Judge Confuses Guilty/Not Guilty, Sex Crimes Conviction Overturned​

1,741

Elie Mystal

ProfileFollowUnfollow

Elie Mystal

Filed to: Sex Crimes

• Bad Judge

10/29/14 3:12pm Yesterday 3:12pm

• Edit
• Delete
• Invite
• Invite manually
• Promote
• XDismissXUndismiss
• Block for Above The Law: Redline
• Hide
• Share to Kinja
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Go to permalink

This is going to sound like a simple mistake. This is going to sound like a legal "technicality" that has resulted in a sex offender going free. But when a judge upends a central pillar of American law, even accidentally, there's no other outcome.

Here's the story, from ABA Journal:

The Los Angeles judge erred during the December 2006 voir dire in the sex-crime trial of Bryant Keith Williams, according to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge said Williams had pleaded guilty to the charges, though he intended to say Williams had pleaded not guilty.

The judge's error came to light when jurors who had been deliberating for less than an hour sent the judge a note. "As a group," the note read, "we the jury feel we heard the judge state the defendant pleaded guilty before the trial. Is this true?"

The judge tried to correct his mistake. He said that the defendant pleaded "not" guilty, and asked the jurors if they could still look back on the trial with that in mind. One juror was dismissed. The rest said that they could, and returned a guilty verdict.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction. The court said, "Viewed in the context of the trial as a whole... the judge's initial misstatement and his ineffective attempts to cure it were devastating to Williams."

It's also got to be pretty devastating to Williams's alleged victim. How Appealing reports that the circuit court had to throw out a 50 year sentence.

But I don't think the 9th Circuit had any other choice. From the perspective of all the jurors, Williams had already pleaded guilty to the crime. Who knows how the jurors rationalized still having a trial after a guilty plea. Maybe they thought Williams changed his mind? Maybe they thought the point was to see if Williams could prove his innocence? Who knows. It doesn't really matter. What seems clear is that the jurors did not think that Williams was innocent unless the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise.

Williams can be re-tried. That would seem like the most fair outcome for Williams and his alleged victim.

Hospital system tells victims group accused former priest has retired

Hospital system tells victims group accused former priest has retired

'No one has been placed at risk,' Advocate says of counselor removed from ministry in 1991

 

• 

• Email

  Share 4

(Tribune illustration)

Ads by Google

 

By Manya A. Brachear, Chicago Tribune reporter

10:58 p.m. CDT, June 11, 2013

Advocate Health Care has disclosed that a former Roman Catholic priest removed from ministry 20 years ago for a substantiated allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor retired last month.
Russell Romano of Bolingbrook, who was a priest in the Chicago Archdiocese from 1973 to 1991, has worked for Advocate for 12 years, hospital officials said. According to the system's website, he has worked for a publicly funded treatment program for Illinois health care professionals.
In May, victims advocates expressed concern that Romano worked as a counselor at an Advocate health clinic in Des Plaines.
This week, leaders of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests received a letter addressing those concerns. In the letter to Barbara Blaine and David Clohessy, Kevin Brady, senior vice president and chief human resources officer for Advocate Health Care, said the organization "completed a full investigation" and found that "Mr. Romano has had no contact with children."
"Furthermore, he doesn't (keep an) office in a clinical environment, and the majority of his work is performed telephonically," Brady wrote.
"Given the nature of Mr. Romano's work with our organization, we are confident that no one has been placed at risk," Brady wrote.
Stephanie Johnson, a spokeswoman for Advocate, said the organization conducts a "thorough, comprehensive background check," including criminal background checks, job reference checks, federal prison and Illinois Department of Corrections inmate searches as well as sex registrant searches.
The Chicago Archdiocese said it refers prospective employers to the church's website, where the names of priests removed for credible allegations have been listed publicly since 2006. The appearance of Romano's name on the list that year was the first time his 1991 removal became public. It's unclear if Romano shared his history as a priest on his resume when he was hired in 2001. It's also unclear if Advocate called the archdiocese.
Romano has practiced as a licensed clinical counselor in Illinois since 1995. When asked if Romano's license was at risk, Sue Hofer, a spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, said she could not talk about individuals. Instead she spoke in general terms.
"When we've learned of a possible violation of the practice act, we open an investigation," she said.
Romano's license is set to expire in 2015. Romano did not return calls for comment.
mbrachear@tribune.com
Twitter @TribSeeker