It's insanity. A crime like alleged rape should have a 3 month statute of
limitations. Are the blue collar proles of Rhode Island all stoopid? Most
civilised countries have a statute of limitations even for Murder which
is
considered the most heinous crime so why would something as trivial as the
average rape (96% never even happened) have no limit on the time a person
could be charged? Obviously something set this wacko female off. Probably
menopause or a divorce.
"Weatherman" <weathermansays@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1182646916.773046.310530@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> It looks like "recovered memory" is back -- a guy got indicted for an
> accusation of rape 32 years ago, with a seven-month timespan in which
> it may have occurred. And his name is in the press. Couldn't any woman
> just charge any man with any rape at any time and have him jailed? I
> can't believe he got indicted for this...
>
>
http://www.projo.com/news/content/rapecharge_decadeslater_06-23-07_D96406R.34343e0.html
>
> Man charged 32 years after alleged rape
> 01:00 AM EDT on Saturday, June 23, 2007
> By Edward Fitzpatrick
>
> Journal Staff Writer
> A 48-year-old Narragansett man has been charged with raping someone 32
> years ago when both he and the alleged victim were 16 years old, the
> attorney general's office said this week.
> Harold Allen, of 30 Riverview Rd., was indicted last month on a charge
> of first-degree sexual assault, and he pleaded not guilty, court
> records show. Allen is accused of raping the girl in North Kingstown
> between April 1 and Oct. 31, 1975, the records show.
> "The traumatized victim decided back then not to tell anybody what
> happened and repressed the memory of it until recently," said Michael
> J. Healey, a spokesman for Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch's office.
> "The victim came forward and made a complaint to the North Kingstown
> Police Department on June 15, 2006."
> No statute of limitations applies to charges of first-degree sexual
> assault, but Healey agreed it's unusual for charges to be filed more
> than three decades after an alleged crime. "It is definitely out of
> the norm, but it's not unheard of," he said.
> Healey said that after North Kingstown police referred the case to the
> attorney general's office, state prosecutors presented the case to a
> grand jury on May 25 of this year, and the grand jury returned an
> indictment the same day.
> The indictment was not announced. Rather, the attorney general's
> office confirmed the indictment when contacted by The Journal this
> week. Healey said the indictment was not publicized immediately
> because Allen was unaware of the grand jury investigation and had not
> been arrested yet. Most cases involve an arrest or other publicly
> reported information that precedes grand jury action, but this one did
> not, he said.
> After Allen was indicted, an arrest warrant was issued, but Allen
> voluntarily appeared in Washington County Superior Court on May 31.
> Healey said the indictment usually would have been announced at that
> point, but it was not because of an "administrative oversight."
> Allen appeared in court with his lawyer, Walter R. Stone, who said
> Allen had been aware of the grand jury investigation. Allen pleaded
> not guilty before Superior Court Judge Stephen P. Nugent, who ordered
> $10,000 surety bail, and Allen posted the required 10 percent. The
> judge also ordered Allen to have no contact with his alleged victim,
> which is standard procedure. Allen's next court date is set for July
> 16.
> Healey said the question arose of whether the case should be handled
> in Family Court or Superior Court. "If this incident happened today,
> it would be Family Court," he said. "But Family Court never attained
> jurisdiction because no petition was filed against the defendant
> before his 21st birthday saying he had committed the crime before he
> was 18 years old. So you bring the charge in the court that would have
> had jurisdiction if the crime was committed by an adult. And that
> means the Superior Court."
> Stone said Allen is now married, has two children who are high school
> age or older, and has never faced any criminal charges before - not
> even a traffic offense. "He was shocked," Stone said. "He says they
> never had intercourse - willing, unwilling or otherwise."
> Stone said Allen and the woman grew up in the same neighborhood and
> their families knew each other, but they were never boyfriend and
> girlfriend. "They were two teenagers who sat out on a rock and drank
> beer and wine in the neighborhood with other teenagers, as teenagers
> did," he said.
> Stone noted the court file contains no narrative of the alleged crime
> and that the single incident is alleged to have occurred within a
> seven-month time frame. He questioned whether prosecutors have
> physical evidence or just the allegation.
> Stone has filed a motion for a "bill of particulars," asking for "the
> exact location where this incident was to have occurred" and "the date
> this alleged incident took place." Also, he has filed a discovery
> motion, seeking all written or recorded statements, lists of witnesses
> and other evidence that prosecutors intend to use at trial.
> Stone said he plans to question whether his client should be tried in
> Superior Court. In 1975, the law required that juveniles receive a
> hearing before being waived out of Family Court, but Allen received no
> such hearing. Also, he noted the charge comes 32 years after the
> alleged incident, saying, "Even though there is no statute of
> limitations, there is unreasonable delay in bringing the case - that
> we know of yet - which puts the defendant at an unfair disadvantage."
> "He was shocked.
> He says they never had intercourse - willing,
> unwilling or otherwise."
> Walter R. Stone,
> Lawyer for the accused
> efitzpat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
