Pervert minuteman allowed to question victims

[Bengalzona]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/notorious-arizona-border-vigilante-can-personally-cross-examine-little-girls-he-is-accused-of-molesting/

Quote:Notorious Arizona border vigilante can personally cross-examine little girls he is accused of molesting

Quote:An Arizona minuteman leader accused of molesting two little girls could soon personally cross-examine the 7-and-8 year olds because a judge ruled their mothers were not qualified to say whether it would traumatize them.

Chris Simcox is representing himself in an upcoming trial in which he is accused of child molestation, the Arizona Republic reports. On Tuesday, he cross-examined the accusers’ mothers. While Judge Jose Padilla has cleared the way for Simcox to next confront the children, the prosecutor and victims’ advocates are trying to stop it from happening.

Padilla ruled in April that Simcox has the right to question the children, prompting attorney Jack Wilenchik to file an emergency motion with the state supreme court, according to local station AZFamily.

“There can’t be any more important right for a victim, especially a child victim, than not to be cross-examined by their own molester,” Wilenchik said. “If we’re not protecting kids from that, then what’s the Victims’ Bill of Rights for?”

According to the Arizona Victim’s Bill of Rights, accusers can ” refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request by the defendant.”

Prosecutors tried to prevent Simcox from questioning the girls by requesting that his queries be asked by a third party. Padilla denied the request, and prosecutors appealed the denial. The trial was delayed pending the decision on the appeal.

In Tuesday’s hearing, Padilla heard from a psychologist and the alleged victims’ mothers who told the court that testifying in front of Simcox would further traumatize the children. The hearing is set to continue July 23.

One of the children’s mothers, Michelle Lynch, wrote a letter to Padilla in April, pleading with the judge to prevent Simcox from questioning her daughter. In the letter, reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center, she described a happy, well adjusted child who turned extremely fearful and distraught after her encounter with Simcox.

She now has nightmares and does not fall asleep without complaining of her stomach hurting. She also complains of being ‘sick’ when I have to leave her. She does not sleep through the night and most nights she finds her way into my room, even though she has her own room and bed. She worries about the doors being locked and asks over and over if they have been secured.

But Padilla ruled in favor of Simcox, saying that “with all due respect,” the mothers of the girls were “simply not qualified” to assess whether being cross-examined by their accused molester would do damage to them.

Simcox was arrested in 2013 on charges he victimized two 6 year olds and a 5 year old, Fox News Latino reports. According to ABC News, he has a “long history” of working with children. He taught kindergarten through third grade for 13 years before becoming a private tutor.

In 2005, Simcox rose to national fame when he launched a chapter of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, which is an armed anti-immigrant group that voluntarily patrols the US-Mexico border. He became a staple on CNN and Fox program “Hannity & Colmes.” He toured the country giving anti-immigration speeches, SPLC reports.

According to the SPLC, one of Simcox’ ex-wives had also accused him of molesting his own daughter from their marriage. Another accused him of slapping his 4-year-old child hard enough to leave a mark on his face for days.

According to the Arizona Republic, his criminal trial, in which a defendant representing himself insists on cross-examining his accuser, who is a child, is a “case of first impression,” meaning it could be precedent-setting.

Welcome to Arizona, where we let a pedophile question his victims in court simply because he is a conservative.

[Benton]

Wow. That judge is a moron.

And his reasoning doesn't hold water if he doesn't take the parent's opinion because she isn't qualified but then ignores the psychologist.

[*michaelsean*]

Someone correct me if Im wrong because Id be hapoy to be, but the Constitution guarantees him this right. It doesnt say it must be done through a lawyer or other third party.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-08-2015, 10:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Someone correct me if Im wrong because Id be hapoy to be, but the Constitution guarantees him this right.  It doesnt say it must be done through a lawyer or other third party.

Generally victims of child sexual abuse are granted special exemptions from the "face your accuser" right granted by our system.  It is a very easy argument to make that allowing the , alleged, molester to directly question his victims is inherently traumatizing the victim all over again.  If this guy had counsel this wouldn't be an issue, but seeing as he's one of those special types who thinks he can represent himself (remember a lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client) he should not be allowed to do so.  Quite simply, appoint counsel to do this questioning for you or forfeit your right to cross examine.  Not a hard decision to reach.

[BFritz21]

(07-08-2015, 10:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Someone correct me if Im wrong because Id be hapoy to be, but the Constitution guarantees him this right.  It doesnt say it must be done through a lawyer or other third party.

Different laws with minors.

A minor could be intimidated easier, or even be in fear, because they don't understand the situation, especially when they're that young.  

A person's constitutional rights don't give them the right to further traumatize children, especially when they're already that traumatized.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-08-2015, 10:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Generally victims of child sexual abuse are granted special exemptions from the "face your accuser" right granted by our system.  It is a very easy argument to make that allowing the , alleged, molester to directly question his victims is inherently traumatizing the victim all over again.  If this guy had counsel this wouldn't be an issue, but seeing as he's one of those special types who thinks he can represent himself (remember a lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client) he should not be allowed to do so.  Quite simply, appoint counsel to do this questioning for you or forfeit your right to cross examine.  Not a hard decision to reach.

On the one hand, I can understand victim rights especially when it comes to children. On the other, what if they weren't victims or were lying about the true perpetrator?

With that said, I don't understand how it's not automatically someone other than the defendant who does the cross-examination. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-08-2015, 03:05 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/notorious-arizona-border-vigilante-can-personally-cross-examine-little-girls-he-is-accused-of-molesting/


Welcome to Arizona, where we let a pedophile question his victims in court simply because he is a conservative.

I missed the part that states he can do this because he is conservative.

As to the ruling: It is absolutely "wrong" in my book.

[fredtoast]

This is the correct ruling under the law. You can't force someone to have an attorney represent him, and if the children are going to testify in court they must be cross-examined.


However if this guy really did it I predict that he is making a BIG mistake. I have had to cross-examine children as young as 7 in child rape cases. It is the hardest thing for a lawyer to do. You have to discredit their testimony without attacking them in any way. And if these children really are traumatized by him asking them questions it will just make him look worse in front of the jury. I don't see any way possible this works out in his favor.

**NOTE** It does seem that under their state law if a psychologist testified that the children would be traumatized the judge may have decided differently.

[GodHatesBengals]

I just want to announce that I am utterly unsurprised that yet another psychotic conservative freak stands reasonably accused of sickening sexual depravity.