Friday, August 3, 2012

The difficult case of Marvin Young


Marvin Young was arrested in 2010 and charged with the rape of a mentally handicapped woman. He was charged with aggravated rape. His wife, Glenda, was charged as an accessory.
The case has gone through all the usual pre-trial meetings, discovery and status conferences that these things go through. The court ruled that a statement made by Young to police would be admissible in court. Of course, we don’t know what was in that statement.
The case finally ended this week with a plea of guilty to Criminal Trespass. Young, who was facing life in prison, was sentenced to time served and is a free man today.
The problem was that the victim did not want to testify and that her mother wanted the charges to be dropped.
The victim has had some setbacks. In the last couple of years she has shown erratic behavior, coming up missing a couple of times with the family appealing to local media to help locate her.
In her first visit to court, according to DA Schuyler Marvin, she had a complete breakdown. Marvin said that without the testimony of the victim, it would be impossible to get a conviction.
DA Marvin told KSLAWe have traveled to Bienville Parish to meet with the victim and her mother, I've sent numerous subpoenas to them, I know what their position is, I've known this for a year and a half now
When asked if he tried hard enough Marvin responded, "Everything short of putting a mentally handicapped person in a set of handcuffs, putting her mother in a set of handcuffs, putting her in a patrol car and bringing them up here."
Considering the victim’s handicap, I don’t know that her testimony could have been compelled by the state. If it could have been, would it have resulted in a conviction, even at the price of possibly sending an already troubled person into an even worse state?
No easy answers to this one.

27 comments:

  1. When the justice system fails...

    ReplyDelete
  2. It didn't fail. It actually resulted in a conviction of these slime bags when a trial would have resulted in a not guilty because the victims refused to cooperate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like you were the prosecutor.

      Delete
  3. August 1, 2012 7:56 PMAugust 3, 2012 at 1:52 PM

    Thanks for following up on this. . I'm glad to see the other side of this story.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Difficult," indeed, Jim.

    This guy might be "free" from the gray bar hotel...but, I pray that he always looks over his shoulder, sleeps with one eye open, and that the pub on this will keep him from doing it again.

    I'll probably be 0 for 3 on that. Perverts don't stop until they go to hell (whether vertical, or toes up). "Difficult case," and "sad" as all get-out.

    As you know, I have some mentally/emotionally challenged kinfolks that are very close to me. I really couldn't imagine being in a spot like this...I mean, forcing him to a witness stand, knowing that a meltdown was 99.44% guaranteed.

    Sucks...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can some of you legal experts out there explain to me how having sex with a mentally retarded girl in your own home could ever result in trespassing. Is this some type of sick joke. I understand pleaing it down, but trespassing. This is an insult to any female victim of crime.

    ReplyDelete
  6. La. Code of Evidence 804A(2)

    ReplyDelete
  7. That person had asked how you get trespassing ( a property crime) out of a rape. It looks like an attorney answered by giving a Code of Evidence to look up. I did, it has to do with a person refusing to testify. It appears to me that the person's question hasnt been addressed. How do you get a property crime plea from a serious felony charge. The wife plead to Conspiring to commit a person, sex crime. How can she plea to a crime that apparently didnt happen according to the DA. The husband who had sex gets a property crime that didnt occur. This time can we have an attorney who doesnt work for the DA to give us some input.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wasn't answering question raised by 6:38. It was a response to the original post and having a victim that refuses to testify

    ReplyDelete
  9. What is the chance anybody could have made a decision that would have been Any better than the one the da made, based on the information he had . Law allowing . Who would want his job with everyone second guessing Every decision he makes. Armchair quarterbacks what a easy job.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So I read the above mentioned statute. It seems to apply to this case...maybe Marvin's current course is the path of least resistance. I guess if he were not so busy getting buddies out of DWI's as reported by the Inquisitor, he would have more time to do his real job. I can't think of many more cases at this time that would have more importance, considering that a piece of garbage like this is very likely to repeat similar acts.

    LA Code Ev 804 What's This?
    Art. 804. Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable
    A. Definition of unavailability. Except as otherwise provided by this Code, a declarant is "unavailable as a witness" when the declarant cannot or will not appear in court and testify to the substance of his statement made outside of court. This includes situations in which the declarant:
    (1) Is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of his statement;
    (2) Persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of his statement despite an order of the court to do so;
    (3) Testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of his statement;
    (4) Is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness, infirmity, or other sufficient cause; or
    (5) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means. A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if his exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrong-doing of the proponent of his statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.

    ReplyDelete
  12. See Federal Rules of Evidence 804.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The U.S. Supreme Court found that certain ex parte examinations, while admissible under hearsay rules, are the type of testimonial evidence against the accused that the Confrontation Clause is supposed to prevent. The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment bars admission of testimonial statements by a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Blah blah blah. Bottom line - if victim doesn't want to testify because that testimony may cause further harm - as often happens in cases - a DA is forced to either dismiss charges or greatly reduce them. Happens all day, everyday, nationwide and there is nothing corrupt or suspect about it. It is Americas system of justice. If you don't like it, move to Pakistan. I commend the DA in this case for not causing further harm to the victim.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I personally feel he would have been better off dismissing the case than plea bargaining down to criminal trespass. It just looks bad. At least if you dismissed the case you put it all on the victim refusing to testify. The story says she is mentally handicapped. How handicap is she? I thought the system has a way of protecting people who are unable to defend themselves. I thought the state could file charges on her behalf just like the domestic violence cases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The State DID FILE CHARGES!!! Victim would have been harmed more by forced testimony so Marvin - AT THE REQUEST OF THE VICTIM - didn't force the mentally challenged person to testify for fear of greater harm to the victim. For Christ's sake - show some compassion to the victim and get over your hatred of Marvin.

      Delete
  16. All I was doing was asking a question @$$ hole

    ReplyDelete
  17. Read Crawford v Washington which is a US Suoreme court case that addresses these issues. The right to confrontation is absolute in criminal cases and is the law of the land. While it protects citizens, it is one of the most frustrating things that the police, prosecutors, and judges face in domestic violence cases.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just a little update to this. . . As part of Young's plea agreement, Judge Robinson has said that he would make sure that the parole board wouldn't revoke his parole. The funny thing is that the parole board is its own entity, and Judge Robinson has no authority over it. The only way that he could "make sure" of this is if he had someone on the parole board that he had contacted to do him a "favor". Why is it that he wants this guy out of jail so bad? He told Young that if the parole board didn't reinstate him, he would have him brought back in court, vacate his sentence, allow him to withdraw his plea, and push for it to go through to trial. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I certainly don't see how going to trial is going to help Young's case with the parole board. They operate off what Judge Robinson is doing, not visa versa.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Just saw a copy of the Inquisitor....This changes everything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please tell me your news source is not the Inquisitor. That guy is a slime ball.

      Delete
  20. Inquisitor doesn't ask the real question - was victims mom gonna let her testify? Answer - no!!! Case over. Doesnt matter if victims mom, dad, aunt, uncle and cousin will testify. None of them were present when crime committed. Inquisitor slants story to attack DA. Bottom line - victim mom says "my kid not testifying no matter what. It's harmful to her health". Case ends right there. Move on.

    ReplyDelete
  21. But why state the facts that takes all the fun out of this!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. 10:07,
    No the case doesn't end right there. There are other things they could have done so that she would have to come into the courtroom annd testify and they didnt do it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Davis vs Washington defines "non-testimonial" statements and is basically the exception to Crawford v. Washington. It appears the victims statement to her mother was "non-testimonial" and Crawford v. Washington does not apply.
    However, assuming I am wrong and Crawford is the applicable case, file Pre-trial motions and get a ruling instead of throwing in the towel and doing Young's attorney's job for him.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I find it interesting that Marvin tipped his hand to the defendant about the victim not testifing. He should have held on to this information until trial time. The defendant would have pled guilty prior to trial and placed himself at the mercy of the judge instead of wasting the court/juries time in hopes of a better sentence.
    Sounds fishy.

    ReplyDelete

Rules of the road:
1. No personal attacks or insults.
2. No accustory statements about wrongdoing or criminal acts against anyone.
3. Say all you want about the pros and cons concerning the candidates and the issues, or the general subject of the blog post, just follow Rule #1 and Rule #2.