DNA-test delay after rape helps suspect [Guilty man goes free]

The Orlando Sentinel ^ | April 2, 2006 | Stephen Hudak

[Brilliant]

You'd think that the government would at least be able to do the simple things.

[null and void]

ping

[goldstategop]

I agree with the acquittal. Better let 100 guilty men go free than see one innocent person wrongfully convicted. Its the prosecution that failed to do its job here. It isn't the victim's fault. As for the perp, some day he will get what is coming to him.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[pageonetoo]

...was found not guilty of lewd and lascivious battery of a minor -

Though he cannot be tried for that offense, can't he still be tried for statutory rape, or is FL not willing to get rid of these people. I would raise hell, until the DA refiled new charges which can be proved. Though it stems from the same incident, I would think they can put him under the jail, as they should have done in the first place!

It's a damn shame how disposable many of our children have become. I was just watching FoxNews, and heard the story of a crack-head mom who sold her 2 yo daughter for drug money. she is pregnant again, and got enough jail time (7 mos) to keep her off drugs until the new one comes, but then she is out on probation...

[mountainlyons]

The prosecutor should be the one doing 60 yeas!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

He should look for another line of work. And promptly.

[tsmith130]

Though he cannot be tried for that offense, can't he still be tried for statutory rape, or is FL not willing to get rid of these people. I would raise hell, until the DA refiled new charges which can be proved. Though it stems from the same incident, I would think they can put him under the jail, as they should have done in the first place!

On the last page of the article is this:

On March 24, two months after his acquittal on charges of sexually assaulting the teen, another jury deliberated less than two hours before deciding that Robinson was guilty of trying to arrange the girl's murder. Asked repeatedly on the witness stand whether he had had sex with the girl, Robinson refused to give a yes-or-no answer.

"I was found not guilty on that," Robinson said.

But prosecutors had DNA this time, and they used it to show Robinson's motive.

"It proved it wasn't just his word against hers," juror Courtenay Ryan said.

Robinson, who will be sentenced May 1, faces 30 years in prison -- half of what he could have received if he had been convicted of rape. He maintains his innocence and says he will appeal.

Prosecutors plan to seek the maximum sentence.

[mtbopfuyn]

Though he cannot be tried for that offense, can't he still be tried for statutory rape

Seems like they could bring some charge against him. Even a lesser crime, but one that would give him jail time so he's not out roaming the streets for another victim.

[null and void]

Thanks. Good to hear.

[pageonetoo]

I should have clicked the link, but was too steamed. Does FL not have a 3-strikes law?

[tsmith130]

From the information I've been able to find, yes they do.

[originalbuckeye]

The prosecution may have not gone well but IMHO juries these days can be hit over the head with evidence and they still think it is a case of 'reasonable' doubt. Do you actually live in CA? You must have observed the show-trials out here. I guess it's amazing that juries ever convict anyone anymore.

[raybbr]

When did a "fair trial" become "get the perp off by any means possible"? Defense lawyers now use any reason possible to generate reasonable doubt. The right to a fair trial was never meant to be used this way. It was to avoid tyranny at the local level not force prosecutors to have film of the incident in order to convict.

[robertpaulsen]

RTFA.

"On March 24, two months after his acquittal on charges of sexually assaulting the teen, another jury deliberated less than two hours before deciding that Robinson was guilty of trying to arrange the girl's murder."

[robertpaulsen]

"I don't know what else the jury wanted," Barrett said.
They wanted DNA or other indisputable evidence, its foreman said."

Geez Louise. How did we ever convict rapists before DNA?

[connectthedots]

Though he cannot be tried for that offense, can't he still be tried for statutory rape,

Nope; same set of facts.

[Brilliant]

Yeah, I don't know how the foreman can say they had no choice.

[Triggerhippie]

Defense lawyers now use any reason possible to generate reasonable doubt.

Well, that is their job...

[redheadtoo]

Seems like they could bring some charge against him

I don't think so. Not unless we wish to crumple up the Constitution and toss it in the trash. This man has already had his day in court and was found not guilty. And as much as this verdict offends our sense of justice, it must stand.

Try to image the courts bringing more charges against OJ after his acquittal. The DA couldn't convict him on first degree murder so he then charges him with man slaughter. Our laws don't work that way.

[CMS]

Better let 100 guilty men go free than see one innocent person wrongfully convicted.

I can't agree with that statement. I'd rather see 101 people in prison with the possibility of one being innocent then let 100 criminals out on the streets to do more crimes.