Showing posts with label Mark Stevens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Stevens. Show all posts

Monday, November 09, 2009

Raymond Jessop's sentencing seems to spark more life out of his defense team

Again, Brooke Adams is there, and is providing reliable updates through her "Twitter" account.
It would seem things are going to spill over into tomorrow, maybe longer? There is more at the San Angelo Standard-Times:
"While 51st District Judge Barbara Walther surveyed the prosecution’s evidence about the accusations Monday morning, Stevens regularly informed her of his numerous objections ranging from hearsay to violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

And Walther regularly responded that she wasn’t yet granting admittance to the evidence but just examining it, suggesting Stevens was jumping the gun.

She was also pushing to complete the punishment phase."
What? Stevens doesn't trust Walther? Her pattern is to push people up against an iron clad deadline of her own making, dropping a ruling on them and shutting them up. All the while we know what her ruling will be, only she says she hasn't made up her mind.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

An Interesting Tidbit on Sentencing from Bill

I did not know this, and hope it's true:
Free the FLDS Children - "As you recall, almost no jurors said they would consider probation for Raymond if he was convicted. OOPS!

Since on Voir dire they stated that they would not consider probation, the Defense can ask for a mistrial, and a new Jury HAS to be chosen for the Sentencing Trial.

It’s (Barbara Walther's) plan to bring in every maggot she can find that hates the FLDS almost as much as she does. She has that right.

On the other hand, Janet (Jessop's "informal" Mrs.) has the right to speak at the Trial, and so does Raymond himself. By Texas Law, he can make a statement to the Jury just the same as he could have made a statement to (Judge Walther) if she were railroading him into prison."
Defense attorney Mark Stevens has some sort of inscrutable strategy that I have not fully divined yet. I am not an attorney, least of all a Texas criminal defense attorney. I continue to suspect that Judge Walther has left an appeal rich trail that any attorney who likes appeals would drool over.

Perhaps the "deal" where Stevens capitulated on FLDS members on the Jury was that no one would contest them if a new panel was seated for sentencing. Either there's a plan or Stevens is a spectacularly bad attorney, is hobbled by defense wishes (I would think he wouldn't have taken the case then) and everything I hear over the transom is that Stevens is not a bad barrister.

Frankly if they're going down, I'd hope the FLDS sets up some sort of legal confrontation that clarifies certain points of law, but on the other hand, I can understand of people like Raymond Jessop elect to take probation over idealism.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 06, 2009

Walther Tries to Sentence Raymond Jessop on the sly

Except for a tip, no one would have known.
The Plural Life - "Surprise, surprise. The court decided to hold a hearing today after all. I got there in the nick of time, thanks to a certain unnamed tipster. Thank you!

Last night when we left, Judge Barbara Walther told everyone court would resume at 10 a.m. on Monday. That was the word from the Texas Attorney General’s Office, too.

But Walther changed her mind. Had things gone more quickly today, I think she was prepared to go ahead with sentencing. The jury was at the court, sequestered in the waiting room. She finally sent them home about 2:30."
Brooke Adams scores again. She is apparently responsible for getting Juror 12 86'd, though in retrospect I think I would have preferred that she remained, and now she scores with nosing out another Walther Friday Surprise.

I don't know if the defense consented to this or not. I personally don't know the workings of the court, but I know that Walther would trample them if she could, and probably has IMHO.

On the surface, this seems to stink.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Heard on the Radio, Reflections on the Verdict

With the Fort Hood tragedy dominating the news, the Raymond Jessop verdict sorta slid beneath the waves.
I was on my way to the bank this morning, and overheard on the news, as the last story (paraphrased of course) was this:
"Raymond Jessop is facing 20 years in jail as a result of being convicted yesterday in Texas for sex with a teenage girl. The conviction was a result of a raid on the Yearning for Zion Ranch last year, in which over 400 children were put into foster care."
There are probably less than 2000 people outside the FLDS and Texas Law Enforcement that know what really happened and this is how public opinion is shaped. The story didn't include the fact that the children were all returned. Most people don't know the big issues that were in play at YFZ for all of us, and are still fuzzy on what happened afterward. I think Brooke Adams spoke for herself as well as others about the result of the trial when she had an anonymous man who accosted her outside the courtroom respond to the verdict with one word.

"Good."

Most people who did know about the details of YFZ were concerned with the children. When they all went back (a perception not reinforced by the above referenced news story) that was the end of their outrage. By hook or by crook a molester or 12 had been apprehended and that was good enough. Compromise tends to rule the day when truth is at stake and it seemed a fair result to most that at the end of an illegal raid, FLDS members got half their stuff back. You YFZ'ers keep your kids, we'll jail the dirty old men for the next 20 years. Nothing can ever make a wrong right, but the least you can do is try to reset things to the way they were. Such moral compromises always encourage the despot and the thief.

You want 100%? Just steal twice as much as you need. Compromise. Meet your opponent half way. How is it good that I walked through the door with $100.00, got beat up, had to dust myself off, shake hands with my assailant and walk out the door missing a tooth and only having $50.00 and him getting credit for giving it back to me? I want my $100.00 thank you.
The Washington Times - "Kathy and George Norris lived under the specter of a covert government investigation for almost six months before the government unsealed a secret indictment and revealed why the Fish and Wildlife Service had treated their family home as if it were a training base for suspected terrorists. Orchids.

That's right. Orchids."
Everything is criminalized now. From food, to sex to drugs to marriage, it's all regulated overmuch by the Government and you're doing something wrong, I promise you. Have we forgotten the Manna Storehouse? In a completely criminalized society, where you cannot hope to stay violation free, you're only hope is a valid search warrant standing in between you, and imprisonment. Anyone who has bothered to follow the few facts accumulated about Rozita Swinton's call to the Newbridge shelter knows that she guessed at a lot of details and out of several jurisdictions she called, only Texas eventually chose to believe her tall tales. We all laugh in theaters and watching TV at the pretense used by police to gain entry to places they cannot go. We cheer them on because they are the monolithic "Good Guys" and the script demonized "Bad Guys" have been getting away with too much anyway. Time to win one for the team.

If you combine too much regulation, too many personal swat teams and too little in the way of barriers to home invasion on the part of Law Enforcement, you end up with the purest form of tyranny. The laws cannot all be enforced. Many of the agencies still don't have their personal swat teams and their laws just lay there, on the books, no one enforcing them. You can TRY to get them enforced but good luck with that. Angry police officers and detectives will inform you of rules and regs they know about pertaining to harassing a police officer and threaten to come get you if you don't quit bothering them. And they can. This then becomes the selective use of law to keep you in line, not to make for a law abiding society. I have personal experience with that. A 2am obscene phone caller from out of state. I should have known when the whole YFZ thing started that nothing would happen with the prank caller. I had personal experience with a misdemeanor offense committed against me. It ended with a Gallatin County Sheriff's department detective threatening me to enforce a law against me if I didn't stop bothering him about it. It didn't stop them from sending a cruiser to my door in the middle of the night to shut up my persistent out of state harasser, that they could not shut up.

How odd that this in many ways fits the pattern exactly of the YFZ affair. Wanting to be cooperative I invited the Deputy into my home. It is only now that I remember his eyes roaming the room for an "exigent circumstance." There was none, whatever unknown misdeed I was committing, he either did not see, or didn't know about himself. I suppose if my daughter had been up downloading copyrighted music, he could have cuffed me right there.

We are all in that sort of peril. We are all at the mercy of Law Enforcement trying to make their day go easier and shut up pests, many of them from out of state, be it pranksters from Colorado, or Malcontents from Utah and Arizona or regulators from Washington DC wanting to eliminate the illegal orchid trade, or food Nazis in Ohio.

My only natural son has proved an interesting lesson for me in many ways with his various and continuing scrapes with the law. One of the most vital lessons was how LE seeks to gain control over people. At the end of one of his scrapes I had managed to guide him through the court system, getting him cleared of an undeserved felony and winding up with a correct charge that was a misdemeanor and accompanying probation to go with it.

Then I got my education. The probation officer as much as told me that he wasn't interested in managing my son's probation to keep him out of trouble, instead, he wanted to manage it so that he could catch him in another felony. Why? Because he could then control him better, if he was a felon. A felon goes back to prison, a misdemeanant does not. Alcohol consumption may be legal, pot a minor crime and having hand lotion (allegedly for the purposes of self gratification) are not that big a deal for you or I, but as terms of probation for a felon, can send them to jail for things they seemingly can't resist. Control.

In this same way police don't want to give up the small controls they have in our lives. It works to their advantage if they can just go anywhere they want, anytime and in the currently over regulated environment, if all it takes is Pinky (or Sarah) calling while watching TV to spark a raid, LE doesn't worry about what they'll find when they get inside. They know they'll find something.
"Jerry Lee Lewis had already gone through two marriages by 1957; he'd married Jane Mitcham, his second, 23 days before his divorce from his first wife, Dorothy Barton, was final. On December 12, 1957, Jerry married his third cousin, Myra Gale Brown. A lot of ink has been spilled about his close blood relationship with Myra, and the fact that she was only thirteen and still believed in Santa Claus when the pair were married. For a man from his time and place, however, marrying at thirteen and marrying one's third cousin (twice removed) were both fairly commonplace occurrences, although Lewis further complicated matters by again marrying before the divorce from his second wife was final.

Lewis didn't seem to realize that this was offensive to most urban markets (and to other countries): in fact, Sun Records' Jud Phillips (brother of producer Sam) had warned him against taking Myra with him to England on his first European tour. Jerry Lee, never one to change his mind, took her anyway. When they stepped off the plane on May 22, 1958, Lewis obligingly told the British press that Myra was his wife (although he gave her age as 15 and moved up the date of their actual wedding). His bride, for her part, told the gathering that fifteen wasn't too young to marry back home: 'You can marry at 10 if you can find a husband.' "
1957. It wasn't that long ago, I was three years old. Jerry Lee Lewis is now considered to be a bit of a rascal, a country singer, and his daughter by his union with Myra, manages his career. Now there's a pedophile for you. We too quickly forget. What is now a 20 year jail term was once commonplace and I promise you that a look back at your recent ancestry is liable to produce a similar union. Without them, we would not be here.

Now like prohibition crazies gone wild again, we have found a new vice to be shocked about. Sex with "children." On the surface it seems like a righteous cause and it's perfect because both the left and the right hate their newfound sinners, so they have no friends. The left tears at the LDS and other religions regularly and popularize their failings. The right whines about molesters and homos and wants to pull the dust from everyone else's eye while ignoring the lumber yard in their own.

What do they find? A small fundamentalist group of Latter Day Saints who have been doing what they've been doing since the religion was founded. The Right hates them. The mainstream LDS religion hates them, the Left hates them. Once you're isolated like that, you have little hope. After a year and a half of demonizing the FLDS and trying the case in the press with outright lies, Raymond Jessop, who they can't even prove committed a crime in Texas, is convicted by a jury in time to get home for dinner. Raymond's wives will not see him now for perhaps the rest of his life. His children may even be barred from seeing him. They will become doubtless members of the welfare roles. Not a single participant in the "crime" (both adults now) testified in the case. Raymond's "victim" didn't even complain.

Is all well?



More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, November 05, 2009

That didn't take long.

Guilty, but you probably know that already.
Lone Star Texas News - "Raymond Jessop has been found guilty of sexual assault of a child in connection with charges he married an underage girl. Jessop was a member of the FLDS Church and live on the compound near Eldorado that was raided by the state last year.

Attorney General Greg Abbott says 'the jury in State v. Raymond Merril Jessop has rendered a guilty verdict. The sentencing phase of the trial will begin Monday morning. Because trial proceedings are still ongoing, we cannot comment further at this time.'

This was the first trial stemming from that state raid."
The way the trial was going, it really didn't figure that the verdict was going to take long. The way I see it their minds were made up before they even heard the first word uttered in trial.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Mark Stevens moves for an "Instructed Verdict"

Denied of course:
The Salt Lake Tribune - "One document, a marriage record, showed Jessop married the then 16-year-old on Aug. 12, 2004, for 'time and eternity,' at Jeffs' home at the Yearning for Zion Ranch, where about 600 members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints reside.

Jeffs performed the ceremony, while counselors Wendell Nielsen and Fred M. Jessop were witnesses.

A dictation dated Oct. 19, 2004, said that a 'fourth home was to be built' at the ranch for Jessop, its foundation to be completed by Nov. 5 of that year.

A list dated Oct. 7, 2005, of 'Babies Born at R-17' showed names of Jessop and his alleged victim and a check mark under a column labeled 'girls.'

Hanna also read from a 'List of Nursing and Expectant Mothers,' which under Jessop's name show the alleged victim as a nursing mother in October 2005. As required by 51st District Judge Barbara Walther, names of two pregnant women and two other nursing mothers associated with Jessop were blacked out.

None of the documents were dated from November 2004, when the state alleges the alleged victim became pregnant.

Defense Attorney Mark Stevens focused on that when he asked Walther to give the jury an 'instructed verdict' that the state hadn't proved jurisdiction. Walther denied that motion
."
This would seem to say that the defense is conceding that Raymond is the child's father. That really doesn't surprise me. It also may be that the defense will point to the fact that other possible candidates that were close relatives were not tested, and we don't know what those tests would have shown. If I made that argument in Mark Stevens' shoes, I would point out that we can't know what likelihood of paternity exists in another person not tested, that the state assumed too much and didn't do it's job.

In the final analysis though, it seems that he is going to hang his hat on the idea that Texas is trying a case it can't know it has jurisdiction over, that Raymond and his "Bride" could have been anywhere in the world, and it certainly hasn't been shown that Raymond was on the ranch when the child was conceived.

The Associated Press seems to concur that it is an essential element.
WRAL - "(Raymond) Jessop's attorney, Mark Stevens, has argued that prosecutors failed to show that any assault happened in Texas - a necessary element in demonstrating the court's jurisdiction.

'There is no way one can draw a reasonable inference ... that this alleged event must have occurred on that ranch,' he said."
More →

Sphere: Related Content

What's the Message here?

Judge Walther has made this trial an unpleasant experience for all, keeping long hours and holding jurors into the night. Now she tells them they can't go home until they give her a verdict:
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "(Texas Judge Barbara) Walther told the seven-man, five-woman jury Wednesday evening that she expected they’d be hearing closing arguments about midday Thursday. She also told jurors to pack suitcases, and her bailiff reserved rooms for them. Once jurors begin deliberating on a verdict, Walther has decided not to allow them to separate."
So they shouldn't communicate during the trial (but could) and now until the reach a verdict, they're going to jail.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Trial to go to Jury this afternoon

They said Stalin (at least) made the trains run on time.
The Deseret News - "Texas District Judge Barbara Walther told jurors in the trial of 38-year-old Raymond Jessop that attorneys hoped to offer closing arguments by midday.
And Judge Walther apparently read his book.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Two Critical Trial Observations, from Yesterday

There is some obscurity in the statute from before 2005. Granted, the law was changed, but before it was changed, the state may have to deem the "Victim" to be "married."
The Plural Life - "Judge Barbara Walther observed that that would also show that the alleged victim could not legally have married Raymond Jessop since she was married to someone else — a comment that seemed to make defense attorney Mark Stevens freeze up."
That may very well be the case since it seemed possible for persons to become less formally married, but married nonetheless in Texas before Harvey Hildebran's bill changed law effective 2005. My friend "Toes" wrote me and also blogged on this:
"Judge Walther is willing to recognize the previous marital status of the 'child' 'victim'.

According to DFPS legal definitions the 'victim' would then be an Emancipated Minor, according the DFPS definitions :

Emancipated Minor - A person under age 18 who has the power and capacity of an adult. This includes . . . a minor who, with or without parental consent, has been married.


Texas Family Code, Chapter 5, Sec. 101.003 defines a child:

CHILD OR MINOR; ADULT. (a) 'Child' or 'minor'" means a person under 18 years of age who is not and has not been married or who has not had the disabilities of minority removed for general purposes.


If the Judge (State) recognizes the previous marriage performed under the auspices of the FLDS church in a religious ceremony, the Judge (State) must also recognize the termination of that marriage under the auspices of the FLDS church and the subsequent remarriage under the auspices of the FLDS church to the Defendant.

The law regarding sexual assault of a child: Texas Statutes, Penal Code 22.011,

(c)(1) 'Child' means a person younger than 17 years of age who is not the spouse of the actor[perpetrator].
(2) 'Spouse' means a person who is legally married to another.

This throws the whole case out the window, as 1) the 'victim' was not a child by legal definition; and 2) the 'victim' was a spouse of the accused."


If she was married, the state has no case. If that's ignored on the trial level and a conviction handed down, it will eventually be reversed. Period. I've seen the prior statute and it did seem to say you could purport to be married and go through certain motions and be recognized as married and the state can't have it both ways. If they're going to try Raymond on bigamy for purporting to be married, well then, his "victim" was married. That, we'll have to wait and see to know.
"DNA shows Jessop is the father and photographs and other documents put the alleged victim and Jessop at the ranch, though not yet during the critical time period."
This is also critical, and I believe the jury to be stacked, and they will ignore this as well. With some judges and some trials there might be a directed verdict at the point where the state fails to "connect the dots." I don't think this will happen with Walther.


More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Texas Clearly accepts that Jurisdiction is a valid defense

The state of Texas is not arguing a fine point of law or a gross mutilation and misunderstanding of it, as blogging scoffers tried to palm off on us during the last year and a half.
Clearly Texas thinks if they cannot get the jury to accept that the crime occurred in Texas, there was no crime:
From Brooke's "Twitter" page - "Defense says most documents or photos about Raymond and other women/children are irrelevant to crime charge and prejudicial."
To which the prosecution replied:
"(Texas) says such documents help make jurisdiction argument and thus are relevant."
And there you have it. If Texas argues it must admit evidence for the sole reason that it establishes where Raymond Jessop was when his "Bride" (now an adult) became pregnant, then Texas is clearly saying if it can't establish in at least general terms, the location of both parents in Texas (assuming as I do that Raymond is the father), then the whole trial is moot.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Brooke continues to provide good coverage

Since I can't be there, and she is there, and she is providing the coverage,
it's really best to hear it from her. I think that unless Walther is instructing the jury that the prosecution is pushing the limits on procedures, apparently agreed to by both side, then Mark Stevens call for a mistrial is justified.

From other reports I was getting the impression that Stevens was essentially saying he was being maneuvered into looking like the bad guy before the jury, which is subtly prejudicial, and that of course, was what he was complaining about. I hope to have something to say on this later, but the trial is moving fast enough, that my observations may be dated.

It does look like (for now) that the variance in DNA odds that Raymond fathered the child in question would not be very large even if there was a far smaller "initial" chance used for his paternity. This is a point Ron took me to task on earlier. It appears for now, he is right. Sorry Ron, I just don't take your word for it until it's verified. I could have done the math myself ( a matter of time and lack of interruption ) or I could wait to see how it worked out in court. You seem to be right. That is, unless the defense brings in a witness later that credibly torques the odds in a different direction.

The next observation is that venue is a big deal and as of yet, I don't see how it is going to be proved that Raymond was on the ranch. I have no reason to believe Mark Stevens is an incompetent defense attorney and the prosecution is supposed to supply him with witness lists and evidence it is using against Raymond Jessop. If that's the case and the prosecution can prove Raymond was on the ranch, Mark Stevens should know that. He has argued that it can't be proved, and so far the state has done little to show that it can place him on the ranch. They seem to be centering their effort on proving he "resided" there.

If Raymond traveled in his line of gainful employment, and stayed away for extended periods of time, then it isn't going to matter a hill of beans if he resided there or not. He has to be shown to have been there at the time of conception of the child. Let us say there is a two week window for conception, and the prosecution can't place Jessop's bride or him there during that entire period of time, then even if it is proved he is the father (and he probably is) it can't be proved he committed a crime in Texas.

The venue question is important. A lot of noise has been made by FLDS haters over the last year and a half that it wasn't important. The state seems to think it is. Venue has been said not to matter because what happened was as crime in Texas. Since the state is trying to prove Raymond's location, it would seem venue is important, and if it can't be shown to have happened in Texas, or perhaps merely not to have happened in Eldorado, it should be game over.

I think the judge is biased, and the jury tilted and the playing field, not level, so it won't surprise me if a guilty verdict comes out of this jury. But, perhaps there is an honest soul among them.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 30, 2009

Flu Schmu

It really was an excuse to vet a witness. If the witness is for the prosecution, what will Walther do?
The Salt Lake Tribune - "Amy Smuts, a forensic analyst with the University of North Texas Health Science Center, testified without the jury present so 51st District Judge Barbara Walther could rule whether she was a relevant and reliable state witness.

The judge made that finding after Smuts' 2 1/2 hour turn on the witness stand."
So Walther does rule the witness is reliable. The defense protested that Smuts had used a different set of probabilities earlier. Yet another possible basis for appeal, should Raymond be convicted.

What did I tell you?
"Walther has not yet said whether the jury will be called back (today) to hear more testimony in the case against Jessop, who faces a second-degree charge of sexual assault of a minor."
There is no concern regarding the possible swine flu infection of a juror or her child. We just needed a minute or two alone, away from the jury.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Juror 12

Kudos to Brooke Adams.
The Plural Life/Brooke Adams - "Juror No. 12, Deborah Ballew.

She is the wife of Ray Ballew, who was the foreman of the grand jury that indicted (Raymond) Jessop. I confirmed her identify through a photograph I found online, several stories linking her and Ray and with one of my contacts in the community."
This is not against the law. Neither is it against the law though, for FLDS members to serve on the Jury but all were excluded. Somehow though, Deborah Ballew, who is the most intimate partner on earth, to the man who indicted Raymond Jessop, is a fit juror.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

FLDS "Real Estate" defense

Location, Location, Location.
The Houston Chronicle - "In opening statements Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Eric Nichols said DNA, witnesses and boxes of documents will prove Jessop had sex with the girl in 2004 because a child born the following year is his biological daughter.

However, the case requires prosecutors to prove a sexual assault occurred in Texas, a point Jessop's San Antonio defense team did not waste time making during Wednesday's opening statements.

'The prosecutor is not going to be able to prove by circumstantial evidence (or) direct evidence ... because there is no evidence that Raymond Jessop assaulted (the girl) on or about Nov. 14, 2009 in Schleicher County, Texas,' defense lawyer Mark Stevens said."
So, you prove Raymond is the Father. Who's to say the "assault" wasn't an assault because both families happened to be vacationing in Mexico? The "crime" does require some form of "premeditation" for it to be a "Mann Act" violation. If I meet (as I have) a girl from near my home at a convention in Atlanta, did I transport her across state lines to perform an illegal act? Not if she went there on her own, I would suppose. What if I "discovered" here there? In any case, it is not a crime in the state we both came from. It would be a different sort of crime at best.

By the way, this girl that I met in reality, was not a sex partner, I just met her out of state and she was from where I was as well. What we did there, if it had been a violation of the law, would not have been part of a "conspiracy" to leave the state to perform an illegal act.

Put another way, let us suppose you are both Mexican, and you have sex in Mexico, she gets pregnant, and she is 12. 12 is the age of consent in Mexico. You both move to Texas when she is 4 weeks pregnant. Are you guilty of sexual abuse of a child?

The shortest form of this discussion is, how does the state of Texas prove that Raymond Jessop had sex with anyone, below the age of consent, in Texas?
More →

Sphere: Related Content