Ang,
Thanks so much for your insight into this. It makes perfect sense.
Teenage girls can hang themselves on a cross examination. A few of the right questions with the wrong answers & they hung themselves.
SC - Kenneth Hinson for abduction, rape of 2 teens, Darlington, 2006
- Thread starter ajc2804
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Ang,
Thanks so much for your insight into this. It makes perfect sense.
Teenage girls can hang themselves on a cross examination. A few of the right questions with the wrong answers & they hung themselves.
Annie
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2004
- Messages
- 1,073
- Reaction score
- 5
I heard this morning that they weren't convinced because one girl had socks on and one was barefoot and there was no pinestraw stuck to them. also the duct tape was supposed to have been chewed off one girl by the other and it didn't look like it had been chewed to them. A policeman who was really disgusted with the verdict said there was plenty of evidence he did it. The pinestraw could have fallen off or been brushed off before they got to the police station. He is still being held on the gun charge. He wasn't supposed to have a gun due to the previous conviction. That would allow them to keep him for ten years. I think we need to change that about not allowing a jury to know about previous convictions. It is ridiculous for a jury to have to decide without getting a complete picture.
Tack on the drug charges too. Hell, get him for jay-walking if you have to.
GlitchWizard
Reprobate
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2006
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 32
I'm thinking it's a crime to own a dungeon that is not properly maintained with adequate ventilation and air conditioning. Can we convict him for that, too?
SewingDeb
"Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Messages
- 8,958
- Reaction score
- 101
Sounds good to me. That should be a law.
SewingDeb
"Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Messages
- 8,958
- Reaction score
- 101
I thought it was probably 16.
Hopefully he will get a lot of time for the drug dealing and gun possession. He should not be free after raping the 12 year old.
GlitchWizard
Reprobate
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2006
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 32
No kidding. I'll never understand why death row has women who shot abusive husbands, guys that weren't the trigger man on a burglary gone bad and occassionally innocent men... when the WORST of the WORST criminals are the sick predators that prey on our children. Who made up the stupid rules? They should be changed.
CHILD MOLESTERS, SERIAL RAPISTS and PREDATORS are the ones who are the worst of the worst. No contest. In a perfect world, there would be no "Megan's Law" because all addresses to be stated would be prison addresses.
Does anyone else see the faces of their children when children are reported as victims? I hate that.
OR the AG could have taken the case b/c he thought it was a slam dunk and it was high-profile. IMHO, that's the more likely scenario. Generally a politician like the AG leaves the tough cases for someone else to take the fall on.
As I've said before, I think the pros was unprepared. They probably didn't expect the accused to take the stand - it almost never happens. If they didn't expect it and weren't prepared, it could have really thrown them.
Hi CHEKO!!!
Hey - I'm still waiting for an update on your shady car mechanic - PM me!
Anyway - I hate to make assumptions about these girls. BUT I could imagine that based on who their mother's boyfriend is (the dungeon guy himself) and their poverty (trailer) that these girls wouldn't exactly look like Catholic schoolgirls. And that's not attacking them, but simply that a jury might be more likely to read them as "experienced" or likely to exchange drugs for sex.
Here's a sort-of example. I was assisting in a case where this guy was on trial for sex assault of a child under 12. He had touched her over clothes on a couple of occasions. Things were going OK until the now 12 year old took the stand. She was at least 5'7", looked about 16, had a "mature" looking body and was wearing makeup. The jury was surprised. If she had instead been short, small, glasses, younger looking than her age, etc. I think they would have convicted.
Also - she testified like a teenager. A little sullen, quiet, potentially some eye-rolling, not meeting anyone's eyes, etc. It doesn't help for credibility, but if you can imagine her position - I'm sure she didn't want to be there, was angry but internalized it, was embarrassed - you're 12 and you have to tell this jury of adults how this man was touching you.
SewingDeb
"Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Messages
- 8,958
- Reaction score
- 101
I totally agree! If they are so dangerous that they must be registered and monitored, they have no business walking free among us.
From The State Newspaper, article written by
JIM DUPLESSIS and GINA SMITH - jduplessis@thestate.com, gnsmith@thestate.com
Kenneth Glenn Hinson started his rape trial demanding the court replace his lawyer, Rick Hoefer, but the Florence attorney accomplished what few expected: clearing a previously convicted child rapist of new charges that he raped two 17-year-old girls last year and left them to die, bound in duct tape, in an underground bunker.
Ken Gaines, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, said the case seemed like a slam dunk from early, sometimes sensational accounts in the local and national media.
So, what went wrong for S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster, who made the case a high priority in his campaign against sexual predators?
And what went right for Hoefer, a court-appointed lawyer from Florence who worked alone on the case?
McMaster might have been overconfident, while Hoefers genius might have been his relentless focus on each piece of physical evidence put forward by the prosecution, say legal observers.
Or it might just have been, as McMaster says, that jurors set too high a bar for what the court calls reasonable doubt.
Jurors found Hinson not guilty on all charges: two counts each of kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct and assault and battery with intent to kill.
Jury foreman Thomas Williams said he and others believed Hinson lied, but they felt they couldnt believe the girls either.
DEFENSE, DEFENSE
Hoefers tactic to focus on each piece of evidence helped stretch the trial over eight days. But lawyers said his questioning drew the jurors attention to small pieces of evidence that added up to the reasonable doubt needed to clear the 48-year-old former welder and carpenter.
The little things had to become big things, Gaines said. Hoefer was very successful in creating that mountain of reasonable doubt the jury couldnt get around. He did a good job.
Some elements of the girls story didnt make sense or failed to match evidence jurors examined closely while deliberating, two jurors told The State newspaper after the verdict.
Juror Dana K. Lewis and Williams, the foreman, said jurors seized on several points:
Sleeping through a kidnapping. The girls testified they both were asleep in a small bed when Hinson entered their trailer and grabbed one of them, threatening to kill her if she made a noise. The other girl said she did not wake up until Hinson returned for her.
Not noticing the bunker. The girls testified they had not seen the chamber before Hinson raised the table hiding the entrance hole. Hinson said the girls knew of it, but his girlfriend and his girlfriends teenage son did not; the jurors thought everyone would have known about the bunker.
Drugs. One of the girls testified she bought drugs last summer from someone a defense witness said sold crack. We all know people who smoke crack will do just about anything to smoke crack again, Williams said.
Socks. A pair worn by one of the girls was dirty but had no wear marks, pine-needle fragments or tears some jurors expected to see from running about a mile through the woods after escaping the bunker.
Feet. The other girl said she ran barefoot. But the pictures showed no scratches, no abrasions, Lewis said.
Duct tape. The girls said one bit through the others tape binding her wrists. We went over all of the duct tape and couldnt find any chew marks, Lewis said.
An odd comment. A dispatchers logbook shows one of the girls noted in her 911 call that Hinson was on a sexual offender registry. Williams, who directed Georgetown Countys 911 emergency response system in the 1990s, thought that was an odd comment for someone who had just been raped.
THE PROSECUTION: NO SLAM DUNK
The Hinson case was McMasters first active participation in a criminal case as attorney general. The case was led by S.C. Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Evans, but McMaster made opening arguments, questioned some witnesses and was at the prosecution table for the entire trial.
McMaster said the case was well presented and the evidence was strong. We are absolutely confident the rape took place as described by the girls.
Gaines, the professor, said the prosecution probably felt they had strong enough evidence to seal his fate but apparently it wasnt.
Hoefer said prosecutors didnt cast a critical enough eye on the evidence.
Law enforcement and others made up their minds early on, Hoefer said. If youve already made up your mind that this man is guilty, you lose your objectivity and dont question your own evidence.
Gaines said prosecutors might not have focused enough on weaker evidence or withheld evidence that would have been embarrassing to the girls.
You have to know where your weaknesses are, and you have to deal with them head on, because otherwise, the defense will take full advantage of it, Gaines said.
McMaster, who had sought a life sentence for Hinson on the rape charges, might be a winner in the end, though.
Hours after the verdict, the U.S. Attorneys Office in Columbia charged Hinson with felony possession of a firearm. If convicted, Hinson could face a life sentence. He was carrying a 9 mm automatic pistol when he was arrested March 17, 2006. He said he carried a gun because he lived in the woods and was scared of big animals.
THE JURY: MOUNTAIN OR MOLEHILLS?
But lawyers interviewed said the bottom line was that McMasters case was too weak to convince jurors the girls story was true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hoefer, who was appointed to the case, introduced, then helped focus, that reasonable doubt.
The courts appoint an attorney to hold the state to that standard. Hes just doing his job, said Vance Cowden, a USC law professor.
But McMaster said the jurors might have employed too high a standard. He recalled the statement of one juror in an article published in The State newspaper on Wednesday that jurors couldnt say for sure, couldnt bet our lives that he had done this.
If thats the standard they were using, theres no way we could convict anyone, McMaster said.
McMaster said that standard exceeds the courts standard in criminal cases that evidence must support a charge beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is often described to jurors as doubt strong enough to cause a person to hesitate to act.
I think the evidence was overwhelming in favor of conviction, McMaster said.
Jay Hodge, 4th circuit solicitor for Darlington, Dillon, Chesterfield and Marlboro counties, said jurors deliberate with unclear instructions.
We have such an unwieldy definition of beyond a reasonable doubt, said Hodge, who has practiced law for 30 years. The language says it has to be a reasonable doubt, not a fanciful doubt. What does that mean? Who uses the word fanciful today? The court needs to come out with clear language that regular people understand.
Prosecutors hands were tied in introducing what might have been an overwhelming piece of evidence Hinsons prior conviction for rape of a minor.
The judge knew about the conviction first hand.
S.C. Circuit Court Judge James E. Lockemy presided over the 1991 trial that put Hinson in prison for 18 years reduced to nine for good behavior for raping a 12-year-old girl in a van, holding a knife to her throat and threatening to kill her if she told.
Mr. Hinson, youre very fortunate regarding this jurys decision, Lockemy said after the verdict was read and the jury left the room.
JURORS DOUBTS
Socks
Prosecution
Any debris was likely to have fallen off during the more than four hours between reporting the crime and their collection as evidence. The soil in the Pee Dee is sandy, not rocky, said S.C. Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Evans.
Defense
Attorney Rick Hoefer didnt bring up the issue at trial.
Jury
A pair worn by one of the girls was dirty but had no wear marks, pine-needle fragments or tears some jurors expected to see from running about a mile through the woods after escaping the bunker.
Feet
Prosecution
The photos showed the girls ankles and tops of their feet. There were no photos of the soles of their feet.
Defense
Hoefer didnt bring up the issue at trial.
Jury
No scratch marks were shown in photos of girl who ran barefoot. They expected to see that.
Sleeping through kidnapping
Prosecution
S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster said some people sleep heavily. The first girl taken is about 5-foot-3 and weighs about 130 pounds. She said Hinson grabbed me up and covered my mouth and carried me out the front door. He said, Dont say a word, or Ill kill you. She said she didnt resist because she was afraid. I wasnt about to do nothing; he told me he would kill me.
Defense
This was among the first issues Hoefer addressed in his closing arguments: These two girls slept together in a twin bed. If you believe these women, (one girl) was physically and forcefully removed from that little twin bed without disturbing (the other girl).
Jury
The two girls slept together in a twin bed. The jurors could not understand how someone could grab one without waking the other.
Duct tape
Prosecution
McMaster said the jurors misunderstood how the tape was removed: One girl used her mouth to unwrap the tape binding the second girls wrists, not bite through it, McMaster said. The second girl testified that the first girl started biting the tape off my hands. The rest of the tape was removed by hand.
Defense
Hoefer told jurors none of the duct tape appeared to be chewed. They taped themselves and staged this scene, Hoefer said.
Jury
Jurors examined the duct tape collected from the scene during deliberations and saw no teeth marks or other evidence that the girl chewed that off.
911 call
Prosecution
I dont see that as odd because they were trying to find the man, McMaster said. Even assuming that is an odd comment, is that enough to support an acquittal? Also, Evans said the girls were well aware of Hinsons history and stayed together for protection. Passages referring to Hinson being a sex offender were cut from the recording played for jurors.
Defense
Hoefer didnt bring up the issue at trial.
Jury
Mention of anything connected with Hinsons previous rape conviction was barred from testimony to prevent the jury being swayed against Hinson. But jurors learned of it from an oversight in admitting a 911 logbook that says: (One girl) STATES WAS RAPED BY MOTHERS BOYFRIEND AT (address) HE IS FORMER SEXOFFEDER(sic) KENNETH HENSON(sic). Rather than helping the prosecution, it raised doubts in the mind of jury foreman Thomas Williams, a former director of a 911 system, because he said rape victims dont usually mention the history of their attacker in their first call to police.
JIM DUPLESSIS and GINA SMITH - jduplessis@thestate.com, gnsmith@thestate.com
Kenneth Glenn Hinson started his rape trial demanding the court replace his lawyer, Rick Hoefer, but the Florence attorney accomplished what few expected: clearing a previously convicted child rapist of new charges that he raped two 17-year-old girls last year and left them to die, bound in duct tape, in an underground bunker.
Ken Gaines, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, said the case seemed like a slam dunk from early, sometimes sensational accounts in the local and national media.
So, what went wrong for S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster, who made the case a high priority in his campaign against sexual predators?
And what went right for Hoefer, a court-appointed lawyer from Florence who worked alone on the case?
McMaster might have been overconfident, while Hoefers genius might have been his relentless focus on each piece of physical evidence put forward by the prosecution, say legal observers.
Or it might just have been, as McMaster says, that jurors set too high a bar for what the court calls reasonable doubt.
Jurors found Hinson not guilty on all charges: two counts each of kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct and assault and battery with intent to kill.
Jury foreman Thomas Williams said he and others believed Hinson lied, but they felt they couldnt believe the girls either.
DEFENSE, DEFENSE
Hoefers tactic to focus on each piece of evidence helped stretch the trial over eight days. But lawyers said his questioning drew the jurors attention to small pieces of evidence that added up to the reasonable doubt needed to clear the 48-year-old former welder and carpenter.
The little things had to become big things, Gaines said. Hoefer was very successful in creating that mountain of reasonable doubt the jury couldnt get around. He did a good job.
Some elements of the girls story didnt make sense or failed to match evidence jurors examined closely while deliberating, two jurors told The State newspaper after the verdict.
Juror Dana K. Lewis and Williams, the foreman, said jurors seized on several points:
Sleeping through a kidnapping. The girls testified they both were asleep in a small bed when Hinson entered their trailer and grabbed one of them, threatening to kill her if she made a noise. The other girl said she did not wake up until Hinson returned for her.
Not noticing the bunker. The girls testified they had not seen the chamber before Hinson raised the table hiding the entrance hole. Hinson said the girls knew of it, but his girlfriend and his girlfriends teenage son did not; the jurors thought everyone would have known about the bunker.
Drugs. One of the girls testified she bought drugs last summer from someone a defense witness said sold crack. We all know people who smoke crack will do just about anything to smoke crack again, Williams said.
Socks. A pair worn by one of the girls was dirty but had no wear marks, pine-needle fragments or tears some jurors expected to see from running about a mile through the woods after escaping the bunker.
Feet. The other girl said she ran barefoot. But the pictures showed no scratches, no abrasions, Lewis said.
Duct tape. The girls said one bit through the others tape binding her wrists. We went over all of the duct tape and couldnt find any chew marks, Lewis said.
An odd comment. A dispatchers logbook shows one of the girls noted in her 911 call that Hinson was on a sexual offender registry. Williams, who directed Georgetown Countys 911 emergency response system in the 1990s, thought that was an odd comment for someone who had just been raped.
THE PROSECUTION: NO SLAM DUNK
The Hinson case was McMasters first active participation in a criminal case as attorney general. The case was led by S.C. Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Evans, but McMaster made opening arguments, questioned some witnesses and was at the prosecution table for the entire trial.
McMaster said the case was well presented and the evidence was strong. We are absolutely confident the rape took place as described by the girls.
Gaines, the professor, said the prosecution probably felt they had strong enough evidence to seal his fate but apparently it wasnt.
Hoefer said prosecutors didnt cast a critical enough eye on the evidence.
Law enforcement and others made up their minds early on, Hoefer said. If youve already made up your mind that this man is guilty, you lose your objectivity and dont question your own evidence.
Gaines said prosecutors might not have focused enough on weaker evidence or withheld evidence that would have been embarrassing to the girls.
You have to know where your weaknesses are, and you have to deal with them head on, because otherwise, the defense will take full advantage of it, Gaines said.
McMaster, who had sought a life sentence for Hinson on the rape charges, might be a winner in the end, though.
Hours after the verdict, the U.S. Attorneys Office in Columbia charged Hinson with felony possession of a firearm. If convicted, Hinson could face a life sentence. He was carrying a 9 mm automatic pistol when he was arrested March 17, 2006. He said he carried a gun because he lived in the woods and was scared of big animals.
THE JURY: MOUNTAIN OR MOLEHILLS?
But lawyers interviewed said the bottom line was that McMasters case was too weak to convince jurors the girls story was true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hoefer, who was appointed to the case, introduced, then helped focus, that reasonable doubt.
The courts appoint an attorney to hold the state to that standard. Hes just doing his job, said Vance Cowden, a USC law professor.
But McMaster said the jurors might have employed too high a standard. He recalled the statement of one juror in an article published in The State newspaper on Wednesday that jurors couldnt say for sure, couldnt bet our lives that he had done this.
If thats the standard they were using, theres no way we could convict anyone, McMaster said.
McMaster said that standard exceeds the courts standard in criminal cases that evidence must support a charge beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is often described to jurors as doubt strong enough to cause a person to hesitate to act.
I think the evidence was overwhelming in favor of conviction, McMaster said.
Jay Hodge, 4th circuit solicitor for Darlington, Dillon, Chesterfield and Marlboro counties, said jurors deliberate with unclear instructions.
We have such an unwieldy definition of beyond a reasonable doubt, said Hodge, who has practiced law for 30 years. The language says it has to be a reasonable doubt, not a fanciful doubt. What does that mean? Who uses the word fanciful today? The court needs to come out with clear language that regular people understand.
Prosecutors hands were tied in introducing what might have been an overwhelming piece of evidence Hinsons prior conviction for rape of a minor.
The judge knew about the conviction first hand.
S.C. Circuit Court Judge James E. Lockemy presided over the 1991 trial that put Hinson in prison for 18 years reduced to nine for good behavior for raping a 12-year-old girl in a van, holding a knife to her throat and threatening to kill her if she told.
Mr. Hinson, youre very fortunate regarding this jurys decision, Lockemy said after the verdict was read and the jury left the room.
JURORS DOUBTS
Socks
Prosecution
Any debris was likely to have fallen off during the more than four hours between reporting the crime and their collection as evidence. The soil in the Pee Dee is sandy, not rocky, said S.C. Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Evans.
Defense
Attorney Rick Hoefer didnt bring up the issue at trial.
Jury
A pair worn by one of the girls was dirty but had no wear marks, pine-needle fragments or tears some jurors expected to see from running about a mile through the woods after escaping the bunker.
Feet
Prosecution
The photos showed the girls ankles and tops of their feet. There were no photos of the soles of their feet.
Defense
Hoefer didnt bring up the issue at trial.
Jury
No scratch marks were shown in photos of girl who ran barefoot. They expected to see that.
Sleeping through kidnapping
Prosecution
S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster said some people sleep heavily. The first girl taken is about 5-foot-3 and weighs about 130 pounds. She said Hinson grabbed me up and covered my mouth and carried me out the front door. He said, Dont say a word, or Ill kill you. She said she didnt resist because she was afraid. I wasnt about to do nothing; he told me he would kill me.
Defense
This was among the first issues Hoefer addressed in his closing arguments: These two girls slept together in a twin bed. If you believe these women, (one girl) was physically and forcefully removed from that little twin bed without disturbing (the other girl).
Jury
The two girls slept together in a twin bed. The jurors could not understand how someone could grab one without waking the other.
Duct tape
Prosecution
McMaster said the jurors misunderstood how the tape was removed: One girl used her mouth to unwrap the tape binding the second girls wrists, not bite through it, McMaster said. The second girl testified that the first girl started biting the tape off my hands. The rest of the tape was removed by hand.
Defense
Hoefer told jurors none of the duct tape appeared to be chewed. They taped themselves and staged this scene, Hoefer said.
Jury
Jurors examined the duct tape collected from the scene during deliberations and saw no teeth marks or other evidence that the girl chewed that off.
911 call
Prosecution
I dont see that as odd because they were trying to find the man, McMaster said. Even assuming that is an odd comment, is that enough to support an acquittal? Also, Evans said the girls were well aware of Hinsons history and stayed together for protection. Passages referring to Hinson being a sex offender were cut from the recording played for jurors.
Defense
Hoefer didnt bring up the issue at trial.
Jury
Mention of anything connected with Hinsons previous rape conviction was barred from testimony to prevent the jury being swayed against Hinson. But jurors learned of it from an oversight in admitting a 911 logbook that says: (One girl) STATES WAS RAPED BY MOTHERS BOYFRIEND AT (address) HE IS FORMER SEXOFFEDER(sic) KENNETH HENSON(sic). Rather than helping the prosecution, it raised doubts in the mind of jury foreman Thomas Williams, a former director of a 911 system, because he said rape victims dont usually mention the history of their attacker in their first call to police.
angelmom
The love stays...forever in our hearts
Wow. These jurors sound like they were trying to overthink this whole thing and make a mystery where there was none.
Kind of like some of our threads! :blushing:
Only difference...we are just speculating and brainstorming. It has no effect on anyone IRL. They were letting a rapist walk free!!!
What a disaster.
Kind of like some of our threads! :blushing:
Only difference...we are just speculating and brainstorming. It has no effect on anyone IRL. They were letting a rapist walk free!!!
What a disaster.
UM&AMWfan
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2007
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 17
What happened in Samantha Runion's case?
a man named Availa was charged with molesting his ex girlfriends child and niece after they broke up. he was charged in 2001. i know the girlfriends kid was 9. the jury heard both the girls speak and decided there was still doubt. what if the girls lied cuz he broke up with their mom/aunt.... in 2002 Availa returned to the complex where he lived with his ex and her kid. they had moved. samantha was playing in the front yard with a friend. she was 5. he grabbed her. he raped her then killed her. he left her body on a canyon road posed in a sexual manner. this time they found her blood and tears in his car. dna found in the salty tears and blood was finally enough proof. the first jury after the death of the 5yr old died said it was not their fault. they said the DA had to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and they still had doubts. the DA didn't prove the girls couldn't be liars.
I agree that "reasonable doubt" is a hard standard to grasp. In law school, the word reasonable is everywhere. The "reasonable person" standard, whether there's a reasonable basis for the belief, etc. So lawyers become comfortable with that.
Most states have jury instructions that define "reasonable doubt." BUT - usually the instructions are given at the end of the case, and people aren't always listening. Some juries don't even get those instructions in written form during deliberation. That is why good prosecutors have to HAMMER the definition in order to win.
It also sounds, though, that this jury took the bait of the defense atty to start looking at other information that was not provided or argued. It sounds like they examined the evidence independently and drew their own conclusions based on stuff that wasn't really brought up at trial.
It is interesting, though, that the sex offender status WAS brought out and that even worked against the prosecution.
One more thing - my armchair quarterback guess is that the jury liked the defense attorney better than the AG, and even liked the sicko more than the girls. That can do a lot to sway people.
Most states have jury instructions that define "reasonable doubt." BUT - usually the instructions are given at the end of the case, and people aren't always listening. Some juries don't even get those instructions in written form during deliberation. That is why good prosecutors have to HAMMER the definition in order to win.
It also sounds, though, that this jury took the bait of the defense atty to start looking at other information that was not provided or argued. It sounds like they examined the evidence independently and drew their own conclusions based on stuff that wasn't really brought up at trial.
It is interesting, though, that the sex offender status WAS brought out and that even worked against the prosecution.
One more thing - my armchair quarterback guess is that the jury liked the defense attorney better than the AG, and even liked the sicko more than the girls. That can do a lot to sway people.
Bobbisangel
New Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 11,071
- Reaction score
- 198
This is what is so scary about jurys. Remember the guy that murdered Emily Riemal? When he was tried for kidnapping and raping her...before they found her body and tried him for murder...Emily's DNA was found on Bruces penis. He told the jury that he got her DNA from the toilet seat in her home as he was a friend of the family. The jury fell for that story and only found him guilty of kidnapping! How they believed that story is still beyond me. Sometimes jurys are just way out there...all 12 of them. Who ever heard of a man getting DNA on his privates from a toilet seat :furious:
This is probably another jury like the above jury and the one who let Samantha's Runion's killer go free because they didn't believe the two girls that he raped. Hard to believe that 12 people would vote Not Guilty in cases like these. I wonder how any of them sleep at night!
Texas Mist
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2008
- Messages
- 9,218
- Reaction score
- 132
SC Sex Offender Wins New Sentencing On Gun Charge
Columbia, SC - A 51-year-old registered sex offender in South Carolina acquitted of rape charges in 2007 has won a new sentencing hearing on a federal gun charge.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday granted the request by Kenneth Glenn Hinson.
Hinson appealed in 2008, days after he was sentenced to 25 years in prison as a felon in possession of a weapon.
more here
http://www.wciv.com/news/stories/0210/702510.html
Columbia, SC - A 51-year-old registered sex offender in South Carolina acquitted of rape charges in 2007 has won a new sentencing hearing on a federal gun charge.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday granted the request by Kenneth Glenn Hinson.
Hinson appealed in 2008, days after he was sentenced to 25 years in prison as a felon in possession of a weapon.
more here
http://www.wciv.com/news/stories/0210/702510.html
You've got to be kidding me!! WTH? It would have been nice for the article to say what grounds he appealed on and why a new sentencing hearing was granted. Grrrr.