Posted on 11/17/2014 11:21:28 AM PST by iowamark
Garner, Iowa- The prosecutors in the Henry Rayhons sexual abuse case have filed a motion seeking a change of venue.
Rayhons, 78, House District 8 representative, was charged with third-degree sexual abuse for allegedly assaulting his wife, Donna Lou Rayhons, on May 23 while she was a resident of Concord Care Center in Garner.
According to the criminal complaint, Rayhons was told by care center staff and his wife's family that she did not have the cognitive ability to give consent to any sexual activity.
Donna Rayhons died Aug. 8 at a Hampton care center.
Assistant Iowa Attorneys General Susan Krisko and Tyler Buller filed a motion Thursday asking the court to move the case out of Hancock County due to extensive pretrial publicity. The motion also expresses concerns about Rayhons' partisan affiliations as an elected official in Hancock County undermining the state's ability to obtain a fair trial and heighten the prejudicial impact of sensationalist statements in the local media.
The prosecution alleges the change of venue is necessary because "such degree of prejudice exists int he county in which the trial is to be held that there is a substantial likelihood a fair and impartial trial cannot be preserved with a jury selected from that county."
According to the motion, statements made by Rayhons' son Dale and local elected officials have tainted the jury pool. Rayhons' attorney Joel Yunek of Mason City also allegedly made sensational and prejudicial statements about the case to the media.
A hearing on the motion is set for 3 p.m. Dec. 16 in Hancock County District Court in Garner.
Yunek said he plans to file a resistance to the state's motion.
"He's entitled to a jury of his peers and what could be more his peers than Hancock County," Yunek said.
The trial is scheduled for Jan. 28, 2015.
Rayhons has pleaded not guilty to the Class C felony. He did not seek re-election to the statehouse this fall.
A bizarre case.
State Rep. Rayhons is charged with felony sexual abuse for allegedly having sexual contact with his own wife, who had Alzheimer’s, and was in a nursing home. Mrs. Rayhons died last August.
Henry Rayhons is a Republican. He is being prosecuted by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, a Democrat. Rep. Rayhons chose not to run for re-election after being charged.
Did the Dem win the seat this time? If so, their work is done.
sounds like making a travesty out of a tragedy. the poor old timer shows his love for his wife and is hounded by the law?
sickening. had he been a democrat they would defend him if he had forcibly raped her a la clinton/broderick
sad
Too bad he wasn’t married to a man. It would be A-OK then.
Another Republican won the seat.
This man is likely in such a state of misery and panic that he can’t think objectively right now. He needs a better Lawyer. Since when do residents surrender all rights to their own person. He was her husband, doesn’t that mean something anymore? I say it does and it should.
As long as he was’nt conducting some kind of ‘honor killing’ or treating her in a harsh manner, we the public need to stay the heck out of this. It’s not our business. I can’t imagine what it would be like having to say ‘goodbye’ to a loved one in a hospital setting. He needs a Lawyer who can articulate the fine points, then threaten to sue the hospital for emotional abuse to an elderly person, him.
Very odd. Know nothing about this case, but it would seem doubtful the "staff" mentioned or the family is qualified to provide an expert opinion on this matter.
BTW, 78 and charged with sexual assault! That ought to get you some respect in the cooler.
I am sorry- but I find this man having sex with his wife who is “not there mentally” degrading to her.
How about a wife who delivered a baby, suffered complications after birth resulting in a coma. Would you all of you be ok with her husband climbing on top of her and having sex with her in that situation?
Don’t know much about the case, but I think you are assuming I approve when that’s not necessarily the case.
But I find it interesting that the same people who upheld the husband’s right to starve his wife to death over the objections of her family in the Schiavo case are, I assume, claiming that the wife’s family should be privileged over her husband to make decisions for her that were a whole lot less critical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.