As we left off, Attorney Sam’s Take was discussing the matter of Nathan P. Williams, a 19-year-old Framingham man (hereinafter, the “Defendant”), who is poised to have a Massachusetts Dangerousness Hearing tomorrow. He faces charges of Massachusetts rape and kidnapping of the 15-year-old girl, hereinafter, the “Girl”.
While there may be many ways to attack the Commonwealth’s case in this matter, I would not be overly hopeful if I were the Defendant’s family for tomorrow’s hearing. Particularly if defense counsel plans to simply argue that his client is innocent and so not a danger.
Of course, based on how we are told the system operates, one would think that the argument is viable. After all, the Defendant has not only been convicted of no previous crimes, but, thus far, he remains presumed innocent of the new charges.
Well, remember what I have told you for a number of years now. In reality, the Defendant may be presumed innocent, but he is assumed guilty.
No, that is not a rule of law. It is a finding of reality.
The argument that the Defendant has been convicted of no crimes, including the one at bar will not carry him very far to freedom.
Of course, the Commonwealth’s case on its surface appears strong. Alleged DNA and eyewitness testimony, as well as the alleged finding of the clothing at the Defendant’s “last known” home. As you know, however, things are not always as they seem.
While I do not know much about this particular case at this point, certain areas do seem suspect to me already.
As mentioned earlier, the speed of the DNA findings seems remarkable. We also know that the Defendant is known to the police. They already have a DNA sample of his on file. What prejudice or rush to judgement does this and the DNA speed indicate? What, if any, improper use of the Defendant’s juvenile matter has been used? How do we know the Girl and the Defendant are unknown to each other when the Commonwealth seems to indicate that the Defendant was actually awaiting her bus?
These issues, along with what may well be questionable identifications, are going to be important in this case.
That being said, experienced and gifted defense counsel is going to be needed in this high-publicity matter if the Defendant is to have a fair trial.
In the meantime, if I may, allow me to opine on the next couple of likely developments in this case.
Given circumstances the way they presently are, the court will find the Defendant dangerous. The only issue left to determine is whether, given the Defendant’s age, he will hold him without bail. The judge can easily hold him even without the dangerousness finding because it would appear that he was arrested on this matter while he had another matter pending. As any regular reader of this blog knows, one can be held without bail for a time if arrested while out on bail (or on their own recognizance).
The Defendant can appeal his bail situation to superior court, of course. On the other hand, the Defendant can simply wait…because I believe the superior court experience will be coming his way whether he wants it or not.
This matter is likely to be indicted. At arraignment in superior court, the bail, or no bail, status will be re-visited anew.
In reality, of course, that does not mean the results are likely to be any different. The only chance for that to happen will rest in what the defense does next.
To read the original story upon this blog is based, please go http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/04/09/framingham-police-charge-year-old-man-with-raping-year-old-girl-knifepoint/rR0jeMxoC8hSvzm16uqbuI/story.html