Man's Best Friend

[Berzerker]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...aves-oregon-man-from-sex-conviction/23524329/

The discovery of a black Labrador named Lucy led to the unraveling of a criminal case Monday against an Oregon man who had begun serving a 50-year prison sentence.

Joshua Horner, a plumber from the central Oregon town of Redmond, was convicted on April 12, 2017, of sexual abuse of a minor.

In the trial, the complainant testified Horner had threatened to shoot her animals if she went to the police about the alleged molestation, and said she saw him shoot her dog and kill it to make his point.

Six months after a jury convicted Horner in a verdict that was not unanimous, he asked the Oregon Innocence Project for help. The group took up his case.

When the group raised concerns in April about the case with Deschutes County District Attorney John Hummel, he agreed to work with them.

Okay, I have 3 problems with this case:

1) the conviction wasn't unanimous
2) he spent 6 months in jail without this key evidence investigated
3) the accuser's identity remains secret

The accuser lied under oath and they're still being treated like a victim, the DA in charge at the time didn't look for the dog, and a majority of the jury was enough to send him away for what would likely be a life sentence since accused child molesters tend to have short lifespans in prison.

Reminds me of a N Carolina case about 3 decades ago involving the Little Rascals daycare center. PBS did a documentary about it and how absurd the prosecution was in railroading innocent people into jail.

 

[Zkribbler]

Okay, I have 3 problems with this case:

1) the conviction wasn't unanimous

The US Supreme Court has upheld Oregon's 10-2 verdicts as meeting due-process requirements.

2) he spent 6 months in jail without this key evidence investigated

There is no jurisdiction that, after a conviction is obtained, goes back on its own to test the supporting evidence.

3) the accuser's identity remains secret

It remains unreported in the media because of the complainant's status as an minor sex abuse victim, allegedly.

The accuser lied under oath ...

At most, this new evidence shows this tangential claim was not factually accurate.

The description of how Lucy was tracked down is very sketchy, and there's no indication of who identified Lucy by her "looks." Presumably, the court of appeal had more concrete evidence when it ordered a new trial.

the DA in charge at the time didn't look for the dog,

The claim of dog shooting arose for the first time during sex-abuse trial. No judge is going to suspend a trial so that the DA [and/or PD] can go out and investigate a tangential matter.

Note: The new DA Hummel told the court, he's not certain that Horner did not sexually abuse the complainant, but that he's now not convinced he did. That is, Horner may be guilty. It's a stretch for you to declare him innocent.

 

[Berzerker]

The US Supreme Court has upheld Oregon's 10-2 verdicts as meeting due-process requirements.

I still have a problem with such a sentence based on a 10-2 judgement

There is no jurisdiction that, after a conviction is obtained, goes back on its own to test the supporting evidence.

I was wondering why this claim wasn't investigated before the conviction

It remains unreported in the media because of the complainant's status as an minor sex abuse victim, allegedly.

Yes, and the 'victim' was caught lying but they're still being treated like a victim. I hope their identity isn't kept sealed or whatever if another case arises involving them.

At most, this new evidence shows this tangential claim was not factually accurate.

That would be at least at most it shows the accused was innocent

The claim of dog shooting arose for the first time during sex-abuse trial. No judge is going to suspend a trial so that the DA [and/or PD] can go out and investigate a tangential matter.

Ah, I see... That would explain why it wasn't properly investigated.

edit: do you mean the DA had no knowledge of the dog shooting before the trial?

Note: The new DA Hummel told the court, he's not certain that Horner did not sexually abuse the complainant, but that he's now not convinced he did. That is, Horner may be guilty. It's a stretch for you to declare him innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty... the guilt was overturned.

 

[Zkribbler]

Innocent until proven guilty... the guilt was overturned.

I, of course, was referring the factually innocent, not legally innocent.

BTW: I too draw exception to 10-2 verdicts. But the Supreme Court doesn't care what I think.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Was there other evidence of the sexual abuse ?
It seems that Lucy first raised the dog shooting story at the trial and the law enforcement officers never checked to verify this

 

[Berzerker]

Maybe its unfeasible to do this but if I was the defense I would have asked for a delay so the dog could be located... I mean, if the kid saw the dog killed, did the perp take the body and dump it or did the 'victim' bury the dog? Seems like one helluva lead to follow up on.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

First off, there is no innocent. There is only not guilty. He was not "found innocent," and overturning a guilty verdict does not make him "innocent."

Second, anyone who doesn't like a 10-2 standard of guilt is free to leave Oregon. To the best of my knowledge even Trumpists are not proposing a wall around it.

Third, not just no, but hell no, should trials be stopped every time that someone says something in testimony that hasn't come up before. We'd still be working our way through the trial of John Billington. That said, if the prosecutor had done their job properly NOTHING would come up for the very first time at trial, so either the prosecutor didn't do their job properly, or it had actually come up before and the prosecutor didn't bother with corroboration; ie didn't do their job properly. I would hope that the judge needed a new pair of shoes after leaving one very far up the prosecutor when this overturn came through.

Last, alleged victims of sex crimes get anonymity. That's the rules, and the rules don't change just because someone is offended about one particular alleged victim's behavior. However, that anonymity is for the public. The justice system took a gigantic black eye here, and in all likelihood the embarrassed judge and the prosecutor who has been exposed as an incompetent boob are out for blood. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the witness is facing a perjury charge, at the very least.

 

[Zkribbler]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the witness is facing a perjury charge, at the very least.

Perjury is almost never prosecuted because it's so hard to prove knowledge of falsity.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Perjury is almost never prosecuted because it's so hard to prove knowledge of falsity.

That and generally no one is brutally offended, because we expect people to lie/make mistakes...but a judge who has had a conviction overturned in his courtroom undoubtedly is brutally offended. And as perjury charges go "you said he shot the dog, there's the dog" seems pretty straightforward. I'd take a plea deal.

 

[Zkribbler]

That and generally no one is brutally offended, because we expect people to lie/make mistakes...but a judge who has had a conviction overturned in his courtroom undoubtedly is brutally offended. And as perjury charges go "you said he shot the dog, there's the dog" seems pretty straightforward. I'd take a plea deal.

Complainant: "First he raped me. Then he said he'd kill my animals if I told. Then, in my mind's eye, I saw him shoot Lucy. And I saw it again and again and again until I couldn't tell if it were real or not."

You're the DA. Do you really want to charge a minor rape victim with perjury and then try and prove it to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Complainant: "First he raped me. Then he said he'd kill my animals if I told. Then, in my mind's eye, I saw him shoot Lucy. And I saw it again and again and again until I couldn't tell if it were real or not."

You're the DA. Do you really want to charge a minor rape victim with perjury and then try and prove it to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?

I'm not the DA. A real DA wouldn't want to put it in front of a jury and would have offered a no jail time deal and taken a guilty plea before that story ever got worked out. Because it's pretty easy to bully the kid and her parents with "you said he shot the dog, there's the dog" and DAs aren't DAs because they give a damn about little girl rape victims.