Posted on 11/09/2005 4:00:24 PM PST by kpp_kpp
Defendant faced life in prison
NEWARK — Facing life in prison, Kevin Walters cried with joy and hugged his family after a jury returned innocent verdicts on 12 sex-abuse charges.
Walters, 33, had been accused of four counts of rape, first-degree felonies, and eight counts of gross sexual imposition, fourth-degree felonies. Because of the accuser’s age, the rape counts carried mandatory life imprisonment if he had been found guilty.
The charges alleged that Walters forcibly engaged in sexual conduct with a female family member over a two-year period beginning in 2002 when the girl was 11 years old.
Without physical evidence of sexual abuse and presented with work schedules that contradicted the timing of the alleged victim’s account, the jury returned a verdict after only one hour of deliberations.
...
Burkett said that without Walters’ thorough work schedules, she would have been less confident in the defense. And in a case with he-said-she-said testimony, the jury could fall on either side.
“That’s what makes it so frightening for defendants,” she said.
Burkett said she believes the girl made up the accusations out of spite because she was forced to spend time at Walters’ home in the summer when she really wanted to be elsewhere with her friends.
But defending himself in court meant Walters had to accuse someone he loves of lying.
“The hardest thing he ever did was have to defend himself against his (own family),” Burkett said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newarkadvocate. com ...
i don't know how often false accusations like this happen but it sure makes one glad to be in a country with 'innocent until proven guilty' laws.
More often than we suspect. Particularly with foster children and street children.
We catch perverts red-handed with plenty of physical evidence and no conflicting work schedules all the time. What else is there to do with such people except eliminate them? This guy was innocent and the justice system revealed the truth of the matter, as it should be.
The DA had to have known all this aforehand. There's a big problem here with whoever that is having brought this case to trial at all.
you're correct that the system worked as it should. the guy obviously wouldn't plea to anything so the DA had to be the 'big shot' and carry it throught to trial unfortunately for all involved.
but my comment was regarding people being indicted. it somewhat disgusts me when an article is posted about someone getting arrested for sex with a child and post after post on fr boils down to "take him out and shoot him"/"why waste money trying scum"/etc.
At this point we should be considering that treatment for the DA. What kind of evil person brings up an innocent man on child sex charges when plain and clear evidence shows it could not have happened?
This case wasn't even close. For a jury to acquit so quickly on such a serious offense means there was no evidence. Heck in an hour the jurors can hardly have elected a foreman, looked over the jury instructions and voted.
The DA should have to answer for such a prosecution.
"we still may not know exactly what happened but this is for those freepers who are ready to hang, shoot, or otherwise terminate the life of someone indicted for sexual activities with a child.
i don't know how often false accusations like this happen but it sure makes one glad to be in a country with 'innocent until proven guilty' laws."
Damn right - we shoud wait and see if accused child molesters are covicted and then give them a chace to appeal. Only if their conviction survives appeals should they be hung.
My experience had nothing to do with sex charges of any kind, but prosecutors can and do follow through on bringing a person to court on charges where even the preliminary investigation disproves the case. I was tried on various charges brought by a dishonest realtor. At the conclusion of the testimony the judge asked the state's attorney whether he could present any proof that I had committed the crimes. I'll never forget the state's attorney's response: "I was afraid you'd ask me that."
In my case, the State (Maryland) Real Estate Commission is required to make good the losses of property owners if the realtor is shown to have ripped them off, but not if someone else can be shown to have been responsible. The state had a serious interest in making me that "someone else".
I'm as far-right as pretty much anyone, but I still maintain that some prosecutorial discretion is needed in this country.
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.