WCI Contributors Make Their Predictions on the Casey Anthony Trial

*Blogger went offline Wednesday and apparently took our last two posts with it. They have fixed their technical difficulties and we have reposted today's blog. We apologize for any inconvenience. 

With the start of the Casey Anthony trial this week, in the death of her daughter Caylee, we’ve devoted several posts to the outcome of the trial. But none of these have the predictions of the “experts” here at Women in Crime Ink! At the end of the trial, we’ll see which one of our contributors hit the mark. Place your bets ladies: "Guilty" or "Not Guilty?"

Holly Hughes: “Casey is going down. She will be found guilty but will not receive the death penalty. The physical evidence, the circumstantial evidence and her own inexplicable behavior will be too much for a jury to ignore. However, the jury will want to parcel out the blame under the old adage, 'The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.' They won't put her to death.” 

Dr. Gina Simmons: “A jury will likely find Casey Anthony guilty because evidence of her pattern of deception and callousness seems irrefutable. Juries don't like callous liars. Since only one tenth of one percent of female murderers were death sentenced, it's likely she'll get a far more lenient sentence than a man who committed the same crime.” 

Diane Fanning: “Casey Anthony’s trail of lies will lead the jurors straight to a verdict of guilty. There is probably a small chance of a hung jury, but I think Casey’s continuous prevarication and her disinterest in the whereabouts of her missing child will not allow any panel of twelve to acquit her of the charges. Then, at last, there will be justice for little Caylee." (Diane's book, Mommy's Little Girl, was the first to be released and takes an in-depth look into this fascinating but tragic case.)

Dr. Michelle Golland: "Casey Anthony will be found guilty because she did it. I would like to see George Anthony reveal what I believe he knows about what happened to Caylee. He should clean his conscience, already. Cindy knows her daughter played a role in her granddaughter’s death, but due to her narcissism, will never expose herself." 

Donna Pendergast: “The jury will come back 'Guilty' on all counts but will not render the death penalty. The circumstantial evidence of guilt is overwhelming which will result in a conviction despite the fact that jurors will not want to believe that a young mother could do this to her child. The jury will mitigate their doubts by not rendering a death penalty verdict during the penalty phase. We are all in for some high drama; hang on to your seat.” 

Cathy Scott: “My prediction is that the jury throws the book at Casey with a guilty verdict. While it's a circumstantial case, that circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly points a finger directly at Casey, right down to the same duct tape on little Caylee's mouth that was found at the Anthony family's home, to the death odor discovered in the trunk of Casey's car. They're tough visions to shake.” 

Robin Sax: “The amount of evidence in this case is overwhelming, circumstantial or not. I mean, you don't get cases with as much 'stuff' as this one. But like most pretty girls, and since it gives the jury an out, I say no death penalty.” 

Anne Bremner: “I wouldn't want to be an attorney for the already damned. But I think there may be a creative defense about which we will hear in the first minute of the defense opening statement. Stay tuned. And fasten your seatbelts. It is going to be a bumpy, interesting and ultimately tragic--guilty verdict or not--ride.” 

Pat Brown: “Guilty, but I think they won’t give her the death penalty because of her psychological problems and all that 'physical and sex abuse' she suffered in her family. If nothing else, they will think they can’t blame her entirely for her viciousness because 'Cindy AKA The Devil made her do it.' ” 

Stacy Dittrich: “I’m giving it a 60/40 in favor of a guilty verdict. The 40 percent is reserved that 'one' juror who may or may not hold out for a myriad of reasons. It is always a possibility. Definitely no death penalty.”

What is your prediction? Let us know.

Tweet

Break Out the Party Hats and Champagne; We're Celebrating!

Time flies, the saying goes, especially when having fun. Obviously, we’re having a blast at Women in Crime Ink. So much so that an important event nearly slipped past us!

What’s the big deal about March 10, 2010? It's our second anniversary.

In all honesty, we've been so busy, it hardly seems like two years, at least not until one peruses the links trailing seemingly to infinity in our right hand column, subjects we’ve covered over the past twenty-four months. Our contributors have weighed in on sensational cases making headlines, from Casey Anthony’s psychological peculiarities to Manson follower Susan Atkins’ deathbed bid for freedom. In our posts, we’ve covered mobsters and mayhem, human traffickers and bank robbers, poison, passion, and Marge Simpson’s provocative Playboy spread.

Our unique perspective on the world of crime hasn’t gone unnoticed. On June 2, 2009, the esteemed Wall Street Journal featured WCI on its pages, lauding it as “a blog worth reading.” WSJ editor Becky Bright wrote: “Women in Crime Ink is hosted by a cast of female journalists, lawyers, authors, and others with a passion for true crime. It has amassed an extensive archive of essays and commentary from women’s perspectives about crime and the court system.”

When we began the blog in 2008, we christened it “a well of thoughts on crime and media issues from women criminal justice professionals and authors.” We still have a solid core of the founders among us. In addition, other great contributors have signed on, women we’re proud to have in our ranks.

So on this day, as we turn two, we’d like to reintroduce ourselves to all our readers. Once again, here are the voices of Women in Crime Ink:

Deborah Blum is a Pulitzer-prize winning science writer, a journalism professor at the University of Wisconsin, and the author of six books, the most recent, The Poisoner's Handbook, exploring Jazz Age New York City's murderous history. Kirkus calls it: “Caviar for true crime fans and science buffs alike.” From the cover: "a pair of forensic scientists began their trailblazing chemical detective work, fighting to end an era when untraceable poisons offered an easy path to the perfect crime."

Pat Brown is a renowned Criminal Profiler and 24/7 news fixture, with appearances on The Today Show, The CBS Early Show, HLN’s Nancy Grace and Issues with JaneVelez-Mitchell, Larry King and Joy Behar, FOX, MSNBC Prime News, Dr. Phil and others. The Discovery Channel, Court TV, and National Geographic feature Pat in documentaries and series. Pat is the author of Killing for Sport:Inside the Minds of Serial Killer. Her second book, The Profiler: My Life Hunting Serial Killers and Psychopaths debuts May 18, 2010.

Andrea Campbell writes books about forensic science and law. She holds a criminal justice degree and is a forensic artist whose work includes sculpturally recreating victims’ facial features from skulls. She is Editor of Arkansas Identification News (an IAI group) and an American College of Forensic Examiners International Diplomat and Fellow.

Kathryn Casey is the author of six true crime books. Ann Rule calls Casey "one of the best in the genre." Her latest, Shattered, debuts in July. Singularity, the first in her Sarah Armstrong mystery series, was picked as one of the top crime novel debuts of 2009 by Booklist magazine. The third in the series, The Killing Storm, will be out in November. Casey has appeared on Oprah, Montel, Nancy Grace, truTV, Investigation Discovery, E! and A&E.

Lisa R. Cohen is an Emmy award-winning television news magazine producer with over 20 years in network news, including ABC News PrimeTime Live and CBS News “60 Minutes.” She is also the author of After Etan: The Missing Child Case That Held America Captive. Cohen is an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, and was a Princeton University Ferris Professor of Journalism.

Diane Dimond has reported for Court TV, EXTRA, and Hard Copy, and has hosted MSNBC’s “Missing Persons,” NPR’s “All Things Considered,” and co-hosted a show with Geraldo Rivera. The award-winning journalist and author of Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case also writes for The Huffington Post and appears regularly on Entertainment Tonight.

Stacy Dittrich is an award winning former police officer, and media consultant. A co-host of Justice Interrupted, she's appeared on Fox, The O’Reilly Factor, CNN, Geraldo at Large, The Nancy Grace Show, Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell, and E! True Hollywood in Crime. The author of the CeeCee Gallagher detective series, Stacy's first true crime book is Murder Behind the Badge: True Stories of Cops Who Kill.

Diane Fanning is the Edgar-nominated author of ten true-crime books and four mystery novels. Diane has appeared on 48 Hours, 20/20, Forensic Files, and radio stations from coast to coast. She is currently under contract for three books—two true crime titles and one mystery novel. Her bestselling book on the Casey Anthony case, Mommy's Little Girl, was released in fall 2009.

Laura James is an attorney, true-crime author, and crime historian living in Detroit, Michigan. The former reporter is the woman behind CLEWS, a literary blog devoted to the true-crime genre. Laura’s first book came out in May 2009: The Love Pirate and the Bandit's Son: Murder, Sin, and Scandal in the Shadow of Jesse James.

Vanessa Leggett has written essays for Newsweek and Texas Monthly, editorials for the Houston Chronicle, and articles for the Justice Department, which jailed her for protecting sources on a murder case. A former English and Criminology instructor at the University of Houston-Downtown, Vanessa writes and lectures. Her book on the case that landed her in jail is awaiting publication.

Susan Murphy-Milano is a nonfiction author and violence expert--a defender of victims' rights. Susan has appeared on Oprah, 20/20, American Justice, and CNN. Susan's third book,” Time’s Up: A Guide On How To Leave and Survive Abusive Relationships” will be released in April, 2010. Susan is also a co-host of the weekly television and interactive Internet crime show: Crime Wire. When there is no place for families to find answers and seek justice, “The Crime Wire Team is there.”

Cassie Nelson is Women in Crime Ink's representative from the younger generation. A high school senior, Cassie interned for WCI contributor Robin Sax last summer, and she's stayed on interning at WCI. Her posts have explored everything from dancing in underwear and Octomom to Jaycee Dugard's rescue. Cassie plans to attend law school after receiving her undergraduate degree. In her free time, she trains daily with a kick-boxing coach.

Donna Pendergast is a career prosecutor specializing in homicides. She has tried 100 murder cases, boasts a 98% conviction rate, and put away the most prolific serial killer in U. S. history. Donna has appeared on 60 Minutes, The Montel Williams Show, Dateline NBC, True Hollywood Story, Cold Case Files, and other television and radio venues, featuring her serial and sexual homicide cases.

Robin Sax is a former prosecutor in Los Angeles, where she specialized in sex crimes against children for fifteen years. An author and legal analyst, she appears on Larry King Live, HNL Prime News and The Today Show. A co-founder of Justice Interrupted, a top-ranked radio show highlighting cases that haven't received media attention, Robin is a the author of "SaxFacts," a weekly digest/blog.

Katherine Scardino is a defense attorney who has handled 39 capital murder cases. She received the first Not Guilty verdict in 25 years for the State of Texas in a death penalty case, and recently received another acquittal in a capital trial. Katherine has appeared on Court TV, TODAY, Bill O’Reilly, MSNBC, and American Justice. She has several capital murder cases pending.

Cathy Scott's work has appeared in The New York Times Magazine, New York Post, San Diego Union-Tribune, and Las Vegas Sun. Known for her true crime books The Killing of Tupac Shakur and The Murder of Biggie Smalls, Cathy taught journalism at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Her most recent appearances include Investigation Discovery and VH1. Her next book is about Barbara Kogan, charged with the two-decades-old murder of her husband.

Donna Weaver is an investigator for The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency. She began her education and training after the disappearance and murder of her husband in 1983. Donna is an area director for the Bahamas and Caribbean Region for The Doe Network - International Center for Unidentified and Missing Persons.

Janet Braunstein was a professional journalist and editor for more than 20 years at The Associated Press, newspapers, magazines, internet sites and Agence France-Press. She won multiple awards covering automotive electronics and safety technology. She updated and edited Every Bite a Delight, a collection of advertising slogans. Her interest in the local arts scene includes listening to, editing and encouraging original storytelling, poetry, lyrics and music.

As we concluded our very first post, we say again: Welcome to Women in Crime Ink, your source for the real story behind crime and media issues.

Tweet

A Plea to Casey Marie Anthony

by Robin Sax

When interesting twists on today’s crimes stories are becoming more often the case than not, it still constantly amazes just how much evidence there is in the case of the People of the State of Florida versus Casey Marie Anthony, whom Nancy Grace so aptly coined “Tot Mom.”

The case of Casey Anthony has triggered many emotions. How can a young mother to a beautiful child seemingly murder that child? While so many people are uncomfortable with the notion of a young attractive mom killing her child, it amazes me how quickly people forget just how much evidence there is in this case. There is more evidence in this case than most—and I mean by a long shot.

By way of reminder in this case the prosecution’s evidence looks like this:

1. The defendant being caught in numerous lies about material facts;

2. friends saying the defendant had a history and a reputation for lying;

3. the defendant’s mom Cindy Anthony calling 9-1-1 saying that she had not seen Caylee for weeks (Tot Mom didn’t even report her own daughter missing);

4. the defendant’s dad (who was a former police officer) smelling an odor that was unmistakably that of a dead body in Tot Mom’s car;

5. the defendant stealing money from her mother and committing crimes against her own parents which show callousness and are depictive of her moral turpitude;

6. chloroform searches turning up on Tot Mom’s computer (Ring a bell? Recall Scott Peterson’s trial where his computer showed searches for tide patterns in the water where his wife was found murdered);

7. little Caylee being found less than a mile from the Anthony home;

8. pictures EVERYWHERE showing Casey partying it up, even after Caylee was “missing”;

9. journal entries revealing that Casey had never been happier around the time that Caylee went missing;

10. Caylee’s body being discovered in a bag that also contained a Winnie the Pooh blanket that was missing from Caylee’s bed;

11. duct tape being found on Caylee’s remains with apparently deliberately placed heart sticker residue on duct tape right where Caylee’s mouth was;

12. DNA turning up in Tot Mom’s car consistent with decomposition along with traces of chloroform;

13. Medical Examiner "Dr. G” Jan Garavaglia confirming Caylee’s death was a homicide of undetermined means; and

14. PERHAPS DAMNING THE CLEAR MOTIVE . . . a girl who couldn’t hang with being a mom, wanting freedom from everything, and being willing to do anything to get it including murdering her 2½-year-old baby.

So if this is the case, Casey Marie Anthony, “Tot Mom,” please answer the following questions:

If you are not insane, why aren’t you begging for a deal?

You have said that the prosecutor is mad that you won’t plea-bargain. But aren’t you simply blaming the prosecutor instead of taking responsibility yourself—another habit of yours? Why not do what is dignified? Stop blaming Zanny the Nanny, tormenting the one and only Zenaida Gonzalez. Stop stepping on your daughter’s memory even more and seize the opportunity. Do something, for once, where you actually take responsibility. You may even appear to have a scant piece of dignity.

Yes, Casey, I am speaking to you. You should be begging for a deal, wanting to plea-bargain, and just being thankful that with the right disposition you may have a chance of being remembered as something other than the lying, selfish, narcissistic murderer that the evidence shows you are.

This post and all posts by Robin Sax do not represent the opinion of the Los Angeles County District Attorney or the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.

Tweet

Prioritize = Legalize

by Robin Sax

It’s no secret that I take crime very seriously. I am all about tough sentences and putting the bad guys away. But, come on, people. Is possession of a bong really worth ruining a guy’s career, livelihood, and reputation? I’m as tough on crime as the next guy, but suspending Michael Phelps from competitive swimming for 3 months for taking a bong hit (if he even really took the hit; all we know for sure is that he was photographed with a bong in hand). A possible prosecution for a picture of him holding a bong? Kellogg, allowing a major endorsement to expire because, “Michael’s behavior is not consistent with the image of Kellogg”?

I am not suggesting that Michael Phelps should be treated any differently than anybody else. I am not here arguing that Kobe Bryant was wrongfully accused, or that we are overly harsh with our sports stars (just ask Lawrence Philips what he thinks of me). What I am actually saying is that we need to have priorities in our criminal justice system.

Not all crimes are equal, just as not all drugs are equal. And courts, prosecutors, and cops don’t have the time or the resources to deal with the nonsense involved in simple possession of marijuana case. So, if that’s the case, why are the authorities making an example of Michael Phelps? Why are we using tax dollars to prosecute and incarcerate weed smokers?

Is it to deter kids from using and/or abusing pot? Well I think not. As Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) aptly states: “Regardless of one’s view of marijuana use as normal or immoral, healthy or unhealthy, the fact is that over 70 years of government prohibition has done little to nothing to achieve the long-stated public goals of increasing youth perception of harm from marijuana use, reducing youth access to untaxed and unregulated marijuana, increasing treatment for marijuana abuse and marijuana-related emergency room visits, and incarcerating users and dealers.”

Successful entrepreneurs and business people know that they must be effective time managers. And in order to be an effective time manager, they realize that they simply cannot do everything available to them. They have to be selective with their limited time, and consciously choose to spend it on what is most important to them.

So why does it seem that time management and court management mentioned in the same sentence seem like an oxymoron?

Why isn’t it cost effective and productive to prosecute simple marijuana cases? Because the penalties are minimal! Why is the law lenient on marijuana ? Because more than half of the American population thinks that marijuana should be legalized!

Citizens are not alone on this, by the way. In fact, last year, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced H.R. 5843: "To eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use." This a bi-partisan measure introduced by Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA] and Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX] on April 17, 2008. The bill’s goals was to remove Federal penalties for personal possession, or non-profit transfer, of up to 100 grams of marijuana.

And while those who want to legalize marijuana have a long list of arguments supporting the legalization of pot, I suggest that we use the business model of prioritizing to make a sound, well-thought-out decision. As C. Ray Johnson states in the final chapter of his book, CEO Logic: How to Think and Act Like a Chief Executive: "Prioritizing is the answer to time management problems - not computers, efficiency experts, or matrix scheduling. You do not need to do work faster or to eliminate gaps in productivity to make better use of your time. You need to spend more time on the right things. . . ."

In the criminal justice system, the “right thing” is to prosecute people who hurt others, who abuse, rape, molest, batter, use weapons, steal, stalk, or terrorize—not those who are photographed with a bong in hand.

This post and all posts by Robin Sax do not reflect the opinion of he Los Angeles County District Attorney or the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office.

Tweet

This Week's Women In Crime Appearances

Here at Women in Crime Ink, we wanted to add something new to our weekend posts. Specifically, where you can see, hear, or meet the regular contributors! We will try and update every weekend, in the event we don't have a "Mystery Man" or "Your Turn" post. As you know, many of our contributors frequently appear on radio, television, print, or in person. This way, you can join us! Whether it's Diane Dimond filling in for CNN's Nancy Grace, or Pat Brown giving 'em hell on just about every network, this is the place to see a schedule of our upcoming appearances.

This week, meet WCI renowned mystery writer Kathryn Casey at the Pulpwood Queens annual Girlfriend Weekend this coming Friday and Saturday, January 16th and 17th, in historic Jefferson, Texas. The event kicks off Friday morning at the Jefferson Tourism and Convention Center on Austin Street. Kathryn will be part of a panel billed as, "Authors in the News," scheduled to take stage at 9:45 a.m. Friday morning. Afterward, she'll meet, greet, and sign books in the Vendor and Autograph Room. Casey's first novel, SINGULARITY, debuted to rave reviews last July. Don't miss it, attendance is sure to be high! To view more about the convention, click here.

Pat Brown will be offering her take on the California Santa murders Sunday, January 11th, at 9 p.m. EDT on The Dana Pretzer Show, aired on Scared Monkeys Radio. Always a great show, Dana Pretzer is a true fan of WCI and has phenomenal people as guests.

Crime writer and Caylee Anthony author, Diane Fanning, will be appearing on "The Levi Page Show," (as seen at the top) Sunday, January, 11th at 10 p.m. EDT. Also an amazing show, Levi frequently has WCI contributors on.

And, you can always hear Robin Sax, Stacy Dittrich, and Susan Murphy-Milano every Tuesday at 11 p.m EDT on Justice Interrupted Radio. Listen as they dissect, analyze cases, crimes, and people that interrupt and wreak havoc on people’s lives. Whether it's Tina Dirmann discussing her latest crime novel, or Diane Fanning writing the latest on the Casey Anthony case, WCI contributors are the most frequent guests!

Tune in, listen in, or make a stop, but we love to know you're out there! And, as always, drop us a line to let us know your thoughts or opinions. We value them greatly!

Tweet

Economy and Crime Go Together Like Peas and Carrots

by Robin Sax

November 4 is creeping up on us, and in 47 days voters will elect the next leader of the United States. Who will it be? Barack Obama or John McCain?

Both candidates say they offer change, both tickets recognize our country is need of a serious overhaul, both think they are the one to run our country. When you look through elections past, crime, abortion, gun control was a key issue, along with the economy. Now according to the latest Gallup Poll (September 17), the “Top voter issue this year is the economy, gas prices, Iraq, healthcare, and terrorism.” So, what does this have to do with crime?

As I mentioned in my previous post, neither candidate is going to say he is soft on crime. And the true differences that we can glean from voting records may be minor in the grand scheme of things, with the major differences (based on their prior voting records) between the candidates being:

Gun Laws

John McCain: No gun restrictions for law-abiding citizens

Barack Obama: Some restrictions on certain guns

Death Penalty

John McCain: Keep death penalty as it exists

Barack Obama: Supports death penalty in certain circumstances

Drug Laws

John McCain: Tough drug sentencing, except for first-time offenders; no medical marijuana

Barack Obama: Ease some drug sentencing requirements; undecided on medical marijuana

National Security

John McCain: Increase border security before other reforms

Barack Obama: Increase border security, including fencing

Punishment

John McCain: Increased penalties and stiffer sentencing

Barack Obama: No extra punishment for gang association

The bigger difference, however, the bigger unknown and potentially the most significant way crime can be affected is in how the candidates will “change” the economy. Face it, people, the economy is in trouble! It’s been a gloomy week here in the United States and it’s only going to get gloomier until one of our change-minded future leaders can actually do something about it!

Crime is affected by the economy. In 2002, according to a report in USA TODAY, “major crimes increased slightly in the first half of 2002, with modest spikes in murder, burglary and car theft.” At the time, the numbers represented the second consecutive year in which crime rose. Analysts believe the trend is being driven primarily by a faltering economy.

So how does a faltering economy contribute to crime?

1. Financial desperation and unemployment lead people to turn to illegal ways to make money, including burglary, robbery, and other theft-related crimes.

2. Unemployed people have more time to commit crime.

3. People have less means to purchase medications (like anti-psychotics or anti-depressants) that may help control behavior.

4. People who lose their homes and are already being supervised by courts or similar government agencies are less likely to stay in touch with probation, police departments, and social services departments to ensure that they are maintaining their responsibilities and obligations. Less supervision = less accountability.

5. City and county budgets are affected, as there are increased layoffs and hiring freezes of law enforcement personnel.

6. Drug use increases in tough economic times, thus leading to more violent crimes as people become more desperate to get drugs and money.

7. Poor economic times lead to more family strife, thus increasing incidents of domestic abuse and child abuse.

8. Neighborhoods decline, and with lack of upkeep fewer people take pride in where they live, thus bringing crime into their own neighborhoods.

9. Teen pregnancies increase when the economy is weak. This leads to more children growing up in poverty.

Though economists and social scientists may take issue as to what effect the economy truly has on crime, the statistics are very telling. The bottom line is that a sustained weak economy leads to unemployment, loss of homes, and greater crime. And if you don’t believe me, look at the decreased crime that occurred during the economic surge that occurred for almost a decade in the 1990’s—the Clinton years.

So in order to really evaluate the nominees on crime, you need to take a peek at their stances on the economy. There’s no better time to see what the candidates have in store for us than this week when the financial markets have wrought havoc, caused chaos, and have many people wondering if their money is really safe.

So what did the candidates say? Both said that we are in crisis. We need to do something. We need change. And what exactly is that I ask, Senators? I have been trying to figure that out all week, as neither White House hopeful offered any fresh ideas for turning things around. Instead each relied on the same vague, though vastly different, pitches they have offered over the past few months for fixing what ails the country.

Probably the best summary of their positions was written by Liz Sodti of the Associated Press in noting the key differences between the candidates: “In line with historical positions of Democrats and Republicans, Obama generally supports stronger consumer protections, better regulatory oversight and more government intervention, while McCain broadly prefers a market system of less federal involvement and red tape."

Both advocate tax cuts, though to different degrees and toward different ends. Obama seeks to cut into inequality between rich and poor by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and giving breaks to the middle class and lower-income people. McCain wants to spur the economy and create jobs by keeping tax rates low for higher-income taxpayers and slashing rates for corporations.

Which approach do you prefer? That’s one thing to ask yourself when you’re contemplating who you want to see in the White House.

POSTS BY ROBIN SAX DO NOT REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY. THIS POST AND OTHERS ARE THE PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE OF ROBIN SAX AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

Tweet

Robin Sax Wows Publishers

by Stacy Dittrich

WCI's Sex-crimes Prosecutor Robin Sax, a Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney, has wowed the publishing industry over the last six months. With her uber-agent Claire Gerus, Robin has signed three book deals and will write them over the next year, all the while trying to juggle her job prosecuting heinous sex offenders, managing home life as a mom and wife, and fulfilling her many teaching responsibilities.

Robin's two books, THE COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (Alpha) and EVERYTHING PARENTS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PREDATORS AND MOLESTERS (Prometheus) are scheduled for release in Spring 2009. A third book, IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY: INSIDE THE WORLD OF A SEX CRIMES D.A. (Prometheus) will follow in Fall 2009.

Needless to say, Robin will be a busy woman over the next year, adding to her already hectic schedule. You can count on Robin rising to the challenge, which she considers another exciting venture in her colorful life. And you can also count on continuing to read Robin's posts here at Women in Crime Ink. Congratulations, Robin!

Tweet

If I Were Judge, Jury, and Lawmaker, Too . . .

by Robin Sax

There’s not a week that goes by when someone doesn’t ask me, “How can you prosecute sex crimes without getting ill, jaded or miserable?” Well, while my job is challenging, I consider it an honor and privilege to give young victims a voice, a place to regain trust, and a place to heal. But today, I‘d like to tackle a different question: “What would you do to the change the system?”

So, if I were judge, jury, and lawmaker, here’s my answer. And by the way, I’ll be brutally honest, even if I think you won’t like what I have to say.

1. First, I believe there should be mandatory sentencing schemes in all jurisdictions. Mandatory sentencing schemes should not require specific additional factors that a jury would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Under many current statutes, a case involving two victims would make a case eligible for a mandatory life sentence. If, however, the jury convicted one victim and not the other (which happens very often because jurors like to throw a “bone” to the defendant), then the case may no longer hold a mandatory life sentence.) I believe the existence of the multiple-victim factor alone should qualify a case for an enhanced penalty.

2. I believe that the Supreme Court should overturn the Crawford decision. Under current law, if a victim dies or is legally unavailable for a court appearance, the victim’s prior statements made to the police or hospital would be inadmissible, due to the defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine the witness. I am in favor of the law prior to the recent Crawford decision that allows for admitting victims' or unavailable persons' previous statements made under certain conditions that ensure reliability.Why should a defendant benefit from the death or legal unavailability of his or her victim?

3. Our jury system sounds wonderful in theory Under the Constitution, each person charged with a crime is entitled to have the case heard by a jury of one’s peers., “peers” are people selected from our community who listen to the evidence and determine what the facts are in the case, while the judge decides on the legal issues.

“A jury of one’s peers” is based on the supposed impartiality of a random sample of the population. It assumes that the average accused will share more similarities than differences with a random sample of the population, and therefore will be judged by people who are likely to give the accused a fair shake.

The problem with this theory is twofold. First, those of us who are not “average” will have a much smaller likelihood of having a jury that comprises our peers. Second, the mechanisms of the “voir dire” process, or jury selection, increases the problem by creating juries composed of a greater percentage of poor, uneducated, unintelligent people, with very little experience with the justice system, than their natural prevalence in society.

The solution to this imbalance is a professional jury system. Professional jurors would be laypersons educated for the task. They would be taught to understand the rules of evidence, the trial process and instruction, and would be tested thoroughly on their objectivity. Most important, a professional jury would have no motivation other than ensuring that due process was followed. The complexities, nuances, and intricacies involved in a child sexual assault warrant a professional jury both because of the difficulty of the case and the great danger of releasing a predator back into society if a jury makes the wrong decision.

4. We need better supervision of registered sex offenders. Some ways to improve supervision include requiring registered sex offenders to register their computer Internet accounts, IP addresses, telephone numbers--not just their physical address. They should be required to inform authorities of international travel and there should be an integrated international registration system (like that for known terrorists) to monitor the “comings and goings” of registered sex offenders. Registered sex offenders should also be subject to lifetime counseling and therapy, and not only conditions of parole or probation.

5. Money and time should be available to train the professionals in this field. This goes for all the agencies involved, including law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, therapists, judges, probation, and parole officers. It's important, of course, to stay current on the latest advances and laws in this area. Additionally, studies show that training and resources alleviate burnout and serve to inspire and motivate people in this line of work.

6. Right now, it’s standard procedure to assign prosecutors and law enforcement to handle sex crimes for a limited time before rotating them to another area of crime. The benefit of being in a vertical unit (handling all aspects of a case from beginning to end) is that there is a high degree of specialization and high accountability for those involved.

The whole theory behind vertical prosecution is to have a group of people trained in this highly difficult area so that they become specialists. However, all too often, once a prosecutor or detective reaches about a year or so in the unit, they get transferred.The bureaucratic thinking is that prosecutors and detectives should be cross-trained in all areas of criminal law, and that specializing narrows a prosecutor’s or detective’s skills. In the sex crimes area, where cases are so sensitive and the victims have their own special needs, I believe that lawyers and detectives should be assigned for a minimum of five years. Also, I believe lawyers and law enforcers should be assigned to these units only if they want to be there. This is not the type of unit for someone who doesn’t have the requisite passion or a tough enough stomach to handle these cases.

7. Specific courtrooms should be designated and designed for child sexual assault (and child abuse) cases, so they are 100% devoted to the needs and realities of kids who testify. For example, courtrooms can be painted in “kid friendly”colors like pastels, so they look more like a classroom than the typical large, windowless, intimidating enclosure. The chairs on the witness stand should be appropriately “kid sized” and adjustable so that a child’s feet can reach the floor. Further, the judges in these cases should be especially trained to handle them, and to be very familiar with the laws pertaining to child testimony. They would thus be able to use their discretion to protect the child and assist the child when giving testimony. This system can be modeled after the drug courts that are in place in many jurisdictions, where specific courts are devoted to drug addicts and focus on treatment, as opposed to punishment. These courts work with the defendants to address their issues and are sensitive to the needs of addicts.

8. There should be limits to an attorney’s ability to cross-examine and badger kids. One of the basic tenets of our Constitution is that criminal defendants have the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them. It often seems that our criminal justice system offers greater protection to the accused than to the child victim involved in a sexual abuse prosecution.

9. Finally, in recent years, legislators have been concerned about defendants who escape punishment for sexually molesting young children because the children are afraid to testify in the defendant's presence. To address this problem, many states have enacted special rules that authorize judges--in certain situations--to allow children to testify via closed-circuit television. The defendant can see the child on a television monitor, but the child cannot see the defendant. The defense attorney can be present where the child is testifying and can cross-examine the child. Closed-circuit TV should be allowed more readily than its current use.

10. Currently, admissibility of expert testimony requires the prosecutor to jump thorough a number of legal hoops. And even when admitted, the admissibility tends to be for extremely limited purposes. Expert testimony should be welcomed and encouraged (from both sides) in order to assist jurors in understanding the unique issues when it comes to child sexual assault. The very things that the defense highlights as a way to discredit a child are the factors that can make a disclosure more credible if put into perspective by an expert. These include delayed disclosure, recantation, minimization, self blame, lying first in order to protect the abuser or fearing they are in trouble, and understanding why “smart” kids engage in risk-taking behavior.

11. Defense attorneys should be as sensitive and compassionate about victims as they are about their own clients. There must be legislation to stop re-victimizing the victim through the court process and to cease casting blame on the victim for being a crime victim.

12. Cases involving children should go to trial as soon as possible and definitely no later than six months from the filing. Currently, the most expeditious cases are tried in roughly a year from the date it was filed (not necessarily reported). Unlike fine wine, an aging case never gets better for the prosecution as time goes by.

13. As an alternative to jail and/or prison there should be live-in/lock-down facilities that are meant to work with, treat, and study sex offenders. Like drug rehabilitation, there should be facilities where we can take a low-level sex offender off the streets to ensure the safety of the public and treat them (if possible) or at least learn from the offender.

14. There should be amendments to the rule against double jeopardy (which means you can’t be tried twice for the same offense) to enable the re-opening of proceedings against acquitted defendants where there is compelling new evidence. This will apply to a range of grave offenses, including those involving serious sexual offenses.

15. There should be a total ban, or at least limitations, on what a child sexual assault defendant should be allowed to do in the criminal process. For example, if representing himself, he should not be able to personally direct or cross-examine the complaining children who are witnessing against him. He should not be able to access all the discovery information that a defense attorney (an officer of the court) would normally receive, such as the victim’s school records, rape exam photos, and other confidential records.

16.If a case is appealed after a conviction, it may take two or three years before a court determines whether or not the defendant is entitled to a new trial. If the defendant is granted a new trial, the prosecution would need to bring the victim in to testify again. The new or old testimony could then be presented as “inconsistencies” from the first testimony, thus casting doubt on the victim’s credibility. If the cause for appeal has nothing to do with the victim’s testimony, the victim should not be made to return to court and the entire prior testimony should be stipulated as accurate and complete.

There is no greater concern in society than the concern people have for children. Whether it is providing a better earth, protecting kids from wars, terrorism, criminals, or abuse, our society prides itself on shielding our young. And with good reason--children are powerless to take on the perils of our world on their own. We can give children the voice that they so desperately deserve if our leaders, lawmakers, and voters spoke up on and acted to protect the children we brought into this world.

POSTS FROM ROBIN SAX DO NOT REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

Tweet

Why Does a Child Molester Get to Benefit from the System He Disgraced?

by Robin Sax

The last two years of 12-year-old Becca McEvoy's short life were spent living with sexual abuse by her stepfather, Bob Inge (pictured left). It’s not all that unusual, unfortunately, to hear of horrendous sex abuse stories where step-dads are molesting, raping, and running their step-daughters through the Penal Code. But this case is heinous on so many more levels that even the truest believers out there should be motivated to see that certain laws need amending—fast!

So what makes this case so wrong?

1. The defendant is Corporal Bob Inge, once a police officer with the Chickasaw Police Department;

2. The defendant is now out of custody and is living with young children as he awaits the court’s ruling;

3. The defendant was arrested in 2006, and Becca died in March 2008, in an unforeseen car accident; and

4. The Supreme Court decision from Crawford v Washington will probably let this pedophile walk.

As a result of the Crawford decision, the validity of firmly rooted hearsay exceptions has been called into question. Performing the “indicia of reliability” or “trustworthiness” test for hearsay statements has been abolished because Crawford overruled the decision in Ohio v Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, back in 1980.

So how does Crawford work? When deciding whether a hearsay statement will be admissible at trial without the declarant testifying, courts apply the following formula:

Step 1. Is the hearsay statement testimonial? Was the statement made to a government agent? Did a government agent question the declarant? Would the declarant reasonably expect that the statement would later be used at trial?

a. If the answer is no, then utilize your state’s Rules of Evidence to determine whether the hearsay statement falls into a recognized exception which may negate the need for the declarant to testify.

b. If the answer is yes, then proceed to Step 2.

Step 2: Have the declarant testify and be subject to cross-examination.

a. If the declarant is unavailable, but testified at a prior proceeding and was subject to cross-examination, the transcript of the prior testimony will be admissible and other admissible hearsay statements will also be allowed (such as statements made during a forensic interview).

b. If the witness/victim is unavailable and has never testified in any proceeding in the case, then all hearsay statements will be inadmissible.

What you may notice in this formula’s short checklist is that there is no Step 3. That means if a witness is no longer available (and death certainly qualifies) and (i) there is no other exception to the hearsay rule that would apply or (ii) there hasn’t been any testimony subject to cross-examination, we are basically left with 2 choices.

One, we can hope that there are other ways to make the case (DNA, other victims, defendant’s admissions, etc.) or, two, the case can get dismissed.

While it seems convenient to say, “Well, let’s try to prove the case by some other means,” that is problematic, especially when your perp is a cop. I mean, do you really think a cop is going to confess or admit to his wrongdoings? And do you think he left any evidence around?

Think about, it. Sex crimes happen in the most secretive of ways in the most covert places. If this guy is even a third-rate cop, don’t you think he covered his tracks? And it’s not as if sex crime perps leave a ton of evidence, even in the best investigations. We all know that the defendant isn’t at all concerned about leaving his evidence in the victim’s heart and mind: permanent scars of abuse.

I am all about defendants having rights. But what about the victim’s rights, and victims before her? Why does Bill Inge get a pass? Why does a child molester get to walk free as we all sit back and wait for him to do it again?

So, what’s the answer? The answer is to carve out an exception.

How about a specific child sexual assault exception where grand jury testimony could be admitted in a trial? (Becca testified at TWO prior grand jury hearings.) How about hearsay statements made to a police officer coupled with grand jury testimony to ensure reliability and consistency? How about testimony where a child has said same thing to a number of civilians as corroboration to police testimony and grand jury testimony? The point is there should be alternative exceptions. There are ways to ensure reliability and trustworthiness and therefore, there should be a way to get Becca’s voice heard and not let the men who disgraced his position as stepdad and cop go free.

Note: This post and all other posts by Robin Sax represent Robin's personal opinion and NOT the opinion of the LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY nor the LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

Tweet