Articles Posted in Sexual Crimes

This is “D-week” for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the convicted Marathon bomber. This has brought up a new discussion about the death penalty. That new discussion has brought up some facts which should frighten you a great deal.

We will get to them.

Presently, there is no death penalty in Massachusetts state court…even in cases of Murder in the First Degree the sentence is life in prison without parole. It is the Federal Criminal Justice System which still employs the use of death as a punishment for certain crimes by the government.

Before I discuss further the new discussion referenced above, I want to point out that death can be the result of criminal prosecution in more than one way.

Continue reading

In my last posting, we discussed Emmanuel Bile and his conviction in the rape trial that had just ended.

After the sentencing hearing, Mr. Bile was sentenced to serve eight to ten years in Massachusetts State Prison.

The complainant addressed the court at the hearing. She told the judge that “That night nearly broke me.” She spoke of an “indescribable emptiness and sadness” that consumed her life after the rape, and said she felt that Bile had treated her as “less than human.”

The prosecutor recommended a ten to twelve year sentence in state prison term followed by five years of probation. She argued ,”These are some of the worst acts we can imagine in our society.” She also referred to what she called Bile’s “lack of remorse”, the victim’s vulnerability during the incident, and the lasting impact on the woman.

“It’s absolutely clear her entire life has changed because of this,” the prosecutor said of the woman.

Defense counsel recommended a prison sentence of four-and-a-half to eight-and-a-half years followed by probation, arguing that Bile — eighteen at the time of the incident — was young and naive.
Continue reading

We have had a number of discussions about how schools (primarily colleges) grapple with the allegations of sex crimes. Some of the “new” and “improved” solutions have boarded on the ludicrous in my experienced opinion, but that is an issue for another day.

Today we visit one of the cases which led to the present state of affairs of said college self-analysis. It is a case from Northampton, Massachusetts. The University involved is the University of Massachusetts Amherst. It is a case which began in October, 2012. I blogged about it, which posting can be found here.

The case involved four defendants from Pittsfield. They are apparently being tried separately and the first trial just finished. None of them were students at the school, although one young man, Emmanuel Bile, 21, (hereinafter, the “Defendant”), knew the complainant.

He was the first to be brought to trial.

Continue reading

As discussed in my last blog, Paul Hinkel of Connecticut (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) has been convicted of traveling to Massachusetts with the intention of having sex with what he thought was a 15-year-old girl; the girl did not exist, but a federal agent did in her stead.

We have discussed the issue of age in the past. Sexual relations with a 15-year-old girl is another word for “rape“. A child cannot consent to sex. A 15-year-old girl is a child.

This was all the result of a federal sting operation which was planned by a federal law enforcement agency.

It is a story we are hearing quite often these days. Someone is allegedly using the internet to lure an underage boy or girl into sexual activity. I don’t know how many adults are engaging in that practice successfully…but there are certainly a large number of such adults who are actually exchanging such messages with an undercover law enforcement officer.

Paul Hinkel, 57, of Chester, Connecticut and hereinafter the “Defendant” is one man who was convicted yesterday of such a crime.

The Defendant had come to Massachusetts for “love” with what he thought was a 15-year-old girl.

You may remember Philip Chism (hereinafter, the “defendant”). He is the 15-year-old juvenile who has been charged as an adult with the rape and murder of 24-year-old Danvers High School teacher Colleen Ritzer in 2013.

Today, the Defendant’s case is on the calendar again at Salem Superior Court. The issue of the day is suppression. The court is holding a hearing on the motion as I write today’s blog.

The defense is seeking to suppress alleged inculpatory statements made by the Defendant to law enforcement. The Defendant’s attorney argues that the police coerced him into waiving his Miranda Rights and making detailed statements about the murder.

My last posting examined this subject from the standpoint of whether the police have the right to grab your smart-phone without a warrant. It triggered rights guaranteed you courtesy of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Today we continue the search and seizure issue from another angle. Let’s say that the officer does have a warrant. We know that he then has the right to take the items. However, you have a great security program in effect and he cannot figure out how to open it.

He turns to you for help. Let’s say that you do not want to give him that help because what he finds may incriminate you.

Ok, I admit that it is not still yesterday; I did not get this entry up yesterday. It doesn’t mean that I did not try…I was just out doing battle for my client longer than expected. Doing the job right has to take precedence. Believe me, when you are my client, you will appreciate those priorities.

Sometimes, you just can’t do everything.

Which brings us back to our discussion. The “Yes Means Yes” approach to combatting campus sexual assault cases.

We have been discussing California’s new “Yes Means Yes” bill and its accompanying app.

As I have mentioned, the “Yes Means Yes” approach is not really brand new. At least here in the Commonwealth, various colleges and universities have been using the approach.

I know…I have handled the cases.

Contact Information