK?

    Timmy: He makes me taste things I don’t want to. He puts things in my hiney.

    Wendell: Goddammit, will you make the kid stop? Please, come on.

    Dee: Yeah, I think that ought to do it.

    Dennis: Yeah, that’s good, Timmy. So you’ll leave?

    Wendell: Yeah. I’ll leave. [winks at Timmy as he closes the door]

  8. I find the judge’s actions particularly appalling. Any conviction should be overturned on appeal because the judge has a history of being adversarial, in court, to the defendant.

    1. Yeah, I find it hard to believe the guy would NOT recuse himself. Must fancy himself a real Judge Roy Bean.

  9. I wonder how this affects the credibility of child molestation accusations against Catholic priests.

    Could we blame the Church for covering up accusations of child molestation against priests, especially after the whole debacle of innocent people being convicted for crimes that never happened ?

    1. Actually, when the priests accused were relieved of the charge of one parish amid a scandal and sent to another, with subsequent accusations arising and not defrocking the priest, yeah I could. Is correlation causation? No. However, a case such as I mentioned increases the public hysteria.

      You made an excellent point upthread about corroboration BTW.

    2. We’re seeing some truly heinous opinions rearing their heads in this thread.

      No, fuckwad, dubious testimony in a different case does not affect credibility of accusations against priests in general. And the Catholic Church should use a different criterion for who it allows to run a parish than the criminal justice system does to decide who goes to jail.

    3. One of the problems the Church had was that in the 1970-80’s, there was no system in place for dealing with accusations of child abuse, dubious or otherwise. Local bishops had wide discretion in the matter, and ususally chose “image of institution” over “err on side of caution.”

      1. One of the problems the Church had was that in the 1970-80’s, there was no system in place for dealing with accusations of child abuse, dubious or otherwise.

        In the ’80’s, it would have been perfectly justified to presume all accusations of child abuse as dubious.

  10. Perhaps we need a ban on being alone with children. Or, perhaps 24 hour undie cams on all children.

    I’ll tell you, I’m very uncomfortable watching my niece (10) and nephew (6) for my cousin. Especially since she is in the process of a nasty divorce and child custody case. If her ex ever accused me of something, I would kill him, literally, and I’d rather not go to prison for murder. So, I avoid being alone with the kids.

    1. Forgot to mention, I have a felony conviction for drug possession on my sheet, so anything I say, would be instantly discredited.

      1. Were it me, I wouldn’t ‘avoid’ being alone with the kids, I’d simply never do it. Period. Never. Under any circumstance.
        It’ll be *far* cheaper for you to hire a babysitter than it will to pay legal fees.

        1. On the other hand, it’s better to go to prison for murder than child rape. Just sayin’.

    2. Or, perhaps 24 hour undie cams on all children.

      I know. We can have volunteers monitor them on the internet!

      1. Tulpa might be up for that.

        1. Was that trip really necessary?

    3. See, this is the problem with H&R. It’s always one extreme or the other. Either you are against considering child testimony in dealing with alleged crimes that only the child himself or herself could have witnessed, or you support underwear cameras.

      1. Not true. But children are notorious for making things up; that’s what kids do.
        It needs to be treated (at best) as similar to jail-house rats; *extremely* suspect, requiring serious corroboration.

      2. Im against ANYONE’s testimoney in dealing with alleged crimes that only htat person could have witnessed.

        Eye witness testimony is that unreliable.

        I need physical corraboration or a 2nd or 3rd witness.

        1. And, yes, I realize that allows a lot of rapists to walk.

          1. No, it doesn’t; if the criminal justice system doesn’t handle them, vigilantes will — along with people who would have ultimately been acquitted if the justice system could be trusted.

            1. That’s the point Tulpa, the justice system ISN’T trusted. With the general public believing (rightly) that one can get as much justice as they can afford it’s little wonder the amount of skepticism. Couple that with the (correct) perception of cutthroat prosecutors out for high conviction ratio and less interest in truth and justice, the legal system has poisoned it’s own well.

              And no, I do not advocate vigilante justice either. The public also is incumbent upon accepting an acquittal. Unfortunately, as I said downthread, all it takes is an accusation and a reputation is ruined.

              1. And no, I do not advocate vigilante justice either. The public also is incumbent upon accepting an acquittal. Unfortunately, as I said downthread, all it takes is an accusation and a reputation is ruined.

                What we need are laws that force the public to accept acquittal.

            2. Bullshit. This is the way the system is supposed to work. Convictions should only occur without reasonable doubt and any SINGLE eye witness testimony cannot reach that standard. Any eye witness can be reasonably doubted even if you are 100% sure they believe what they are saying.

              Thus, a conviction on single eye witness testimony cant happen. And wont lead to vigilantism. Hell, are Georgians going to lynch Roethlisberger the next time he plays the Falcons in Atlanta?

              1. Doesn’t your outlook make rape more or less improsecutable?

                1. 10:05 was an attempted reply to robc. I forgot about the “three nesting levels” too.

                2. Doesn’t your outlook make rape more or less improsecutable?

                  Nope. DNA evidence would validate the testimony, or, for that matter, replace it in many cases.

                  It would make he said/she said date rape type cases almost unprosecutable, but based on the Roethlisberger case, it seems that is already true. The prosecutor seems pretty sure he was guilty of something, but nothing he can prove.

      3. Either you are against considering child testimony … or you support underwear cameras.

        That’s not true. There’s plenty of middle ground. For instance, children could monitor eachother underwear cameras, and then give testimony.

        1. Teaching them sexting early Hazel? LOL

          It would certainly teach biology in a practical manner.

      4. Tulpa, it’s not so much extremes; the very nature of the case makes legal objectivity difficult for a jury. Especially if the jurists have children: any parent would wonder “What if that was my kid? What would I do?”

        On the flip side, It’s like sexual harrassment cases: once you are accused, you are considered guilty in the eyes of society. I find it repugnant that a mere accusation from a disgruntled or duplicitous employee can ruin someone’s life. And the same goes for children. I tend to side with extreme skepticism regarding eyewitness testimony, and I also take second and third hand testimony with some salt as well (except where salt is void and prohibited). This issue is definitely a case by case basis, because yeah, this one stinks.

        We already had the lynch mob discussion Tulpa and that ended in a respectful draw. Perhaps I would have more trust in the legal system if it was more interested in the truth than politicized justice.

        Because regarding these types of cases, I see little difference between the two.

        1. Salt might be illegal in NYC soon Groovus 🙁

          I can’t really add anything more other than agree that guilty until proven innocent is the standard in these types of accusations. Just the accusation itself can lead to one’s life being ruined. I doubt he will have an easy time finding another teaching job.

          However, I do ask myself why a child would lie about it?

          Just to be a bit snarky, slightly jokingly, maybe the parents should be arrested on child endangerment for improperly supervising the child.

          1. I doubt he will have an easy time finding another teaching job.

            The defendent, Ms. Craft, is female. 😉

          2. However, I do ask myself why a child would lie about it?

            Haven’t studies shown that a child will lie to please an authority figure (parent, cop, lawyer, therapist, etc>? And hasn’t it been shown that one can get a child to say almost anything if you ask/lead them?

          3. I can’t really add anything more other than agree that guilty until proven innocent is the standard in these types of accusations. Just the accusation itself can lead to one’s life being ruined. I doubt he will have an easy time finding another teaching job.

            We need to make it a crime to discriminate against people based upon accusations. This is the only way to correct this injustice.

        2. We already had the lynch mob discussion Tulpa and that ended in a respectful draw.

          I can’t imagine any discussion where I held respect for advocacy of lynch mobs.

          1. As long as said mob is subsidized, deputized with shiny badges and has full support of the state, then that’s ok with you?

      5. “See, this is the problem with H&R. It’s always one extreme or the other.”

        Yeah, good thing political discussion on the internet isn’t generally like that.

  11. I didn’t advocate them either. My mistake; the discussion was about state intrusiveness v. community intrusiveness. Point is, it was a good discussion free of ad homs.

  12. Speaking more seriously, I bet events happened something like this…

    Cute, precocious golden child, is favorite in the kindergarten class, including teacher’s pet. Girl feels special friendship with teacher.

    Girl’s acting career kicks off. Surrounded by adoring adults, center of attention. Develops insane ego.

    Girl continues to demand attention from favorite teacher. Kindergarten teacher ever so gently starts shifting attention to other children, such as kindergartners. Tell little girl to stay in her class and stop interrupting her.

    Girl feels betrayed. Favorite teacher doesn’t really love her. Favorite teacher lied! Girl hates teacher now!

    Girl makes up story she knows will hurt teacher, to get back at her for hurting her feelings.

    1. Tarzan make up story about girl. Tarzan feel smart.

    2. Apparently you have studied quite a bit psychology. That is pretty much how I could see the case unfolding regarding the tot’s motivation. Just because the child (very likely) has an inflated sense of self importance shouldn’t give license to wreck a career.

      It also doesn’t help when we have a society that sees a sociopath behind every tree.

    3. The only problem with this narrative is that there are two other complaining witnesses who have yet to testify. They could corroborate the actresses’ testimony.

      1. Girl’s best friends forever.

        You know, I’m sure kid #1 is the most popular girl in the class, and has a cohort of little minions.

  13. Chad tries a bold bluff, doesn’t realize I know how to use excel:

    https://reason.com/blog/2010/04…..nt_1658006

    1. Not the first time Chad has revealed a level of ignorance astonishing for someone who supposedly aced his econ and stats classes.

      Anyone else remember how he claimed that Das Kapital was easier to read then the bible?

  14. this is a case that needs more scrutiny by national media. i hope reason will do some coverage of it itself and maybe attract some national attention. ive read alot about cases like this where people got convicted on dubious child testimony. Juries have always had a hard time acquitting accused child molesters. I don’t like Ms. Crafts odd at Trial. I had hoped these kinds of cases were behind us. They undermine real child molestation accusations.

  15. Set aside the awful nature of the crime and this is so far just a case of “he said, she said” unless there is more evidence the prosecution has given that is not being presented ITFA. I’m not clear on whether the 22 counts relates to 22 students or 22 events with less students, but in any case, lack of physical evidence and the non-objective nature of such cases suggest to me that as a juror, I would be inclined to acquit based on the history of child testimony (there is no reason for a child to tell the truth or even relate a lack of remembering the truth as there is no consequence for lying as a minor and a great deal of benefit to saying what the prosecution wants to hear).

    Frankly, there is little evidence that people working in the child care sector have little solid history of child abuse compared with the relatives of children.

    1. lack of physical evidence and the non-objective nature of such cases suggest to me that as a juror, I would be inclined to acquit based on the history of child testimony (there is no reason for a child to tell the truth or even relate a lack of remembering the truth as there is no consequence for lying as a minor and a great deal of benefit to saying what the prosecution wants to hear).

      And this is why you’d never be on the jury. I’m a conservative, generally pro-prosecution type, but when I was called for criminal juries in Cleveland, OH, prosecutors dismissed me every time after getting the answers to 2 questions:

      1. What’s your job? (Student at NYU Law. One prosecutor needed to ask if that was in New York, to the amusement and disbelief of the high powered defense attorney)
      2. Do you understand what “innocent until proven guilty” means? (Yes.)

      Tough to get an intelligent jury when the prosecution strikes all the smart people.

      1. Let’s be fair. Defense attorney’s don’t want intelligence either. If you can’t be swayed by emotional testimony, then all the attorney’s have to fall back on is the facts of the case, which hardly makes lawyers worth their dime. Lawyers get rich and powerful off of rhetoric, not technical knowledge (some exceptions not withstanding)

        1. Yes, I too get all my knowledge of how a lawyer sways the jury from Law and Order.

          1. Well, that and the OJ Simpson trial.

  16. These past few years have turned my suspicion of defense attorneys into hate of prosecutors.

    You can have both.

    I hate defense attorneys for pretending to defend people. Almost none of them ever really do it. They just steal desperate people’s money.

    By the standard of acquittal, the profession has a 90% failure rate?if you don’t count pleas as failures, which most of them are. They’re not trying. And if they are, they’re trying to put people in prison.

    And they’re lawyers.

  17. Why don’t we see if she weighs the same as a duck? The should give a quick resolution to the trial.

  18. This was when he ran angainst house
    http://www.ethics.georgia.gov/…..=candidate

  19. #TonyaCraft

  20. The one good thing Sean Penn has done in his career: Witch Hunt Movie

    This actually took place in my hometown and affected my family. The story of Tonya Craft sounds all too familiar. In the story I linked, they were able to get groups of kids to ‘confess’ and corroborate events that were impossible to have taken place – to the point that these kids actually believed what they were saying. They harmed the kids by getting them to believe they were harmed…

    1. Too bad Penn thinks Chavez is just as innocent…

  21. What we need is a moratorium on all child molestation prosecutions until we can fix the system.

    1. Yup, ignore the facts and specific content of each case and treat them all the same way! Because if one is false, they all must be!

      1. Yup, ignore the facts and specific content of each case and treat them all the same way! Because if one is false, they all must be!

        Let us fix the system first , and then go after the kiddie diddlers.

  22. Wow, I believe those kids are lying for attention, or maybe the parents or someone put them up to it. Funny cuz my little brother said he was molested when he was about 5 by a family friend… at first he was acting like it wasn’t the big of a deal then saw the attention and made up stories and ofcourse EVERYONE believed him. He told me now that it was all a lie, and ofcourse I knew it was cuz I was THERE when it supposedly happened.. Kids will lie… especially if everyone made a huge deal about it already cuz I did it at school once when a girl accidentally bumped her head on my nose and it bled.. someone thought she hit me and so i just agreed and got alot of attention..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.