Child Molester Freed on Technicality in California

Fox News ^ | Wednesday, April 14, 2004 | AP

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

SANTA ANA, Calif. — A convicted child molester serving a life sentence was freed after an appeals court ruled he never had a chance to confront his accuser -- a teenager who committed suicide before the man's trial.

To the chagrin of prosecutors and even his sister, Edward Harvey Stokes (search) was released from jail last week, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday. Officials believe he has left the state.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

Someone one I'd like to pour gasoline on and then drop a match . . . that is tell him where I stand on the issue and that I like pie.

[Bismarck]

There we go again... do we have to wait until this monster harms another child before we can put him back in jail?

[Blood of Tyrants]

This bastard has been convicetd FIVE times of rape, sodomy, and kidnapping BEFORE he did this. How many did he get away with? I think that there should be a shoot on sight bounty on him because he WILL do it again.

[Steely Tom]

A convicted child molester serving a life sentence was freed after an appeals court ruled he never had a chance to confront his accuser -- a teenager who committed suicide before the man's trial.

Gee. I guess they'll also be releasing all the murderers whose victims couldn't make it to the trial.

I love California. As long as it's 3,000 miles away.

(steely)

[ClearCase_guy]

Perhaps this was OJ's backup defense. Since Nicole couldn't make it to court, the sentence must be short.

[Dante3]

You said it well.

It is an outrage to have this pervert on the loose. I also blame the judges.

[johnfrink]

I'm going to be yelled at for this, but I have to say that the judgement is probably fair. I mean, the kid was the only person who could provide evidence, and without the kid, there is no case. I'm sorry, but there is not. Being convicted solely on the word of someone who you cannot cross-examine is a very scary precedent, and I think the court made the right decision, however horrible it is that he's now free.

Now, given his history he shouldn't have been free to do this in the first place, but that doesn't change the fact that we do have a constitutional right to confront our accuser. This is an entirely separate issue from whether or not he should have been released before committing this act, however.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

The parents of the victims are already victims themselves and would be among the first suspects questioned. Any effort to compensate for this abject failure of our legal system should be made by an uninvolved third party.

[Buffalo Bob]

an appeals court ruled he never had a chance to confront his accuser

Folks who know me here know my hatred of pedophiles. I am no lawyer, but it seems that the appeals court properly applied constitutional law in this ruling.

Other posters here are correct that this man should have been locked up way before this and the situation sucks, but isn't this decision the correct one that's based on our Bill of Rights?

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

Sorry Professor,

I think his previous bad acts and the fact that they most likely had a stack of evidence against him. Having been involved with grand jury, I'll tell you that this would not go to trial unless there were enough elements for a conviction. This is a heaping pile of liberal droppings.

Where are the costumed vigilantes when we need them? The judical system has failed us again.

- BG

[John Thornton]

How will this ruling effect the Michael Jackson case? Isn't the kid he is accused of molesting very sick?

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

sometimes the victim doesn't testify. It depends on the situation. I mean if it is too much psychological hardship (like in a rape trial) or the person is dead (like a homicide), they will go on the facts and evidence. This guy has molested before and there was enough evidence to convict him the first time on this charge. The only thing this monster should be doing is pushing up the daisies.

[Mr Rogers]

If the accuser was alive to confront him, I would agree with you. However, testimony given before death should be allowed.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

How many did he get away with?

Apparently 206...by his own reckoning.

[wingster]

This is what has happened to a system that has become more preoccupied with the self-serving interests of the "system keepers", aka the lawyers and judges, via rigid and dogmatic adherence to "legal procedure" very often flying in the face of reality, the truth, and the facts.

I hope to high heaven that I never need to rely on the police or our legal system for anything at all important such as this.

[EdReform]

... Stokes targeted runaways and other troubled youth because they typically did not tell authorities. He often gave his victims alcohol and drugs, with some victims waking up in handcuffs and leg shackles... In a letter to a therapist in the early 1990s, Stokes said he had molested 212 victims and felt like a monster. "I am angry at myself and others but I still seek out the weak and the unsuspecting as my victims," he wrote then.

Documenting Homosexual Pedophila

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

here is a link to a great site that takes care of pedophiles online: http://www.pervertedjustice.com

[Il Duce]

after an appeals court ruled he never had a chance to confront his accuser

Ah yes, the Sixth Amendment. An annoying technicality.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Aside from the victim's testimony, little evidence existed to support the charges against the defendant," the court wrote.

The court disagreed that they had a stack of evidence against the guy.

[johnfrink]

First of all, I think virtually all people should agree that it's a good thing that we cannot be convicted simply because we've been convicted in the past.

Second, the article makes it clear that virtually all the evidence was the testimony of this kid. Without that testimony--and the chance to cross-examine--the guy could not get a fair trial.

Look, do I think the guy did it? Absolutely. Do I hate the fact that he's on the street again? Absolutely. If I was a parent would I want him locked up for life? Yes--and I want him locked up for life and I'm NOT a parent.

But that doesn't change the fact that the right to a fair trial is one of the most fundamental rights we have, and if you are willing to throw that away for the evil people, then it's slowly going to get eaten away for the good people as well.

[namvetcav]

True, we don't know all the facts but we should endeavor to be fair according to what we know. The courts in California have a lot to prove to us. Their idea of justice has too often been a thumb-in-your-eye kind of ruling to all people of common sense. The idea that California courts would free convicted child molesters to teach us a good lesson about being overly judgmental is not implausible. Therefore, a fair-minded person like myself attributes the worst possible motives to California justice in the absence of information to the contrary.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

another interesting site:

http://www.thinkofthechildren.co.uk/

They organize 'mobs' to 'take care of' pedophiles and their 'liberal do-gooders.'

Unless the US Judicial System reforms, we can expect this kind of vigilantism here in the states.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping + Pedophile/adolescent rapist alert.

Note the they skirt around the fact that (apparently) this demon was a homosexual; that his victims were BOYS.

Sick, and the "great" state of California is terribly to blame for this subhuman being free to go.

Note also that they "think" he's gone to another state. Where, pray tell?

Vigilante justice - it almost seems that's the only kind available. People who are arguing for this a**hole are beyond my ken. Look how many times he's been arrested and I believe convicted already, for sex crimes. It's a sin that he wasn't executed long ago. That's what the government is for - to rid the planet of demons like this.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

[7.62 x 51mm]

I've said it before, and I'll continue saying it: ALL CHILD MOLESTORS SHOULD BE EXECUTED. Rehab isn't possible; recividism is almost 100%.

[Buffalo Bob]

If the accuser was alive to confront him, I would agree with you. However, testimony given before death should be allowed.

Good point, and I thought of something similar. Yet, if the testimony given before death was not cross-examined, isn't is automatically disallowed as evidence? It's something about your right to confront evidence against you.

It may be dumb, but I remember a LA Law episode that dealth with this exact issue (not the pedophile part), and the judge did essentially what the appeals court did in this case. Your thoughts?

[Il Duce]

Yet, if the testimony given before death was not cross-examined, isn't is automatically disallowed as evidence

It depends, but that is basically the rule. There are likely two problems here. The first and most basic is that since the alleged victim wouldn't be testifying himself, there is a hearsay problem. Even if the Court were to get past that hurdle, there are still major Sixth Amendment confrontation clause problems.

[conserv13]

Being convicted solely on the word of someone who you cannot cross-examine is a very scary precedent, and I think the court made the right decision, however horrible it is that he's now free.

I agree with you.

[hershey]

The monster will start murdering his victims so there'll be no witnesses.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

at the same time, it's obvious he did it based on past behavior.

Time for someone to put on a black tshirt with a white skull to take out the garbage.

Just call me Frank Castle.

[hershey]

But California has that controversial predator law, where after you've been convicted of sexual crimes, you can be sentenced to Embarcadero loony bin/prison for an indefinite term. Surely, the courts should have sent Karak there way before he attacked the boy who subsequently committed suicide. And I'll bet he committed suicide because he was terrified and ashamed of having to testify in open court.

[BSunday]

Bring on The Punisher

[conserv13]

absolutely. He never should have been out in the first place. There is NO excuse for 5x repeat sexual offenders.

[Modernman]

Aside from the victim's testimony, little evidence existed to support the charges against the defendant," the court wrote

I have to grit my teeth and say, if this is true, that the judge made the correct decision here.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

Edward Harvey Stokes is one of the most notorious sex offenders in the Western U.S., molesting more than 212 teenage boys over about 30 years. He targeted runaways and teens in trouble with the law, gave them drugs and alcohol until they could not fight his sexual advances. Some woke in handcuffs and leg irons. Stokes, 45, was sentenced in Orange County (CA) to 19 years to life for molesting a 16-year old boy, who later committed suicide. (LAT, 11/9/01, B1)

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

How does this obscurity apply to murder cases? The victim is NEVER there.

[Mr Rogers]

I'm no lawyer - but as a practical matter, you have two competing interests. 1) The right to confront your accuser. 2)The right of society to protect itself & the weak from predators.

I don't see the right to confront your accuser as an absolute. Close to one, but the death of the accuser doesn't mean the crime ceased to exist. If the accuser gave written or videotaped testimony under oath, and if the accuser is dead, then it seems reasonable to me to expect the accused to confront that testimony in place of the person of the accuser.

May not be the law, but releasing someone who is almost certain to rape again because the rapee is dead seems obscene to me - far worse than forgoing the right to confront your accuser.

If a person now dead had provided written testimony accusing me of rape, I would be willing to deal with it.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

I wouldn't mind three eight inch indestructible claws coming out from out behind my knuckles of both hands or an m-60 right now.

[BJClinton]

Agreed. Considering he admitted to 212 assaults, I would say the right of society to protect itself should have over-ridden this technicality.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

If not death for them (which I prefer), how about we take away their much needed shadow of ananimity and brand them across the forehead with "I MOLEST CHILDREN". Let's see him try to mess with anybody's kids with that on him.

Listen, I have a daughter. I was on a grand jury which dealt with several rape and molestation cases. In one of the cases, the suspect claimed that the four and five year old girls he molested enjoyed the taste of his manfluid. These people are diseased and should be put down like rabid animals.

[BossLady]

The fact that the perp had many priors, admitted to 212 assaults in a letter to his therapist and they all fit the pattern the 16 y/o spoke of...and the fact that the kid DID committ suicide (probably because of this creep)....that seems like a lot of evidence to me...

The court system never ceases to amaze me.....

[BurbankKarl]

Children don't have rights in California.

The guy admitted to molesting over 200 victims....yet he walks.

[Il Duce]

far worse than forgoing the right to confront your accuser.

I'm really not sure how you can say this. I think the single, most fundamental tenant of our criminal justice system is the right to confront witnesses against you. Without it, the criminal justice system would simply not function properly; without cross-examination, there is no way to determine the truth or reliability of a witness.

A criminal justice system without the right to confront witnesses against the accused is simply a mockery. Get rid of juries, fine. Get rid of defense counsel, fine. But get rid of a right of cross-examination? It is a joke.

[Mr Rogers]

As I said, if the accuser left written testimony, then the defense can confront that.

The accuser is DEAD! We're not talking out of town, we're not talking can't be bothered - he's dead! probably because of the crime & its aftereffects.

Let the jury hear the testimony, let the defense rip it to sheds if they can, let the defense point out any flaws - after all, the kid isn't there to rebut anything the defense says either - and then let the jury decide.

And they did. They put the guy in jail. Evidently they found the testimony of a dead person sufficiently compelling to put the man in jail. I'm content.

The alternative is to allow a man who has been found guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' out to prey again on the weak - his words, not mine. That may be legal, but it is NOT justice!