Videotaped testimony from Gage [abused, murdered Iowa 10-yr-old girl] ruled inadmissable

Mason City Iowa Globe-Gazette ^ | Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:09 PM CDT

[newgeezer]

Published: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:09 PM CDT

Videotaped testimony from Gage ruled inadmissable

CEDAR RAPIDS (AP) — A videotaped interview with Jetseta Gage in which the 10-year-old girl described nearly three years of abuse by James Bentley cannot be used as evidence at Bentley's trial, a judge ruled Tuesday.

The videotape was a key piece of evidence for the prosecution against Bentley, who is facing two second-degree sexual abuse cases. His brother, Roger Bentley, was convicted earlier this year of kidnapping, sexually abusing and murdering Gage on March 24, 2005.

An attorney for James Bentley, 34, of Vinton, has said the video violates his client's right to confront his accuser.

District Judge Denver Dillard agreed, and in a ruling Monday said the interviewer in the video, an employee from St. Luke's Child Protection Center, was acting as a surrogate for a police investigator and that one of the goals of the tape was criminal prosecution.

Dillard ruled that the tape was inadmissible because Bentley's attorney did not have an opportunity to cross-examine Gage.

Dillard will allow the testimony of a therapist who worked with Gage for more than a year, up until just before the girl's death. Gage told the therapist that she didn't tell anyone about the abuse earlier because she feared for her life, records show.

District Judge Thomas Koehler had previously ruled in May 2005 that the videotape was admissible. But in April Bentley's new attorney, Mark Brown, of Cedar Rapids, asked Dillard to review the admissibility of the videotape.

Bentley's case is set to go to trial on July 10 on a Benton County charge, and Aug. 14 on a charge from Linn County. Both trials were moved to Clarke County because of pretrial publicity.

[emphasis added]

[newgeezer]

This trial has been delayed many, many times. The previous three or four rulings said the videotaped testimony IS admissable. Now, the defense finally found a judge to rule in their favor.

While James Bentley was awaiting trial on these sexual abuse charges, his brother Roger Bentley kidnapped, raped, and murdered their victim. Since the kidnapping and rape carried a mandatory sentence of life without parole, he had everything to gain and nothing to lose in murdering their victim; since the Dems have made sure Iowa doesn't have the death penalty, the murder conviction added nothing to Roger Bentley's sentence.

So, Roger Bentley's murder of Jetseta Gage has proven beneficial thusfar. His brother James Bentley's accuser will not show up at the trial.

[apackof2]

the video violates his client's right to confront his accuser.

I thought this didn't pertain to minor children?

[brytlea]

This makes me ill. However, I have a solution. We need to pass a law that judges who make idiot decisions like this should be forever responsible for folks like Gage. In fact, I vote that we handcuff them together for the rest of their lives.
susie

[DTogo]

Both crimes worthy of cruel and unusual punishment!! Vlad "Tepes" (the impailer) Dracula (1431 - 1476)

[weegee]

This is bogus. How does one "cross exam" a convenience store video camera?

If she had written a diary, would that have been admissible?

The brothers didn't want a witness alive who could testify. This rewards evil.

[newgeezer]

judges who make idiot decisions like this

For now, I have to hope Judge Dillard knows what he's doing. Maybe he has ample reason to believe the conviction will be easy, and to allow the videotaped testimony would risk a mistrial or successful appeal.

[TheBattman]

This just demonstrates the sad state of our "legal system" today. I can understand the "right" to confront your accuser - but when your own stinking brother kidnapped said accuser, raped her, and murdered her....that kind of screws that up, now doesn't it...?

So basically, if you commit a crime, just have a relative kill the accuser before they can testify (even if they have a videotaped testimony). You then get off unless you left a bundle of evidence...

[TheBattman]

We need to pass a law that judges who make idiot decisions like this should be forever responsible for folks like Gage.

I agree - when a judge gives a far-too-lienient sentence to a violent criminal (like the child rapist who got probation because he was "too short" for prison), or sabotages a case by not admitting what should be legitimate evidence, or whatever that might put an animal back on the streets - if/when that animal re-offends, the judge should receive the same sentence the perp should have received....after all, the judge has become an accomplice..

[brytlea]

Maybe you're right. I suppose I jumped the gun because there are so many idiot judge decisions that it's easy to imagine this one is as well....
susie

[Iowa Granny]

This just makes me want to SCREAM!

If there is a more important reason to vote Nussle, I don't know what it is. We've got to bring some common sense and reason to our court system.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

How is a sincere criminal, trying hard, going to get ahead in his profession if his victim fails to cooperate? Almost all crime depends on the cooperation of the victim. If the victim refuses his assigned role, the criminal is placed at a disadvantage, one so severe that it usually takes an understanding and compassionate judge to set right.

Robert Anson Heinlein

[GovernmentShrinker]

The right of children to avoid testifying in an open court with their abuser present vaires from state to state. However, the "hearsay" rule is a common law concept, and as far as I know, dead people are an exception to this rule in all 50 states. The rule stipulates that second-hand evidence is generally inadmissible, since testimony should come directly from the person whose words are being presented as evidence, both to permit cross-examination and to prevent false reports of what somebody said from being entered into evidence. However, when death or incapacity prevent direct delivery of key testimony, second hand and recorded statements can be admitted. I suspect this decision will be overturned on appeal.

[apackof2]

I suspect this decision will be overturned on appeal.

I do too however it doesn' t make the judge any less a idiot