Posted on 03/18/2003 5:49:25 PM PST by ewing
just the update
I see no reason for her to have to testify..perhaps they will do an "in camera" session..but she has no legal requirment to testify I believe .But she should be subject to cross examination on the abduction charges..Mitchell has that legal right to face his accusser
The police need to plug their leaks too...everyone wants their moment of fame at this kids expense
UG we may disagree on alot..but this girl was a child and no matter the circumstances she could not legally or emotionally make adult decisions..that man took advantage of her one way or another and he needs a LONG time AWAY to think about it!
I realize too that Mitchell and Barzee have the right to face their accusers.
On the contrary, before their arrival at prison I'll bet the warden lets the word out that they're NOT to be killed. They'll each live to a ripe old age, holding "unique" status among the other prisoners.
(a) Criminal proceedings. In a criminal proceeding, a wife shall not be compelled to testify against her husband, nor a husband against his wife.
(b) Communications.
(1) Definition. A communication is confidential if it is made privately by any person to his or her spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person.
(2) General rule of privilege. An individual has a privilege during the person's life to refuse to testify or to prevent his or her spouse or former spouse from testifying as to any confidential communication made by the individual to the spouse during their marriage and to prevent another from disclosing any such confidential communication.
(3) Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person who made the confidential communication, or by the person's guardian or conservator. The non-communicating spouse to whom the confidential communication was made is presumed to be authorized, during the life of the communicating spouse, to claim the privilege on behalf of the person who made the confidential communication.
The rest of the law can be read here. Rule 502 Husband-Wife
I used to do prison ministry and the ones that had abused children were hated by the most hardened prisioners..IF they do go away my guess is they will feel a little "abuse " themselves
I'm hoping that even if a plea bargain does come down, that the time spent in prison by those two will be for the rest of their lives.
Of course you are right that I don't know. I just saw what the chancellor said, thought it a distinct possibility, and used it as an opportunity to editorialize about the the relative merits of one type of counselling versus another.
Actually, what I also didn't say is that it is very difficult to find a really GOOD counsellor, of any stripe.
I agreee that the Smarts love their daughter and want what's best for her. And I have no doubt that they will do the very best that they can for her under the circumstances. After something like this, it's not just Elizabeth that needs therapy, maybe mom and dad could use some, too.
I am very sympathetic to Mr. Smart and I hope that his own problems that stem from this incident don't get swept under the rug, just because the focus is on Elizabeth. He seems to me to be a good man, and he would very likely do just that, thinking that it would be selfish of himself to spend time resolving his own issues when his daughter has so many obvious problems to face.
The sense of powerlessness, the ethical crisis that comes from realizing that this all began with an act of charity, the frustration at the police, dealing with a public that picks apart everything you do no matter what, leaving him with a sense of being unjustly persecuted, etc... are all very real, profound, personality-changing circumstances that could leave him a bitter man without some support and understanding.
Probably won't do the defendant any good because if you are aquitted by a jury for kidnapping you certainly don't want the jury on the subesequent sexual assault trial to know that you had been accused of kidnapping. The defendant will want to get as far away from the kidnapping accusation as possible.
The only advantage that the defendant would gain is that the prosecutor cannot introduce any evidence that the victim was taken by force or against her will. The only issue would be whether she consented to the sexual assault and/or whether she had the legal capacity to consent.
Yes, you are probably correct, but did Elizabeth know this for sure? The charges against that creep and his wife state that he threatened to kill Elizabeth and her family that first night. Even at 14-years-of-age, I am almost sure that she knew what happened to many other girls whose bodies were used, abused, murdered and left out in the open or buried in desolate places. Poor kid. I am so very glad that she is alive. I can not imagine that she found Mitchells foul-looking presence, hypocritical, fanatical religious attitude and lust for her body facinating or seductive, IMHO.
Colorado City, Arizona, plus divers "families" north of the Grand Canyon.
I'm a gentleman, so I'll take your word for it.
I'm no Mormon and if I knew some polygamists who were not raping children or abusing them in any way --say a 30 year old three-some who were minding their business, I'd probably mind mine too. I definitely don't believe in polygamy but if there was some "three's company" types next door who left me alone and lived quietly ---I'd have to say they wouldn't be an issue to me. Of course if I knew of some pervert claiming to marry a little 13 year old girl it would be entirely different.
Mrs Smart noted she asked him to her home because he was so clean looking..
Do you think Jesus took a daily bath and laundered his robe every day...do you think He used right guard?
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.