Posted on 02/10/2003 6:36:04 AM PST by berserker
Richard Alan Minsky played several roles in a sexual con game to persuade women their loved ones would go to jail unless they gave him money and sexual favors. But he was unable to use those powers of persuasion to get out of a 146-year prison sentence. On Jan. 23, California’s 2nd District Court of Appeals rejected Minsky’s argument that his actions–specifically, the threat of jail time for the victims’ friends or family–did not meet the definition of "duress" required in a rape conviction.
"This was a very unusual case," says Theresa Cochrane, a California deputy attorney general who worked on the appeal. "I’m sure one of the reasons this ended up being a published opinion was that no published case before this addressed this unique set of circumstances."
According to the opinion, Minsky called four women and talked in a whisper, pretending to be a loved one in trouble with the law for an unspecified crime or a hit-and-run accident. He urged each one to talk to a lawyer, and then he pretended to be a lawyer for that purpose. He would then imply that the women could get either an accident victim or an eyewitness to drop the matter in exchange for sex or money, and sometimes both. When the women went to meet the purported victim or witness, Minsky played that part as well and had sex with the women. People v. Minsky, No. BA175204.
In one such call, Minsky urged the woman to dress provocatively for her meeting. "Look, you are a grown woman. He’s a grown man. You know, you just have to play your femininity and see what you can do to convince him ... not to press charges."
Stephen Temko, Minsky’s lawyer at trial and appeal, argued his client’s actions did not amount to duress sufficient for conviction, because his victims testified they had doubts about the credibility of his story. Also, they essentially went along with the illegal cover-up of a crime. "I didn’t think the elements [of duress] were present," he says.
Temko says he’ll petition for review with the California Supreme Court in late February or early March, after the mandatory waiting period. He’s confident the court will look at the case because it is of "unique interest under the law."
"I’ve never seen a fact pattern like this one," agrees Linda Loftfield, the Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who prosecuted the case.
Inducing victims to have sexual intercourse by means of duress is illegal under California’s statute 261, which covers rape. The defense wanted Minsky to be tried under sexual-fraud statute 266C, created following the case of a man who stole women’s lab results from their doctors, and then called them saying they’d contracted a disease from, most often, a public toilet seat. He then offered the victims two choices: Submit to an expensive and painful treatment, or have sex with a person supposedly carrying a cure to the disease in his semen–the man himself.
Prior to that case, sexual fraud by inducement was not considered rape, because the victim was knowingly consenting to sexual intercourse. However, the penalty for violating statute 266C is no more than four years in state prison. And it specifies the victim must fear physical injury or death to the victim or the victim’s relatives–a loophole that could have allowed Minsky to walk free.
But Loftfield relied on statute 261 and its new definition of duress barring sex under threat of danger. She argued it applied to the threat of imprisonment for loved ones. According to the statute, " ‘Duress’ means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted."
"As I argued to the jury, the definition is a totality of the circumstances," Loftfield says. "The defense argued [266C] was the only statute he could be prosecuted under, but argued the fear [required by 266C] meant physical injury or death." [Edit.]
"Other people have come up with incredible scams to get women to [have sex]," Loftfield adds. "If Minsky had applied [his] creativity at some productive thing, he’d have been successful in life."
And women fell for this?
LOL!!! And the jury convicted him under this definition of duress? What the guy did was wrong, but if I was on the jury, and was given this definition, I'd have to aquit based upon the fact that these women couldn't possibly be reasonable people of ordinary susceptibilities.
"Other people have come up with incredible scams to get women to [have sex]," Loftfield adds.
Like "Uh, yeh, I love you. Have another drink".
So much for the 'sola-no-fraud-no-force' morality of the social-Darwinist LP. They are against fraud as long as it it the guileless and artless preying upon the crafty. They are against force as long as the weak are oppressing the strong.
I'm not sure I follow you and you are not making much sense. I am against fraud, which this man committed. I would assume most libertarians would agree. That doesn't subtract from the fact that these women are obviously very gullible - so gullible, its a wonder they have made it this far in life. I'd be curious as to how many other women he attempted this with only for them to use their brain and verify the situation first.
To avoid U.S. legal issues, Fox had the progam filmed in France.
Where "surrender" is always a legitimate option, obviously...
In need of antibiotics?
Right. It's a bllsht sentence. A feminazi sentence.
HOWEVER check this out. He really got around!
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.