Posted on 02/09/2006 5:31:44 AM PST by freepatriot32
William J. Hetherington has been incarcerated in Michigan prisons for more than 20 years for having sex with his wife Linda. In 1986, he became the first man in Genesee County convicted of the new Michigan crime called spousal rape. Linda was not a battered wife; she testified at the trial that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage. Hetherington was honorably discharged from the U.S. Air Force, received a National Defense Service Medal, and had no police record of any sort.
The sentencing guideline for this new offense was 12 months to 10 years but, without showing cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years (twice the time served by the average convicted rapist in Michigan). Twenty years later, despite an exemplary prison record, the parole board routinely refuses to parole him, giving as its sole reason "prisoner denies the offense."
Hetherington has, indeed, always maintained his innocence. It was a he-said-she-said case during a custody battle; he said it was consensual sex, she said it was rape. The judge used Michigan's new Rape Shield Law to prohibit cross-examination of Linda.
No physical evidence of rape was produced at the trial. A pelvic examination of Linda at the hospital three hours after the alleged offense showed no evidence of injury or forced penetration. Apparently what persuaded the jury to convict was the testimony of two police officers that they had observed tape marks on Linda's face.
The court-designated psychologist who examined Hetherington, Dr. Harold S. Sommerschield, Ph.D., concluded: "This is not a man who would force himself sexually or hostilely on another individual, as this would be foreign to his personality dynamics. ... his histrionic personality ... would substantiate his explanation of what has occurred in regards to the relationship with his ex-wife."
The rape charge was prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case, and the divorce court had frozen all Hetherington's assets so he had no money to hire a lawyer or make bond. Nevertheless, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent and refused to provide him with a lawyer.
For 12 years, the court refused to provide Hetherington with a transcript of the trial. Without funds, he was unable to buy one, so he was effectively denied his right of appeal, and no appeal has ever been heard on the substance of this case.
At the sentencing, prosecutor Robert Weiss called Hetherington's alleged offense equivalent to "first degree murder" and falsely accused him of beating Linda. Weiss was running for a judgeship, and observers sized up his prejudicial statements as grandstanding for support from the feminists.
Linda walked away with custody of their three daughters, the marital home, and all marital assets.
Ten years after Hetherington's conviction, a volunteer attorney, Jeff Feldman, using the Freedom of Information Act, obtained copies of five photographs taken of Linda by police at the alleged crime scene immediately after the alleged offense. The photographs were in a locker in a police garage, and the prosecution had never disclosed them to the defense.
The photographs were then examined by a forensic photographer in Miami, John Valor, using all modern techniques. Valor's four-page notarized report detailed his impressive expertise, including service as the lead forensic photographer in the trial of serial-killer Ted Bundy.
Valor's sworn statement dated January 8, 1998 stated that the pictures of Linda showed absolutely no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of any kind, and that marks would have been clearly visible if there had been any. If a government witness gives false testimony, a convicted prisoner should be entitled to a new trial, but Hetherington didn't get it.
Years later, a completely unsolicited letter was sent to the parole board by Melissa Anne Suchy, who had been employed by Linda as a babysitter. Suchy's letter is hearsay, but it has the ring of authenticity.
Suchy wrote that Linda told her she made up the story about rape because she was then pregnant with the baby of her boyfriend, and he pushed her to press rape charges, saying that she would have to "get rid of Hetherington or he wouldn't take care of the baby."
Over the years, several pro bono lawyers and concerned citizens have tried to secure a pardon or a parole for Hetherington, but Michigan appears determined to make him serve 30 years because he won't admit guilt and because the bureaucracy won't admit it made a mistake.
Almost everyone who reads the record of what happened to William Hetherington concludes that he was unjustly accused, unjustly convicted, unjustly sentenced, unjustly denied his due process and appeal rights, unjustly denied a new trial based on physical evidence of inaccurate testimony by government witnesses, and unjustly denied parole.
A good man's life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father, by the malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape and deny a man the right to cross-examine his accuser. They have created a judicial system where the woman must always be believed even though she has no evidence, and the man is always guilty
I haven't bothered to look at your website but I take your word for who you are. I know quite a few like you myself. Your problem is just like that of the "peaceful Muslims", you don't seem able to police your own and the bad ones get all the publicity. It's the old good news is not news story. I also know a few of the ambulance chasers, too.
Some greedy trial lawyers, I don't mean to imply that is what all of them are, are in cahoots with and are used by the Democrats to enforce a political agenda. That is where much of the perception problem arises.
I also used to do some investigation for insurance companies investigating primarily high-dollar disability claims and some workers comp stuff. The bad lawyers I encountered fell into basically two groups. Those who went for the big bucks depending on a sympathetic jury and those who went after lots of small dollar cases that the insurance companies would generally pay rather than contest.
I have seen and experienced both sides. Once again, hooray for you for being who you are.
That doesn't speak well for her character, or her credibility, if true.
Yea, I know Detroit et al keeps outvoting you, just like Philadelphia et al does for PA, Portland et al for OR, Seattle et al for WA, but IL and NY are liberal everywhere!
I do collection work for small businesses. I don't make big dollar pay days. I try to get payment for people who provided services but were not paid.
I am sick of lawyer jokes knowing the work I put in to get some satisfaction for hard working businesspeople who get screwed by deadbeats.
Until the Supreme Court addresses this issue, it is still up in the air, as far as I'm concerned.
Okay, but I wouldn't bet on the court throwing thousands or potentially tens of thousands of sentences onto the pyre.
I used to have a truly nutcase feminist girlfriend who would have loved this. She also believed that consensual sex could later be reinterpreted as rape if the woman decided that she had somehow been emotionally manipulated into having sex. In other words, if the man seduced her, or if the situation was anything other than the woman initiating and driving the process from start to finish, it could be interpreted as rape. The endgame for feminists is that they would like women to be able to have men incarcerated solely on their word, and without the need to provide any evidence whatsoever. I now consider myself fortunate that my ex-girlfriend steadfastly refused to put out.
"I agree entirely. Sometimes I wish hell would open up and suck all the lawyers and judges in especially the ones involved in this case."
IMO, when hell opens up it belches forth new trial lawyers...
"Throw her ass in prison too, and strip her of custody."
His daughters are adults now. It's been twenty years. It's too late for him to ever have a relationship with his kids. The damage is done. Even if he is released now his life has been ruined.
I have no idea how many cases would be affected by retro application. I do know this: if it is unconstitutional for a judge to make the fact finding that enhances a sentence without that fact having been found to be true by agreement of 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt, it casts great doubt on that sentence. What the law would be saying, in effect, is it is alright to deprive someone of his Constitutional right to a jury trial provided that you deprived him of that right long ago and it's ok to let him suffer forever under that unfair and unjust sentence. It just doesn't sit right. But, I must admit, I haven't reviewed the sentencing transcript and I don't know how the Court reached that lengthy sentence. It might comply with all Constitutional guidelines and rules. But, I have seen murderers go free in far less time. I have also seen many guilty never charged or charged less than the crimes warranted. This one seems on the surface to be harsh. One should not forget that the Supreme Court recently upheld a case here in California where a guy got 25 yrs for 3 golf clubs valued at $1100, with two prior strikes for theft, fraud type crimes. But, that did not violate Apprendi, nor the 8th Amendment.
"Wonderful, but this guy's a nobody."
Not if you are a up-and-coming prosecutor trying to impress the local NOW gang. I'll bet he made his bones on this case. Remember, 20 years ago the NAGS were a force to be reckoned with and used to advantage. Not so now, fortunately!
The issue I have here is not with the justice or injustice of the sentence, it's the fact that every time I try to do a little digging on this article, it turns out that the article is blatantly misrepresenting the facts of the case. That makes me real suspicious about the parts that I haven't done any digging on.
Agree wholeheartedly.
This case is an obscenity.
"The issue I have here is not with the justice or injustice of the sentence, it's the fact that every time I try to do a little digging on this article, it turns out that the article is blatantly misrepresenting the facts of the case."
Really? You have examples I presume?
That this can happen in America just underscores the fact of the evil spirit that has crept into our country since God has been legislated out.
Do you really think that positing the idea that a husband is allowed to force himself sexually on his wife because the bible says the man is the head of the household is portraying Christianity in the best of lights?
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.