Does Judge Karen Hall have ties to defense lawyer?
Posted by BrianA source forwarded me an email with some potentially troubling information. Judge Karen Hall may have received at least one campaign contribution from one of the defense attorneys in the Jerry Wayne Love case. You might recall that Love was accused of molesting his three adopted children repeatedly. Judge Hall, succumbing to a request from the prosecution, gave Love probation. That’s right - no jail time at all.
The first page of this campaign finance report from Judge Hall shows a $500 contribution from a “Walter Allen Davis” with an address of 100 Jefferson St. here in Huntsville. Mr. Davis is an attorney and the Jefferson St. location is his office. The Huntsville Times has reported that Love’s two attorneys are Steven K. Aldridge and Alan Davis. The article states that Aldridge hails from Florence, AL, but it doesn’t say where Davis is from. Could it be that the Times spelled Mr. Davis’ first name incorrectly? I know it would be shocking to see an inaccuracy in a newspaper.
Should Judge Hall have recused herself in this case?
Also, Loretta Nall is saying that she will be on Hannity and Colmes tonight to discuss this case.
Related content:
July 16th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
The show segment dealing with this case has been rescheduled for tomorrow July 17 at 9 pm.
Thank you Brian for covering this case and pointing out so very many interesting and juicy tidbits. I’ll give you props on the show tomorrow night if given the opportunity.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Or there is the possibility that the finance report is not correct. Probability is 50-50 either way in my mind. The issue of lawyers making contributions to judges they appear before has come up before but I dont know what action was taken by the ABA, if any.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I’d be surprised if the campaign finance report is incorrect since it lists a valid address for the contributor and I believe the responsibility for generating those documents lies with the candidate, so it’s not like someone else might have doctored it. There could be both an Allen Davis and an Alan Davis practicing criminal defense law in north Alabama, but I did a quick Google search and only found Allen Davis. I’ll try to call his office tomorrow and ask him if he is the attorney for Mr. Love, which will put to bed all speculation.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:11 am
I think it is the same guy but that happens every day. They are not required to recuse though I personally think they should.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:25 am
I read the list and almost every lawyer in town gave her money, some through their spouses.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Did anyone else catch last night’s episode where they had the doctor that will be ‘treating’ Mr. Love on as a guest?
The guy was a sad case in a very hard position. Very few people have sympathy for a child molester.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:23 am
That list is from 5 years ago too.
I heard that Hannity shredded the defense attorney on Friday night.
What will happen is this guy will slip up, even if so slightly , and his probation will be revoked and he will do 45 years. In the words of Grateful Dead.”
“Set up like a bowling pin…”
July 17th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Yeah, Wayne, the lawyers and judges have quite a cozy little relationship.
I think you’re right about him slipping up, but the problem is that his next “slip up” could be him sexually assaulting another innocent child. This unfortunate situation could have been avoided if Hall didn’t grant him the cupcake deal that the DA proposed. It is not uncommon for a judge to toss out a plea deal because it is too lenient.
Hall’s decision undermines the essential trust between the public and the legal system and only promotes vigilante justice. I assure you that if someone harms my children and I think that justice will be meted out by Judge Hall then that person will never have the opportunity to see the inside of her court room. Probation will not be an option. If people were confident that a fair, proportional punishment would be handed down for all offenses then most would allow the justice system to run its course. With Hall on the bench justice is a sad joke.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Amen Brian!
I hope this scum catches a bullet from a concerned parent. There should be a neighborhood watch team formed to keep tabs on him. From what I hear the state sex offender registry is about 6 months out of date. His whereabouts should not be left in the hands of the same state government who turned him loose.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:13 am
It is a fact that Hall is the only circuit judge who routinely rejects plea agreements as being too lenient. From what I hear, the case had issues.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:13 am
I wanted to point out the link that Steve Alldridge has to the District Attorney’s Office in Madison County. Mr. Alldridge was the head of the child sexual abuse unit of the Madison County District Attorney’s Office and still has links to said unit.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Does anyone in the H’Ville area have any knowledge of how she sentences non-violent drug offenders on average?
And wayne…I have a hard time with the “there were problems with the case” angle. I understand the concept but what problem is so bad that a judge would accept a guilty plea from a defendant on charges of first degree sodomy and sexual abuse if that judge wasn’t convinced that said person was guilty. Here in my county courtroom (where I have spent untold hours over the last almost 5 years) the judge speaks directly to each defendant and asks them why they are entering a guilty plea, questions whether or not they are actually guilty and so forth before continuing with the case.
Further, what defendant would enter a guilty plea to those kinds of crimes if, in fact, they are not guilty? On drug cases where the state is threatening to take your home, automobiles, children, bank accounts, job and your freedom I understand why people sometimes plead guilty even when they are not. But, in this kind of case I find it very hard to believe. I mean…if the case was so shaky to begin with then most sane, innocent people would fight tooth and nail before a jury to be cleared of the charges.
Something is just not adding up here.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Brian, your site was quoted on the morning show on WVNN this morning about your findings. Way to go!
July 18th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
As a concerned citizen and mother I feel like I need to jump into the fray. I share the outrage and anger towards the pathetic, disgusting, miserable excuse for a human being that is Mr. Love. However, there has been a lot yellow journalism occurring in the media as a result of Judge Hall’s decision and as a responsible citizen I feel a strong need to set the record straight. First, Karen Hall has served this community for over a decade and enjoys a reputation among the community as an extremely tough judge on ALL crime be it drugs or sex abuse. It is a travesty that the public’s outrage is being misplaced against her. If you want to know her record, do some research and look it up. Go to the jails; they are full of criminals of both the drug and sexual predator persuasion who would testify to her record. Second, although you seem to be an expert on drug offense laws, Ms. Nall, you, like so many people in Alabama, are woefully ignorant of the laws pertaining to sex crimes in this state. Maybe if everyone spent as much time studying those laws as they do about whether or not not you can legally smoke dope we might have some progress on child sex abuse crimes. The reason the judge and prosecution in this case gave the offender probation is because the victims did not want to stand up in open court and recount for the world how their adoptive father molested them. Thanks to the Alabama Supreme Court, prosecutors can no longer submit victim’s statements on their abuse. The law states that the accused has the right to confront his accuser in an OPEN COURT for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to hear. It is vastly different to be questioned by a judge about how many hooters you’ve smoked than to ask a two year child to tell the world how Daddy touched her privates or put his you know what you know where; only they can’t use euphemisms. The victims in this case are teenage boys who probably did not want to have to face their peers about why they let Mr. Love perform sex acts against them. Homosexuality is still a stigma here. There are grown people who do not have the courage to testify in open court much less a child. And what parent would want their child to do that? Thanks to the media, the families’ attempts to protect the children’s anonymity in this case has successfully been thwarted. We are right to be angry and concerned but our anger is misplaced. Blame, instead the U.S. Supreme Court who has effectively ensured that our youngest, most vulnerable victims are re-victimized in court and offenders such as Mr. Love do not have to serve time. You ask what problem could be so bad, well that’s the problem. Would you want your children to be placed in that position? Thirdly, it is extremely irresponsible to post rumors and innuendo as fact or to distort the facts of a case to promote yourself or your point of view. Did the defense attorney give contributions to Judge Hall’s campaign? He may have but my understanding is that Judge Hall spent thousands of dollars of her own money to do so. I hardly think a $500 contribution made several years ago would sway her opinion one way or the other and to accuse her of such is tantamount to slander and defamation of character. If I were Judge Hall I would sue several people over this and I’d start with the woman who did it on national T.V.
July 18th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
One correction, it is the United States Supreme Court that changed the laws regarding the right of the accused to face the accuser in court not the Alabama Supreme Court.
Also, if you whave trouble believing that someone would plead guilty to something they did not do check out the Central Park Jogger case. The boys who were convicted were later proved innocent through DNA evidence.
July 18th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Laura, you might remember that this is America and citizens of this country have the right to criticize our public officials. I won’t apologize for being critical of her decision to let Mr. Love off with no jail time. She was not obliged to accept the DA’s offer and the DA should be run out of town for even thinking about suggesting such a lax punishment. Judge Hall chose to let Mr. Love off without jail time. I’m within my rights to disagree with her as well as use publicly available documents to look for any compromising connections. If what we’re doing merits a lawsuit then we need to line up and sue everyone critical of Bush, Congress, and the Supreme Court (hey, that would include you) just to name a few.
The Central Park Jogger case and this case are apples and oranges. The teenagers in the CPJ case didn’t have THREE VICTIMS who turned them in.
Don’t brag too much about Judge Hall sending drug offenders, who only harm themselves through their drug use, to prison. Maybe if she wasn’t clogging up our scarce prison cells with them she might find it a bit easier to locate criminals who harm others in an 8×8.
July 18th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Brian, I’ll let you know that I am well versed in the constitutional right of free speech and the ability to criticize our public officials. I do it routinely criticize our public officials from Bush to Clinton and anyone in between. Where I disagree is when the media publish erroneous information or half truths. I watched Hannity and Colmes program last night and there were several misleading comments. Loretta Nalls is not a citizen of Huntsville nor of MAdison County. She said more than once that she went to jail for sending letters to the newspaper advocating marijuana use which was not true. She may have only had a marijuana butt in her possession but that is still against the law and she was only there one day. ALSO, Nalls implied that Judge Hall was accepting bribes from the defense attorney which is why she let him off which is NOT criticizing a public official. It is indirectly accusing someone of wrongdoing through innuendo and the last time I checked that may not be completely illegal but it is certainly immoral. This case is not about drug laws.
By placing Nalls on Hannity and Colmes and comparing drug sentencing (which is truly apples and oranges) with sex abuse sentencing you are truly muddying the issue. The reality is that Judge Hall had to decide whether to place children on the stand and recount their abuse for the world to hear and the victims did not want to testify against their abuser in that forum. Would you want any of your children to have to do that? Would you force them to recount their sodomy for not only the twelve members of the jury, the lawyers and the judge but also the Huntsville Times and whoever decided to show up in the gallery that day? I cannot imagine any parent forcing their child to do that no matter how much they might want justice for their child. Again, the victims did not want to testify in court against their abuser. Answer that.
No, Judge Hall did not have to accept the deal. Yes she could have rejected it. She routinely does. However, because of the laws of this country, the DA has to plead cases sometimes which, although repugnant, is a reality. Again, if you want to criticize someone, criticize the right someone’s, the United States Supreme Court who placed the rights of the accused over the rights of the victim and changed the laws so that the prosecution can not submit victims statements.
For the record Brian, I have a Masters Degree in history. I think I know the consitution and I certainly know what country I’m in. As far as the Central Park Jogger, Ms. NAlls made the statement that if someone were “most sane innocent people would fight tooth and nail” to be cleared of the charges. My point is that that is not neccessarily true.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
It would cause me great anguish to do it, but I would compel my children to testify against their attacker (God forbid) for the simple reason that I couldn’t live with myself if similar harm befell another innocent child because I wanted to protect my child’s feelings.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
One last time:
1.) Judge Hall has a sterling record within the legal community and with law enforcement. She routinely rejects pleas and has sent thousands of sex offenders to jail during her tenure. As late as 2005, she had only had one of her decisions overturned. Criticize her if you want to but do try to make an informed decison not one based upon half-truths. Go to the courthouse and look up her decisions in the court records.
2.) If you’re upset with the verdict, change the law. Don’t shoot the messenger. Petition the Supreme Court to allow victim’s statements to be introduced into court proceedings rather than force children to testify about their abuse in front of everyone, in graphic detail I might add. It is victimizing our smallest victims all over again. Again, I would not have the heart to force a child to relive his or her worst nightmare. I couldn’t do it. Be honest, would you put your two year old child on the stand to tell the world exactly where the abuser placed his penis? I can understand shooting the perpetrator I can not understand the other. It is always easy to say I’d this or I’d do that and then actually follow through with it. Criticize the DA and his office for issuing the plea agreement if you must but understand that they have been screaming about this law for YEARS because many times victims will not testify in open court against their abuser and they can not prosecute someone even though they know is guilty, because they essentially have no evidence. Unless it is a brutal rape there is often no physical evidence left to use against the abuser. What do you do? As you put it this is America and their is such a thing as due process.
3.) The victims did not want to testify in open court and who can blame them. We’re not the ones that have to deal with the aftermath. The prosecutor and judge, in the only path left open to them, did their best to put this man away.
4.) CHANGE THE LAW!! KNOW THE LAW!!! For example, did you know that in Alabama there is no law against starving your children but there is a law against starving an animal? Had the three children who starved to death a couple of years ago been rescued before they died there would have been, at best, misdemeanor neglect charges. I believe that starving an animal is actually a felony. Everyone would be up in arms against our officials just like they’re doing now but guess what!There is no law! Ultimately it is the public’s responsibility to change the laws they don’t like and it is a waste of energy berating a system rather than changing it. You could impeach Judge Hall or not vote for her in the next election but the problem will still be there and the next judge and the next DA will be forced to issue the same plea bargains they’re doing today.
Be mad get mad change something !
July 18th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
There’s got to be a better way to get rid of the bad guys once and for all. We should not have to force/coerce our children to do something even many adults can’t do which is to face their attacker in open court and relive the most horrible experience of their little lives. Nor should we have to be in a situation where we let thes creeps go with a slap on the wrist because there is no evidence against them. Do we really want to place our children in a “he said/she said” situation especially against a parent? The problem, one more time tonight, is our laws not the judges and prosecutors whose job, already difficult, has been made even more difficult by the United States Supreme Court. Judge Hall would NEVER have allowed this man to only receive probation had she been left with any other alternative which she wasn’t. She could have rejected the plea but Love would have gotten away without even probation because there was no evidence at that point. That would have been an even greater tragedy.
CHANGE THE LAWS!!!!!!!!!!!
July 19th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Have any of you checked the court record? My understanding is that if the judge doesn’t accept the plea then the defendant can withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial. What would happen to the case if the victims refuse to testify? A not guilty verdict? or a dismissal? Either of which would get the guy off completely. Then he wouldn’t even have to register as a sex offender!
July 19th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Way to go Laura. I’ve seen way too many times the media putting an ugly slant on things to up their ratings. My friend actually witnessed a reporter in a grocery store during an upcoming storm actually have the store employees move the milk and then then a report for the news stating that the grocery stores were running out of milk! If they will slant things a minor as that, what do you think they would do to a bigger story to up their ratings? The media is interesting in ratings–not the truth.
July 19th, 2007 at 7:35 am
The US constitution grants a criminal defendant to confront and cross examine his accuser no matter if the accuser is 35 or 5 years old. That is a great protection and reading a victim’s statement clearly violates this clause.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:52 am
I’m with Wayne on this one. As much as I disdain the thought of aggressive defense attorneys harassing young, fragile children the right to confront one’s accuser is not in the Constitution by mistake. It is an essential element of a fair legal system that is built upon the presumption of innocence.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I also agree with the right to front your accuser. However, I’d like to point out that this right is violated every time cops use a ‘confidential informant’ in a drug case. A confidential informant doesn’t have to testify because it would compromise their identity. In my case it was eventually determined that the police made up the bit about a confidential informant (and everything else). I suspect that is the case most times when confidential informants are involved.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
[...] The Attack Machine July 18 / 07 interviews Loretta Nall The Attack Machine July 18 / 07 interviews Loretta Nall Loretta Nall: Loretta Nall on The Attack Machine Audio interview @ http://www.lorettanall.com/WVNN.mp3 & Flashpoint Blog- Does Judge Karen Hall have ties to defense lawyer? Flashpoint Go Loretta Go!!!! She always kicks some serious ass!! Keith _____________________________________ Calgary 420 Cannabis Community Calgary420.ca [...]
July 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Look.. all kinds of people DONATE to political campaigns.. How about the fact that judges and prosecutors offices are often in the SAME BUILDING.. how about the fact that THEY donate to campaigns too… imagine if you had to RECUSE urself as a judge if a PROSECUTOR wanted to donate to your campaign..
This is a NON-ISSUE.. the donation…
July 19th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I agree, Loretta. CI should be ID’ed period
July 19th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
While I TOTALLY agree that a defendant has the right to confront their accuser, the reality is the situation we have with the Love case. I don’t think our Founding Fathers envisioned teen age boys describing in court how their father or uncle performed oral sex upon them. We want the pedophiles to go to jail or be executed but what happens is that the children are too terrified and embarrassed to testify so guess what! Unless the pedophile is stupid enough to take pictures, which doesn’t happen too often, there’s no evidence and the perpetrator walks away because the prosecutors can’t prove their case. Then we get mad at the judge and we get mad at the prosecutor and call for their impeachment when the pedophile goes free. You can’t have things both ways. The most basic premise of our constitution say innocent until proven guilty and guess what happens when you can’t prove the person is guilty.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Here are some scary facts about prosecuting child sex abuse from a former sex abuse prosecutor who practiced for over ten years and had an 80% conviction rate:
1.) Fewer than 20% of sex abuse cases have tangible evidence such as a defendant’s confession and/or evidence collected from medical exams.
2.) Even if there is evidence, prosecutors HAVE to place the victims on the stand because of the defendant’s right to face their accuser. This above mentioned prosecutor had a case where a son raped his 80+ year old mother. There was physical evidence and a 911 tape but the victim still had to take the stand because the judge, not Karen Hall by the way, threatened to throw the case out because the defendant had the right to face his accuser. The prosecutor was forced to wheel the victim in in her wheelchair and oxygen mask and place har on the stand in order to keep a rapist off the streets even though there was enough evidence to convict him. Had the victim refused to take the stand, he would have been freed.
3.) Mr. Love was an adoptive father of foster children which meant he had to go through DHR. For a FACT, DHR would have continued to place children in his home unless he had a criminal conviction on his record. That is a fact. If Judge Hall had not accepted the plea the prosecutor presented Love would not have had a criminal conviction. Therefore he would have had children placed in his home again. There would be no proof that he did anything wrong getting back to innocent until proven guilty. DHR voted him and his wife foster parents of the year for crying out loud. But the media conveniently overlooks these facts.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:05 am
So there is not much pysical evidence in sex cases. All the more reason to allow cross examination to insure that testimony is reliable. There are a lot of false allegations mixed in with those cases too and unfortunately, the state is usually too worried about the child’s psyche to question the accuser thoroughly to determine if the charge is truthful.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:47 am
You can’t have it both ways. You want the victims to be required to testify in court, but when they won’t or their family doesn’t want them to, then you want to place the blame on the district attorney for working out a plea so that they at least get a conviction and the judge for accepting it. Again so that there is at least a conviction. You cannot force victims to testify. Every victim is different and some may actually be more traumatized by having to testify in court. And if there is no way to get a conviction at trial without that testimoy, then you cannot place the blame on the prosecutor or the judge when the defendant gets all that can be worked out in a plea bargain.
Do you honestly think this guy would have plead guilty if the prosecution had offered him the same sentence he would have gotten upon a finding of guilty by a jury? No, he would have taken his chance at trial–especially when the victims weren’t going to tesitfy.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:58 am
So, it’s more important for the DA’s office and the asst. DA trying this case to get a ‘conviction’ notch in their belts than to actually getting a child sodomizer of the streets? There was obviously enough evidence for a grand jury to indict this guy…but not enough for thr DA’s office to take it to trial??
Does the Madison Co. DA’s office often take cases this weak to trial?
What is a ‘conviction’ worth if a child sodomizer is walking free? And don’t start yammering about the sex offender registry which is an absolute joke or an ankle bracelet tracking. Neither of those things will keep this guy from reoffending if he chooses to.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:04 am
The Grand Jury only has to find probable cause–not guilty beyond a reaonable doubt–a big differnce.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Then why did the DA pursue the case? What purpose has been served by getting a conviction if someone who admitted to such terrible crimes and who the DA’s office and judge obviously believe to be guilty of these crimes, is still loose among the population?
July 20th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Laura, who is the prosecutor in the wheelchair case?
July 20th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Wayne, the prosecutor retired from the DA’s office and I do not want to violate her privacy since she is no longer a public figure.
Loretta, you are missing the point entirely. NO ONE I know who has worked to put rapists and child molestors away does it because they “want a ‘conviction’ notch in their belts” and to suggest that they do is shallow. The prosecutors I know have as much passion to put these predators away as you and I do if not more because they see it first hand every day. They see things that, literally, are the things of nightmares which is why many of them burn out.
Wayne, you’re right many innocent people are accused of these horrible crimes but you can’t be upset when victims won’t testify because they don’t have the courage to relive the worst experience of their lives. We can’t blame the judges and prosecutors for following the parameters of the law they try to enforce. There are no easy answers but I do believe there has to be a better way.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
By the way, for the sake of this discussion, sodomy laws in Alabama include any aberrant sexual behaviour not just anal sex. It also includes oral sex for example.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:12 am
Laura, before long I’m going to be forced to append one of the “this campaign ad was paid for by…” statements to the end of your strident defenses of Judge Hall. I would like you to read this and then tell me that Karen Hall did the right thing.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:53 am
Sure they do Laura. Prosecutors are some of the most predatory, egotistical creatures on earth and a notch in their conviction belts is usually more important than seeking out justice. I have a small program called CourtWatch where I travel to various courtrooms across the state to investigate how they treat defendants. I see it all the time. I do believe I will have to put Judge Hall’s courtroom on the list of places where my services are needed.
I don’t expect you to agree as you have planted yourself firmly on the side of the prosecution and judge in this case. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are one or the other and Brian would be right to make you add an addendum to your posts with *paid for by…* in it somewhere.
Maybe that isn’t what happened here …yet no one has answered my question of if this guy is guilty, and the DA had to think so in order to offer a plea deal and the judge had to be convinced of his guilt before accpeting said plea deal, then why such a sweetheart deal? Just how in the hell can a prosecutor and judge, who are suppossed to put the bad people in jail, offer such an outrageous non-sentence to an admitted child sodomizer? Also, how does allowing him to walk free protect our children? If the case against this man was so weak then why did the DA’s office pursue it? I say they wanted that conviction but simply do not care if the man ever goes to jail or not.
What if this man is innocent? Is he? Have the DA and Judge Hall placed the worst kind of conviction on this man when he in fact did not deserve it? Seems like it has to be one or the other. If he is guilty then he should never see the outside of a prison cell again and if he is innocent then he should be cleared at once.
The judge and the DA in this case have let the public down and eroded public confidence in their ability to carry out their duties. I’ve asked AG Troy King to investigate, filed a complaint with the Judicial Inquiry Commission and am working on a complaint with the Bar Association. We’ll get to the bottom of this one way or the other. And look for me to be a guest in your courtroom very, very soon.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Brian and Loretta, for the record, I am NOT Judge Hall nor have I ever received any money for my opinons from her or anyone. I, like both of you, believe in standing up for what I think is right. As a matter of fact, I’ve never even looked at a blog before but joined this one because Brian stated that he wanted to get fair, balanced opinions. I’m begining to suspect that’s not the case. SO….
I’ll tell you about me. I was, until two days ago, a stay-at-home mom of three. I have a Bachelors degree in history from Tulane University and a Masters degree in history from UAH. I’m flattered that you seem to think I could be Judge Hall but I’m not. Just because I do my research and have a fair command of the King’s English does not mean I am a lawyer. The reason that I was incensed about this whole situation to start with is because the media did not present an accurate account of the facts and I’m really pretty sick of the general public being manipulated by a savvy media out to get ratings. As a historian, I am trained not just to know dates and people but also to look at both sides of an issue and uncover bias so that we can determine the motives of why things happened the way they did to learn from our mistakes. Unfortunately most people are not similarly trained. They believe what they are spoon fed by the television.
Being an educated person and a researcher by training, I like to get my facts straight before I give an opinion and I also look at both sides of an issue so that I can get as close to the truth as possible. I don’t like child rapists and think that there is a special place reserved in hell for them. So you are absolutely right when you say I’m solidly on the side of the judge and prosecutors because I want the people who hurt children to be behind bars. Unfortunately that doesn’t always happen because of the way our laws are structured.
You know, Loretta, why don’t you go and sit in Judge Hall’s courtroom. Sit in on several for that matter. Only be sure that you sit in on sex abuse trials. It is VASTLY different from legalizing drugs. If you want to run for governor again you have a responsibility to the public to get your facts straight and I’m not saying that to be mean or argumentative. Know the laws regarding sex abuse, talk to victims (if they’ll talk to you), listen to what goes on and maybe after you hear the testimony and learn how things work you’ll change your mind. I don’t think I can. Maybe you’ll gain a better understanding of exactly how and why a traumatized child won’t testify. Talk to therapists who counsel children who have been raped or sodomized. Be as informed about sex abuse as you are about drugs and then come back and talk to me. I’d be more than happy to. Maybe, just maybe, if you dedicated yourself to correcting the problems with the legal system in regards to child sex abuse instead of whether people can legally smoke dope there could be some change. It would certainly be a far better use of your time. It would be nice, for example, if we could at least have a closed courtroom to protect the child victim’s identity or if it would be illegal to starve your children since it is illegal to starve your dog.
Brian, why don’t you do the same. Criticize the judgeand DA’s office if you must but at least be informed.
I can’t change your minds and typing this is taking too much time away from my children and my husband right now. They are a little more important to me than trying to convince either of you to change things.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:57 pm
You know, the more I think about it the funnier it is that you think I’m Karen Hall! I get my information about the laws the same way either one of you can if you just went to the time and effort to do so. Give me a call when you put as much time and effort into researching the laws and legal processes of sex abuse crimes as I have. I admit that I’m biased toward judges that are tough on crime because I want the bad guys behind bars. I admit I’m biased. You don’t have to admit you’re against judges and prosecutors because your bias is even more clear than mine. Go back and side with the drug dealers and drug users (and don’t bother to tell me that the only people they hurt are themselves, I’ve known too many people who have destroyed themselves and their families to believe that one) who are your heros and I’ll stay with the people who are my heros - the ones who do all they can to put the child rapists either behind bars or as far away from children as they can within the limits of the law they are sworn to uphold.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Funny that you say you support the people who put child predators in jail, yet that is clearly not what happened in this case. This guy is free to molest again. Yet you are still trying your best to defend the people who are responsible for that. It is an indefensible position.
As to drug users and the runiation of their lives….sure drugs sometimes play apart in that, poeple sometimes become addicted (studies show about 15% of people become addicted)….but the laws are what rip families apart and by placing someone who is addicted in a prison bed as opposed to a treatment center. Besides, putting someone in jail because they did something to make their family sad equates to locking up people you are mad at as opposed to people who are a danger to society. Imagine if we locked up every alcoholic because they disappointed their families.
You should also consider that children who are sexually or otherwise abused will often turn to drugs later in life to deal with the trauma of those events. Will you still support the ‘good guys’ if one of these kids winds up in prison for using drugs while the man who drove them to it was allowed to walk free?
July 21st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Loretta, writing this is really taking too much time away from my children. If you would like to continue this dicussion, I’d be glad to meet you somewhere and discuss it or I’ll give you my phone number and you can call me. In the mean time, you were a gubernatorial candidate, you tell me how you’d convict a man both the defense attorney and prosecutor knew was guilty but could not convict him because the victims were too terrified to testify. Keep in mind that the the man’s Sixth Amendment rights would be violated and he wouldn’t even have a criminal conviction on his record if the trial continued and he were found guilty. It’s my understanding that Love was molesting foster children for years but could not be convicted because his victims were too traumatized to testify. So, DHR continued to place children in his home (ready-made victims) because he did not have a criminal conviction on his record.
Please answer the question and then I’m going to drop this. What is your answer? How would you get this man of the streets without violating his Sixth Amendment Rights?
July 22nd, 2007 at 6:06 am
I would have taken my chances with a jury trial. There is simply no excuse for this scum to be walking around a free man. If I had lost at a jury trial then the public would at least know I did my level best to take such a person off the streets and away from children. A conviction with no jail time is a toothless conviction. He can still get to kids any time he wants. How much effort was put into trying to get these young boys to take the stand?
The sixth amendment is routinely violated in drug cases with the use of confidential informants, so maybe that isn’t the best question to ask me. Apparently a sexual predator that prey’s on children is more entitled to his sixth amendment right than me or anyone else who has to show up in court on some pissant drug charge. How bout them apples? Your tax dollars at work! And how come there are beds for ’sex offender treatment’ but no beds to drug and alcohol treatment?
I will be making the trip up to Judge Hall’s courtroom on Tuesday to observe for myself how she treats drug defendants vs. sex offenders.
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:52 am
So what you’re saying is that you’d take a chance on letting a man you knew to be guilty get away free? That’s insanity. Before you go to Judge Hall’s (why don’t you visit other courtrooms while you’re there) courtroom, why don’t you do some research on the internet on case laws regarding child abuse testimony and the Sixth Amendment. I believe the case is Crawford v. Washington but I could be wrong. Because of that law, victims HAVE to testify in an open court, there can be no watching them from a closed circuit television and because of hearsay evidence, apparently, the testimony they give to investigators can’t be introduced in court because of the rules regarding hearsay (I could be a bit wrong about the hearsay. I’m not an attorney and I’m not sure I totally understand all the ins and outs fo hearsay). I wish the victims of child abuse had as much sympathy as your beloved drug users and offenders who do have several treatment options available to them. My understanding of the sex abuse counseling program is that it’s similar to an AA program.
Also, I wish you would quit comparing drug offenders with child abusers. I’m talking about baking a cake and you’re telling me how to fry chicken. You never did answer how to examine a victim without violating the Sixth Amendment rights of the accused and you didn’t addrss the DHR problem.
I’ve said all I can say to you and I think we’ll have to just agree to disagree. You obviously aren’t going to listen to me and I certainly could care less about drug dealers and drug addicts. I wish I could be there Tuesday but I have just started a new job and can’t. Good luck at the madison county courthouse.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:26 am
But they are connected…by the Sixth Amendment. Even if you disagree with me on the issue of how non-violent drug users should be treated you have to agree that EVERYONE should have their rights under the sixth amendment of the US Bill of Rights granted and protected in the court of law.
One of the main problems with this case is the selective application of the 6th Amendment. It should either apply to everyone or no one. I, of course, am in favor of our Sixth Amendment applying to everyone. That it does not apply in minor drug cases that do not involve injury to another person but does apply in child sodomy cases where there is definite injury to another person should be a very real cause of concern for every citizen.
Some of the other problems are:
1. Why did the DA’s office pursue a case against someone they believe to be guilty of raping children in his care when they did not have enough evidence to place him behind bars for the rest of his life? That is a HUGE gamble that they alone are responsible for. A toothless conviction like this one is as good as no conviction at all because kids are still in danger.
2. If it is true, as you stated in an earlier post, that DHR had plenty of complaints against this man then how come no one has investigated them for continuing to plae children in his home. Also, if it has been going on for years it seems unlikely that all the kids he suppossedly molested/sodomized would refuse to testify against him.
3. Could the prosecutor not have offered a deal that involved some time behind bars?
4. Why didn’t the judge refuse the terms of the plea deal and make them negotiate more? Ultimately the decision was hers and she let this guy off with no time.