Posted on 09/26/2013 9:09:09 AM PDT by Altariel
Maine law allows police to arrest victims to make sure they testify
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/m...-they-testify/
CHELSEA, ME — A battered woman was arrested by police in an effort to force her to testify against her abuser. She was detained without charges, locked in a cage, and a bail was set. The startling practice of arresting the victim is actually legal in Maine, thanks to a seldom used statute.
Jessica Ruiz, 35, was the alleged victim of domestic violence at the hands of 45-year-old Robert Robinson, Jr., in an April incident. On September 17, police arrested Ruiz to make sure she testified against Robinson.
“They parked down the street, they pounded on her door and they arrested her,” explained Lisa Whittier, Ruiz’s appointed lawyer, according to the Kennebec Journal.
Ruiz was taken to jail, subjected to a warrantless pat-down search, locked in a cage with a bail set at $5,000. She was locked up without charges, with two other women, for 17 hours.
While she was detained, officers served Ruiz with two subpoenas, ordering her to come to two separate trials of Robert Robinson on domestic violence and witness tampering.
Whittier called the incident “outrageous conduct on the part of the state.”
Maeghan Maloney, district attorney in Kennebec and Somerset counties, was elected last year after campaigning on a zero-tolerance policy on domestic violence. She defended her decision to arrest the victim, saying “I would rather have to explain why she was arrested than why she was dead.”
“I know there’s a lot of people who disagree with it, but I don’t know how else to keep the victim safe other than to take every step that I possibly can to prosecute it,” Maloney said to WMTW.
But Maloney’s apparent concern for Ruiz’s well-being did not placate the distraught victim or civil libertarians. Zachary Heiden, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, was shocked at the arrest, remarking, “If the concern was for the witness’ safety, it seems there should be other ways of keeping her safe.”
The practice appears to be legal in Maine, under Title 15 §1104, regarding Material Witnesses.
If it appears by affidavit that the testimony of a person is material in any criminal proceeding and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of that person by subpoena, the court may order the arrest of that person and may require that person to give bail for that person’s appearance as a witness…
The feigned concern for Ruiz’s safety might have been a excuse all along. Robinson was already incarcerated, has a long criminal history, and was facing multiple charges.
“There’s no possibility that Mr. Robinson could have gotten out of jail,” said Lisa Whittier. “He’s being held on a probation hold and he’s being held on another charge, so they were not protecting her safety.”
“She has never said she wouldn’t testify,” explained Whittier. “She was always willing to testify and she would have honored a subpoena, had she been served a subpoena.”
Even Robinson’s lawyer stuck up for Ruiz. William Baghdoyan, who represents Robinson, assured reporters that Ruiz’s testimony was not the only thing keeping Robinson incarcerated. “If the domestic-violence charges disappeared, he’s not going anywhere,” Baghdoyan said. “He’s not a danger to anyone. He will continue to remain incarcerated.”
“My interest in this is professional, as a former prosecutor and a member of the Maine bar,” Baghdoyan continued. “She’s gone through unnecessary trauma. She is a very nice young woman, and she has been treated shabbily.”
Witness safety can be a real concern in cases like these. But there are other, more appropriate methods of protection. Slapping a traumatized victim in handcuffs and then into a jail cell is not an appropriate act of compassion. It is emotionally stressful, damages the arrestee’s reputation, interferes with their job and family life, among other inconveniences that come with being involuntarily locked in a cage.
Maine residents should tell their state representatives that Title 15 §1104 needs to be repealed. It is inexcusable to treat victims this way.
Well of course if they're mentally unsound and a danger to themselves you intervene! That's not what you said, though.
Do you have any evidence that the lady in the article is mentally unsound?
You have far too optimistic a view of politicians and politics in general to suppose that they would not be willing to suspend habeas corpus to justify their ends.
Again, let’s stick to the available facts, not suppositions or assumptions.
It’s hardly a possibility limited to literature. If you are willing to allow the camel to stick his nose into your tent, do not be surprised when he bites you on the rump in return for your willingness to grant him the benefit of the doubt.
Freegards,
Be careful. In the eyes of a government employee, *you* could be considered “idiotic”.
Believe in God? you must be a simpleton.
Own a gun? You’re clearly a vile fiend.
All it takes is the right—or wrong-—person to believe you require the “care” and “protection” of The State, and you are in the same situation as the woman in this account.
By the way, government overreach, corruption and tyranny are also “well established functions” of government-—be careful what you defend on the basis of a practice being “well-established”.
Actually, the prosecution has a job. Most places aren't idiotic enough to imprison victims to make the prosecutor's job easier. This is just another reason to stay below the Mason-Dixon line.
I think it's sad that there are people who would defend this practice.
Sure this sounds bad as presented, but the story was framed in so one-sided a way that it makes me suspicious. "Somebody ain't tellin' all they knows."
I am not saying that I know what happened here, because given this extremely slanted article crammed full of buzzwords and setting out to paint the DA in the worst possible light, we can't know. I am simply pointing out circumstances under which it is possible that the DA was trying to do the right thing. Unhinged victim or intimidated victim who swears out a warrant and then changes her story, dangerous offender who may be released on bail, threats against victim, etc.
I know the default at FR is "jack booted thugs and you're next" but I wouldn't hang a dog on this basis, let alone a DA. And anybody who thinks a DA is "just a job" . . . nope. It doesn't pay well unless you're in a big county with a supplement. I know a few hacks in crooked counties, mostly urban ones < cough cough Nifong cough cough > but most DAs are dedicated to the job and honestly want to do the right thing.
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.