He received $167.90 to serve on the jury. It couldn't have been an easy case to listen to. Hearing of how a 13 year old was raped by a 38 year old man who had befriended the family, it'd be enough to make most people turn in repulsion. But the juror did what he was suppose to, and long with the 11 other people who sat by his side- he found the defendant guilty. Believing that the child, who had come from a broken home- a mother battling drugs and a father who wasn't there- deserved justice, the 12 people performed their moral, ethical and judicial duty and sentenced Gregory Bryant to 30 years in prison.
One would think that Bruse Funkhouser had earned that $167.90. Perhaps it would cover a small portion of the income that he lost while serving his duty to the courts. Perhaps it would just give him a little extra change in his pocket. So, you might wonder what would cause Funkhouser to return the check to the court house...
I'd written about Bryant a few days ago- outraged that a judge would use the power of the court to free a child rapist. You see, this wasn't a plea deal where some fancy lawyers wiggled their clients out of prison time. This is a case where a jury heard the evidence, deliberated on the case, and formed a unified conclusion. They sentenced Bryant according to the law- and the judge turned his nose at it.
I know, you're still wondering why I'm writing about it again, right?
In doing this blog- in covering these cases, I've had chances to hear from families of victims, and even friends of the convicted. I'm used to hearing both sides of cases. But never have I had a chance to hear from the third group- you know the one that actually came into the case unbiased. I heard from one of the jurors last night, and could plainly see that his outrage was overwhelming.... to the point that he returned the check of $167.90.
In the Free Republic Forums, he posted a message that is worth reading:
Now, the judge has come back and tried to explain himself- saying that he should have let a nurse testify for the defense. The nurse that preformed the sexual assault exam on the victim. The judge- Pawnee County District Judge Jefferson Sellers -most likely wasn't listening or watching when the jurors were given the medical report, from said nurse. While he defends what travesty of justice he has committed by saying that he can't really talk about it because the case could be appealed- I have to wonder just what defense attorney in the world would appeal a decision that gets their child raping client absolutely NO jail time at all.
Perhaps we can hope that the court takes Mr. Funkhouser's $167.90 and uses it to hire someone more fitting of wearing a robe than Jefferson... I've always been partial to pot bellied pigs.
A Miserable Failure
Oklahoma's New's Ok (registration free, but sometimes needed)
Judge's sentencing decision in child rape case irks jurors
Linked with the finest posts around at:
Don Surber's The Best Of Thursday
Categories: predators judges,
One would think that Bruse Funkhouser had earned that $167.90. Perhaps it would cover a small portion of the income that he lost while serving his duty to the courts. Perhaps it would just give him a little extra change in his pocket. So, you might wonder what would cause Funkhouser to return the check to the court house...
Members of a Pawnee County jury are upset a judge gave a suspended sentence to a man convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl.
The jury had recommended a 30-year prison sentence.
One upset juror drove to the Pawnee County Courthouse and returned a check for $167.90 he received for serving on the jury.
"They didn't know what to do with it," said Bruce Funkhouser.
"Justice was not served by this at all," Funkhouser said. "I was just shocked. The judge let him go with a slap on the wrist."
I'd written about Bryant a few days ago- outraged that a judge would use the power of the court to free a child rapist. You see, this wasn't a plea deal where some fancy lawyers wiggled their clients out of prison time. This is a case where a jury heard the evidence, deliberated on the case, and formed a unified conclusion. They sentenced Bryant according to the law- and the judge turned his nose at it.
I know, you're still wondering why I'm writing about it again, right?
In doing this blog- in covering these cases, I've had chances to hear from families of victims, and even friends of the convicted. I'm used to hearing both sides of cases. But never have I had a chance to hear from the third group- you know the one that actually came into the case unbiased. I heard from one of the jurors last night, and could plainly see that his outrage was overwhelming.... to the point that he returned the check of $167.90.
In the Free Republic Forums, he posted a message that is worth reading:
There is no doubt in the minds of any of the jurists as to this creeps guilt.....This young girl was looking for help and direction in her life so she went to a Church Youth Group and this pervert tells her the Lord sent him there to help her......Later he tells her the Lord told him it was ok for them to have sex because later onthey would be in ministry together......He had the girl, her mom, and sister at his home in Pawnee...They knew something was not right and made attempts to leave and once again Mr. Pervert tells them that the Lord has showed him they will be killed in an auto accident if the leave.......There are many more points that I could make but it actually makes me ill to try and express my thoughts on all this properly.....and yes I did return my juror money...if this is Pawnee County justice I want no part of it.....When judges begin polluting the judicial system to the point that jurors are disgusted and repulsed- then there is a absolute problem that demands fixing.
Now, the judge has come back and tried to explain himself- saying that he should have let a nurse testify for the defense. The nurse that preformed the sexual assault exam on the victim. The judge- Pawnee County District Judge Jefferson Sellers -most likely wasn't listening or watching when the jurors were given the medical report, from said nurse. While he defends what travesty of justice he has committed by saying that he can't really talk about it because the case could be appealed- I have to wonder just what defense attorney in the world would appeal a decision that gets their child raping client absolutely NO jail time at all.
Perhaps we can hope that the court takes Mr. Funkhouser's $167.90 and uses it to hire someone more fitting of wearing a robe than Jefferson... I've always been partial to pot bellied pigs.
A Miserable Failure
Oklahoma's New's Ok (registration free, but sometimes needed)
Judge's sentencing decision in child rape case irks jurors
Linked with the finest posts around at:
Don Surber's The Best Of Thursday
Categories: predators judges,
Comments
When something is so wrong that one has to reread it a few times because NO ONE would intentionally do this...I think judges need weekly reviews.
Truly.
What a great juror, though.
Thanks for letting me know about this. Have you alerted the media yet? Or O'Reilly and/or Wendy Murphy? It seems only FNC, that I know about is covering these sex predators and corrupted judges...that I'm aware of. (Besides Nancy Grace) The liberal bias news channels, do not speak of this..if they do very little due to it NOT being supported by the lib views involving politics.
Of course, I'm outraged by the sex predator and the disgusting judge...but the part attached w/Bryant associating himself as a follower of God...that even puts the knife in deeper. It sickens me...to the core...to use God as tool for rape. I just want to throw up. Will try to link up on this story and email O'Reilly about it...Right now we are under a severe thunderstorm warning...power is flickering at the moment. Thank you again Lilo for reporting this...and keeping up with this case. More than disgusting....as I commented on your other post...it almost makes you wonder if these judges want to be challenged or get media time.
It would not hurt though for others to write him either.
The O'Reilly Factor — Oreilly@foxnews.com
Does anyone here sincerely think that the judge was happy to have to throw out a verdict? Apart from the fact that he's a human being, not many judges like having to reverse themselves. There is moral outrage here, but should there be less outrage in wanting a judge to surreptitiously subvert the law by not making the ruling?
You don't like the ruling but why do some of your respondents think the judge us corrupt for making it?
H.D. Owens, Jr.
Huh... And here I thought his job was JUDGE... nice to know about the his job as the 13th jurist though.
So you've practiced law, do I hear a defense lawyer defending a judge who would let a child rapist go free? Does it not stike you as stange- being the lawyer that you are- that the defense didn't move for a mistrial in the four months between the verdict and the sentence?
I do note that in your outrage, you failed to mention that this same defendant had been offered a deferred sentence by the prosecutor prior to trial. I wonder why? (deferred means no conviction if he completes probation)
Do you actually think that during the "four months" from verdict to sentence this Judge did not consider the fallout he would have to endure from the press as a result of his decision? Why would he be willing to commit political suicide?
Presumably the testimony from the state witness who was "unavailable" to testify was to be unfavorable to the prosecution. Why else do you think the prosecution did not provide this witness or agree to the continuance?
Notably, District Attorney Larry Stuart did not offer any medical evidence of anal rape. I wonder why?
Apparently, after hearing the testimony of the alleged victim, this Judge felt the failure to grant the defense motion for a continuance to bring the witness from the "justice center" who performed the exam on the alleged victim would have been reversible error.
It ALSO means the jury did not get the whole story and the defendant was deprived a fair trial.
I understand the unhappy juror returning his money.... sounds to me like he didn't get to hear all the evidence should have.
I also know that there is not always medical evidence available 3 days after a rape, clearly you've been spending too much time with criminals than with victims. Seeing as how the child was made to wash, and that it took her three days to be able to come forward about the rape-it's not surprizing that there was a lack of evidence. Maybe you'd just perfer if we patted the rapist on the back for not bruising her, or leaving any lasting physical evidence. Or do you just believe that as long as nothing is torn or bruised then nothing happened.
If the jury was allowed to see the medical report- what else is it that the nurse would be needed for?
I'm glad to know that defense lawyers in Ok are so concerned about the criminals- God forbid that they look at the victims and see any reason for justice to be served.
Clearly your a victim. I am sorry for your pain. The information I provided came from the Tulsa World.
"I also know that there is not always medical evidence available 3 days after a rape," This could be a true statement in an adult who engaged in vaginal intercourse with a non virgin.
The girl was 13. If she had been forcibly anally raped there would have been bleeding because her anus and rectum would have been damaged. Can you visualize that? Damaged, ie. Tearing, scaring, fissures, etc.
Without getting too graphic the damage to a 13yrold anus would not have been gone in 2 or three days in a either. Shame on you for suggesting it to advance your blind attack on a reader who responded to your request for more information. I am sorry for your pain.
Apparently, when you requested more info on this case you were not sincere. Of course, if you were the mad researcher that your blog claims, you would have simply googled the story and read everything I told you out of the Tulsa World article.
When you said: "If you spend your life turning away from the stories that you deem "unsettling, or disturbing" than you become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution." you were only referring to your point of view.
At first, because of the plainly ignorant basis of your last comment- I wasn't even going waste time replying. But, in case any readers stop by and actually believe your narrow minded drivel- I decided to make sure that they hand more creditable resources to go by. Understanding that you're a defense attorney- I'll try to type slow enough for you to be able to grasp the point.
First- on the lack of medical evidence of sexual abuse-
Taken from The Medical Evaluation of Sexually Abused Children:
Fargason et al49 have noted that estimates taken from the peer-reviewed medical literature of the sensitivity of physical examination findings for the diagnosis of "penetration" are very inconsistent. These investigators concluded that current information does not permit the physical examination to generate a valid estimate of the likelihood that penetration has occurred in cases of suspected sexual abuse.
[...]
In the clinical arena, it remains true that only two conditions, both rare in sexually abused children, indisputably indicate sexual contactpregnancy and the identification of sperm or seminal fluid. Two other conditions in childrenfresh injuries of the genitalia as evidenced by clearly apparent bleeding, ecchymosis, or tissue destruction and sexually transmitted infectionsrequire explanation urgently.
The study refers to the fact that many children are wrongly found to be sexually abuse because some of the "signs" looked for during an evaluation can occur in non abused children. I'm pointing this out only because I see where you are headed with the whole thinking I'm completely one sided on the issue.
HOWEVER-
Your insistence that this child SHOULD have had damage that clearly she didn't is quite disturbing. Just how do you come to the conclusion that every child under 13 who is sodomized sustains the sort of injuries you describe?
Legal proof of child sexual abuse in the absence of physical evidence
AR De Jong and M Rose
Department of Pediatrics, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.
Child sexual abuse criminal court cases from a 12-month period were reviewed to determine the frequency and significance of physical evidence in legally "proven" felony cases with penetration. One hundred fifteen consecutive cases were reviewed, and 87 (76%) had resulted in conviction of the perpetrator on felony charges. Charges of vaginal rape were made in 88 cases, and oral and/or anal sodomy in 67 cases. Physical evidence was present in only 23% of all cases that resulted in felony convictions. Felony convictions were obtained in 67 (79%) of 85 cases without physical evidence and in only 20 (67%) of 30 cases with physical evidence. Eight of the 10 cases without physical evidence that did not result in conviction involved victims younger than 7 years of age. Cases involving the youngest victims had a significantly lower conviction rate (12 of 23), despite a very high frequency (13 of 23) of physical evidence (P less than .0005). Physical evidence was neither predictive nor essential for conviction. Successful prosecution, particularly in cases involving the youngest victims, depended on the quality of the verbal evidence and the effectiveness of the child victim's testimony.
Should we run back and strike all of those guilty verdicts because of the lack of medical evidence?
As a member of the law system, do you even know why there is a 72 hour time frame for most "rape kits"? Because the more time that goes by between the rape and having the medical exam preformed- the more critical evidence is lost (you know like DNA, bodily fluids ect.)
You may also want to brush up on your research just a tad, I'd suggest starting by looking at some legal papers- and not the big yellow notepads you normally draw your smiley faces on- here's one you might be able to understand:
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/e01002_04.pdf ---
¶ 10 In trials involving sexual assault, res gestae evidence is of particular importance and significance to the fact-finder. By their very nature, sexual assault cases have a pronounced dearth of independent eyewitnesses, and there is rarely any accompanying physical evidence. See, e.g., Minerd, 562 Pa. at 56-57, 753 A.2d at 231.
Your suggesting that because the victim was 13, that the only creditable reason for lack of torn or bruises cavities is that there was no rape- have you considered that although the pervert may well of raped her- there was not enough physical trauma to cause such injuries? His bodily secretions could have provided enough of a lubricant, he could well have been of a smaller size, in fact there are numerous explanations to why she would not have suffered injury. Directly following the rape- she may have experienced swelling or discomfort, which could very well have subsided before the exam was completed three days later.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/106/1/100- you may want to spend some time reading that... really, I highly suggest it.
You question my intent, my motives, my research- for no reason other than I believe that the judge erred in letting a rapist go free. Do not "shame on you" at me. When YOU spend any amount of times study rape, the effect it has on it victims, or actually pretty much anything other than ways to get rapist out of jail faster, you'll be welcome to come back and talk to me. You're blatant "oh I know everything because I went to some cracker jack box law school" is just down right disturbing. It may do you good to learn that not every human body suffers injury when sexually assaulted. There are many litigating factors to whether or not an injury occurs- and sitting back in you easy chair declaring that because the child wasn't bleeding- it wasn't rape is just sickening.
Twelve people sat in the court room and listened to the case presented, and felt compelled by the testimony given to find this SOB guilty of raping a child. There will be times when the only evidence to a sexual assault is the words of a child- should we dismiss every single case that does not have what you deem "worthy" evidence? What do you do with the pervert who has only gotten as far as molesting a child- do you declare them innocent because there is no proof that they were touched? That's a bit dangerous isn't it? Would you be so willing to send your own child away telling them that you won't believe it until there is forensic evidence showing physical trauma?
Bruce Funkhouser
Before the trial ever started, the defendent and the defense attorney had the opportunity to decide if they wanted a jury trial, or a trial only in front of the judge. They evidently chose the jury trial.
Our justice system is set up for 12 of a defendent's peer's to hear the evidence and testimony of a trial, come to a conclusion, and either convict or aquit the defendent. They did that. They decided they had heard enough evidence to convict. It is not up to them to decide if the attorneys did their jobs properly, they are only there to pass judgement on the defendent. They did their jobs.
Now after the trial, the judge turns around and dismisses what the jurors have decided! So why have jurors at all? Why not just say, lets put all of our cases in the hands of the judge, one man to play God with everybody. Obviously, we don't want that to happen, because it could be dangerous. One man making the decisions for everybody, gives that person too much power. Does not allow for different views, becomes very narrowminded. Yet that is just exactly what happened in this case.
Are jurors perfect? No offense to Mr. Funkhouser, but no they aren't perfect. Yes, sometimes they can be wrong. They can only go by the evidence presented to them, then the twelve people on the jury do their very best to come to a decision. They did. And once they did, we are supposed to live with it. When they let people off, we live with it, don't we? But in this case, they voted to convict. Only the judge (one man) didn't like the fact that they convicted in this case. He didn't even say "do over". He threw the whole thing away.
So I ask you, are we going to throw out the whole juror system?
Just let one very human man play God?