After 30 years as a criminal defense lawyer, I’ve defended everyone you can imagine, charged with every kind of crime you can imagine.  Still, I have to say that sex offenders are in a category all their own when it comes to criminals.

I think the biggest difference comes from the fact that sexual assault is an “intimate” crime–not that the perpetrator wants “intimacy” with the victim as most of us would consider it.  Almost every other crime I can think of–robbery, theft of a car, assault, and even murder doesn’t involve such close contact with the victim.

Sexual assault is really “up close and personal.”  It takes a different type of criminal to commit this kind of crime.

I’m not a psychologist, but in my experience most sex offenders aren’t really turned on by the sexual act.  Instead, it’s the power and dominance they have for a brief time.  Around men, quite often, sex offenders are losers and unable to hang with men in easy relationships.  Most sex offenders I’ve worked with are loners, misfits, or outcasts.  By assaulting women, they “prove” to themselves they are studs and attractive.

One particularly dangerous offender I represented years ago, before his sentencing for several rape convictions, bragged to  the probation officer he’d had sex with 100 women.  That statement showed up in the pre-sentence report to the judge.  At his sentencing, the defendant corrected the report to say he really had sex with over 200 women!!  (If true, I hope they weren’t rapes…)

Almost every sex offender I’ve represented has denied the act and blamed everything on the woman.  Often, they use force.  When the victim fights back, the offender can accuse the woman of “starting it.”  Even after the victims come into court and testify against the offenders and juries find them guilty, many still deny their guilt.

Guys who are “kiddie twiddlers,” who sexually assault children, are the hardest to work with.  The usual reaction I get is, “I know I didn’t do it.”  Then, even after I confront them with evidence through statements of the victims, forensic proof, and other witness’ statements, the offenders still deny everything.

At first, I assumed this was simply the usual human response to deny or minimize our guilt for acts we’ve done.  Now, I realize something more subtle is at work.

These men who assault kids find the act inexcusable, like  normal people do.  They think it’s so horrible that they, the sex offenders, could never possibly have done it because…well, because  “I could never do anything so horrible and gross.”  They block any memory of the act from their conscious minds–which is why they think they’re being honest when they say, “I didn’t do it.”

Any thoughts from you?

The post Defending Sex Offenders appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

The purpose of the hearing is for both the prosecution and the defense to present evidence about the accused and/or crime that would affect the decision on sentencing. For the defense, often the evidence comes in the form of something called character witnesses. These are people who are familiar with the defendant. Hopefully, their testimony will persuade a judge to give the defendant a less severe penalty.

When Mr. Biber’s defense lawyer called the first character witness for him, the prosecution went after the witness with a vengeance. See the article in the Star Tribune athttp://www.startribune.com/local/west/105250758.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

Just what is a character witness anyway?

The Rules of Evidence in Minnesota allow either side to offer evidence through many different paths, including a character witness. I’ve never seen the prosecutor use one, but it’s common for defendants to call character witnesses. Most people assume these witnesses will testify to how wonderful the person (defendant) is, but the Rules limit the witness’ testimony to specifics examples of the defendant’s reputation for things like honesty or reliability.

Typically, the witness would begin their testimony by detailing how they know the defendant and for how long. They’re asked eventually, “what is the defendant’s reputation for truthfulness or honesty?”

After the witness testifies, the prosecution has the opportunity to cross-examine which is what happened in the Aaron Biber trial. The prosecutor lashed into the witness by repeatedly asking him if he knew of the sordid details of the crime Mr. Biber had pled guilty to.

This is the common and proper way for the opposing counsel to proceed. For instance, if the character witness has said the defendant is truthful, the prosecutor could ask that in light of the fact the defendant lied initially about his sexual involvement with a child, would that change the opinion of the character witness? In the Biber case, the prosecutor brought up several instances and facts that cast doubt on the character of Mr. Biber.

End result called by yours truly, the “legal referee:” what the prosecutor did was proper and part of their job. Usually, the prosecution doesn’t go to the lengths this one did, but it’s still okay to do so under the court rules.

What do you think about it?

The post Character Witness in Rape Case gets "Raked" appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.