Skip to comments.Defense: Woman Believed Her NYC Gang-Rape Lie
Posted on 02/23/2010 11:29:52 AM PST by nickcarraway
A woman due to be sentenced Tuesday for fabricating a gang rape accusation that sent an innocent man to prison was too drunk to remember much of the night she met him and believed her allegation was true, according to legal papers filed by her defense team.
Biurny Peguero started "to believe that her lie was the true story as she was intoxicated with alcohol and could not recall all the details of that night," a psychiatrist wrote in a report accompanying a defense pre-sentencing memorandum obtained by The Associated Press.
Peguero, 27, approached authorities last year to say she had made up the 2005 incident. She faces up to seven years in prison after pleading guilty in December to perjury. Her lawyer, Paul F. Callan, is asking a judge to sentence the mother of two young children only to probation, noting that her recantation was key to exonerating William McCaffrey.
"Had Ms. Peguero not stepped forward to right this wrong, Mr. McCaffrey might have spent most of the next 20 years in prison," wrote Callan, who said she was riven with remorse over the false accusation.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office didn't immediately return a phone call about the defense memo.
A judge overturned McCaffrey's rape conviction in December, after he had spent nearly four years behind bars in jail and prison. He was released on bail a few months before he was officially cleared, with DNA testing also playing a part in establishing his innocence.
Peguero, then 22, originally said McCaffrey was the ringleader among three men who raped her at knifepoint after luring her into their car after she went to a Manhattan nightclub with female friends.
McCaffrey, now 32, said she had agreed to go with them to a party, and they dropped her off
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
And he should file one BEAUTY of a suit against her and the state!
As I was pointing out up above, and in light of your comment, he should be filing suit against the jurors who convicted him, as it was only them who did that part of it.
You are incorrect. Whether it is a grand jury or a district magistrate that determines whether there is evidence to proceed with the trial it is the prosecutor that presents such evidence, and the goal, anyway, of the prosecutor is (supposedly) not to get a conviction but to see justice done.
IOW, if the prosecutor should come across information -- and the prosecutor should be open to such information -- the prosecutor has an obligation to stop the trial.
Apparently, in this case neither the prosecutor nor the investigators even bothered considering DNA evidence.
The grand jury has the ability to deny a prosecutor the indictment if they decide that, and grand juries have done that, many times in many locations. It happens all the time.
Furthermore, the grand jury can order more information be sought, for example, if they didn’t see that any DNA evidence was gathered and/or sought, they could order it themselves, if they wanted to. The grand jury has powers to do that sort of thing. Just because a certain grand jury of citizens decided to not go any further than what he did — that’s their problem and their responsibility. They didn’t question things any further, themselves.
And once an indictment is handed down, it’s not the job of the prosecution to be developing evidence to help in the acquittal of the accused, but to get a conviction. That’s their job. And if they do come across evidence that clearly makes it impossible for the accused to have committed the crime, then they must make that available to the defense. The defense would be the ones to bring that up to get it dismissed at that point.
Once the trial is going, it’s the job of the prosecution to get the conviction, with all his abilities and it’s the job of the defense to get the acquittal.
And then, it’s the job of the jury to determine what is final decision. The responsibility lies in the jury’s hands, and if they think something is left out or not considered and that this possible evidence would be critical in deciding the case, but it was never presented, then the jury can say that this introduces too much doubt in the case and declare the accused not guilty on that basis (their doubt as to the case being “proven”).
It’s the responsibility that is in the hands of the jury.
This is an excellent example of why we need to have a humane prison system that combats the sick predation that goes on among the inmates. This innocent man was incarcerated with real criminals, God only knows what may have happened to him in there. Innocent people go to prison all the time (had the Duke lacrosse players not been from families who could afford decent legal representation, they might all very well be there right now).
I am pretty sure juries can’t be sued anywhere for their verdicts.
I am pretty sure juries cant be sued anywhere for their verdicts.
Well, since it was a jury that convicted him, I would say he's out of luck then, for suing the responsible parties...
Have you ever been on a jury? They aren't God. They do depend on witnesses to tell the truth.
So you honestly don't believe that accusers have any responsibility to tell the truth, or for the results of a lie? We shouldn't have perjury laws, or require witnesses to swear they are telling the truth?
You're going down someone's rabbit trail... but it's not mine... LOL...
I'll tell you what I think about the situation here, and part of it I've already made clear. First, it's the Grand Jury and then it's the Jury who are responsible for convicting this guy.
First the Grand Jury for not stopping the process if there wasn't enough evidence to think a crime was committed. Now either there was enough evidence or there was not. And if there was enough evidence to proceed to being charged, then the prosecutor then proceeds to prosecute the case to the fullest of his abilities. The defense does likewise on behalf of the accused.
Then secondly the Jury should not be convicting anyone unless they are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that he is absolutely guilty. If they've got some reasonable doubt, that can be slightly nagging them in the background of their thinking -- then they should have never convicted him in the first place.
And in this scenario described above, I'm talking about anyone, whether it's this guy or some drug dealer kingpin or whatever it is. No one should convict anyone, if they are on a jury, if there is any kind of doubt that nags at them or makes them think twice about it.
Part of that kind of doubt, is very simply (and it will come to anyone's mind) is "What if she is lying about this?" And along with that, will go, "What is the external evidence to back up her assertion?" (like DNA evidence, evidence that she was raped at all, and any evidence from anyone else that was around that can given testimony). If these are ignored (and it's natural to always think, "What if the witness is lying?") -- then -- there is doubt and no one should be convicted. That was the Jury's fault on that one... they should not have convicted on that kind of doubt.
Then, in continuing with this scenario, if someone is lying under oath, then they get to have the same kinds of protections that this guy should have had in the first place (but I'm talking about "in general" now, because this case was already decided by confession from the witness...). So, in general, if someone is lying under oath, then they should be put through the same process of having a Grand Jury decide whether someone should be indicted at all, in the first place. And they should not be any kind of "rubber stamp" for anyone. They should seek out whatever they need to know to get the information that they need to proceed with an indictment -- or not proceed, and if they can't get it, then they should not indict, at all. Just because someone makes an accusation of some sort should never result in an automatic indictment, no matter what. There should be corroborating evidence that shows that there is some substance to a charge being made at all.
And then, if this person is indicted for such a charge as lying under oath, then also (just as in the case of this guy, with his jury), no jury should ever accept a charge automatically, but should consider all the evidence possible and if not enough evidence was produced to show that such a charge is proven beyond the doubt that they can have -- then they should always deliver a "not guilty" verdict.
That's the process that should be observed and the two areas where all things should be stopped from proceeding is (1) at the Grand Jury and then lastly (2) at the Jury. And the Jury needs to consider all people absolutely innocent and make it so that whatever the charge is -- needs to be proven beyond the reasonable kind of doubt that anyone can have in considering these things. If the state does not "prove it" -- then they must, and always, deliver a verdict of "Not Guilty" -- no matter who it is.
And, to follow up, all citizens when considering these things in public and discussing it -- they all need to consider all individuals as not guilty in all cases and it must remain that way, until a Jury of their peers has considered all the evidence delivered to them and seen whether they are convinced that a person is proven to be Guilty beyond their reasonable doubt that they can have.
No one, as a normal citizen, needs to ever consider a person being charged or accused with something (anything) as guilty... no matter what the public information is that has been either leaked out or printed up or whatever -- until a Jury has delivered its verdict. And then, I would only say that I can only report what a Jury has decided as I don't know what the situation was.
And so..., that's what I think... :-)
Have you ever been on a jury? They aren't God. They do depend on witnesses to tell the truth.
You don't have to be "God" -- you only have to know that the accused is automatically innocent as they sit there. That's an automatic given, without a doubt. Then the next step is that they have to be convinced with sufficient evidence that the person is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt that they may have -- and if they think it's not enough evidence, or that it is pinned on just one thing and that one thing could possibly be wrong -- then the person stays innocent, because the case has not been proven.
They don't need to be "God" -- they just need to be shown with sufficient evidence, beyond any kind of reasonable doubt that they can have, that the person is absolutely guilty.... that's all that is needed.
And as I said, if it's a witness saying something, then the first thing that comes to a person's mind is, "What if she is lying?". Unless that is proven to not be the case and it's a possible lie that can convict someone, then they need to always say, "Not Guilty"...
Juries are not infallible. At the end of the day, without an accuser, there would be no charges. Sometimes there is enough evidence for a jury to make a decision, and sometimes they have to make a decision on whether certain people are telling the truth. You are basically calling for the destruction of our entire legal system.
“I really think a series of brisk spankings should suffice.”
Oh....I’m pretty sure her cellmate will take care of that. Along with showing her what real rape is.
Nope, not destruction, just that people are innocent until proven guilty and that it has to be proven, and if it’s not... they remain “Not Guilty”... that’s our system...
There is no evidence that this jury didn’t consider the defendant innocent until proven guilty. We do rely on witness testimony, where it’s a witness to a crime, or a forensic expert.
“Without video, your prognostications are pointless.”
I understand cinemax might have footage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.