Justices Gerry Alexander, Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders, Tom Chambers, Susan Owens and Debra Stephens hate kids

Justices Gerry Alexander, Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders, Tom Chambers, Susan Owens and Debra Stephens have joined together to shine a spotlight on their true feelings for victims. And in the process, left one lone Justice to dissent on their decision while being the only one moved to uphold the idea of justice being served.

Randy J. Sutherby was arrested after a five year old female relative came forward about him crawling into bed with her, and molesting her while he was on an overnight visit at her families home. Sutherby was investigated, and eventually charged with child molestation and child rape charges and unrelated child porn charges due to material found by police during a search.

In the appeal at issue, Randy J. Sutherby argued that Grays Harbor County prosecutors erred by charging him with seven counts of possession of child pornography while consolidating that case with child molestation and child rape charges related to an alleged assault on a 5-year-old girl. Six of the high court's nine justices agreed, ordering that Sutherby receive a new trial on the assault allegation and that he be resentenced on a single child pornography count.

[...]

In Thursday's ruling, the six-justice majority found that Sutherby's lawyer -- a privately hired defense attorney -- failed to provide his client with effective assistance by not arguing that the child pornography case should be separated from the molestation charges. They also agreed with a Court of Appeals ruling that Sutherby should only have faced a single count of possession of child pornography, not the 10 counts prosecutors initially offered.

Chief Criminal Deputy Prosecutor Gerald Fuller, who argued the appeal for the Grays Harbor Prosecutor's Office, said he and his colleagues will ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the case while weighing their appellate options.

"I'm disappointed, and, frankly, I think Justice Johnson got it right," Fuller said Thursday. "Our point of view was that our proof of the conduct with the child was corroborated by the possession of the pornography."

The dissent by Supreme Court Justice James Johnson, would have only served us better had it been the majorities ruling. While it does indeed weigh the questions of law brought about by the appeal, it also shows a remarkable consideration for the rights and well being of the victim.

The majority's ruling fails to adequately protect innocent child victims and misapplies the test set by the United States Supreme Court to determine truly constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, I dissent.

And what about ## - She did everything a little girl in her situation should have done. She told her mother what her grandfather had done. She gave the same account to two doctors and to a child interviewer. She recounted the incident at a competency hearing, and she honestly described the events again to the jury. She knows the number one rule of the court is "[n]ever lie." VRP (Nov. 1, 2005) at 59. And she did not lie; indeed, the jury -- our system's lie detector -- properly made that determination. But now, several years later, the majority's decision means she will have to relive these traumatic events at another trial (or see her victimizer plead down to a reduced sentence). It would be possible to explain to ##. why she has to go through such a horrible experience if the constitution required that result, but it does not. I dissent. Poor little ##.

Source