Sex Crimes

July 16, 2015

Champaign Police “2014 Officer of the Year” Charged with Sexual Assault

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Champaign police officer was charged and arraigned in Champaign County on charges of aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, and aggravated domestic battery, according to a news report. The suspect, Jerad Gale, is alleged to have anally penetrated a 23-year-old woman and tried to strangle her by covering her nose and mouth and pressing her head into a pillow. The woman was Gale’s former girlfriend, a University of Illinois student, who went to UI police on May 5 to inform them about an alleged assault by Gale that happened on November 9, 2013. According to the Champaign county prosecutor in charge, the woman had been in a relationship with Gale from November 2012 to November 2013.

Another woman came forward with allegations against Gale in Piatt County. The woman dated Gale between 2008 and 2012 and lived with him in Monticello where Gale worked as a police officer for three years. Gale was charged and arraigned on two felony counts of criminal sexual assault.

Sexual Assault in Illinois

In order to be convicted of criminal sexual assault in Illinois, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual committed an act of sexual penetration and:

Used force or threat of force;
The victim was unable to understand the nature of the act or was unable to give knowing consent;
The victim was a family member under 18 years old; or
The individual was 17 years of age or older and holds a position of authority, trust, or supervision over the victim who is between 13 and 17 years old.

For a first conviction, the crime is a Class 1 felony and carries a mandatory prison term of four to fifteen years. For a second conviction, it is considered a Class X felony and carries between six to thirty years of imprisonment. Subsequent convictions can result between thirty to sixty years or life imprisonment.

Criminal sexual assault becomes aggravated if it involves the following aggravating factors:

dangerous weapon;
bodily harm;
threatening the life of the victim or another;
commission of another felony;
the victim is sixty years old or older;
the victim is physically disabled;
the accused delivered any controlled substance to the victim;
the accused was armed with a firearm or discharged a firearm; or
The accused discharged a firearm during the offense that caused great bodily harm or death to another person.

Additionally, aggravated criminal sexual assault occurs when an individual commits an act of sexual penetration and:

the victim is eight years old or under and the accused is under seventeen years old.
the victim is between nine through 12 years of age and force or threat of force is involved, and the accused is under seventeen years of age; or
the victim is severely or profoundly mentally disabled.

Aggravated criminal sexual assault is a Class X felony and, for first convictions, carries between six and thirty years of mandatory imprisonment with possible extended terms of ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years, or a natural life term. For second or subsequent convictions, the mandatory prison term is for the accused’s natural life.

Here, Gale is accused of having caused bodily harm to one of the victims during the act of penetration as he allegedly tried to strangle her and pressed her head into a pillow. This may be considered as an aggravating factor, unless Gale can successfully prove consent as a defense.

June 25, 2015

Child Abuse, Mandatory Reporters and Illinois Law

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

The recent revelation that Josh Duggar, oldest son of “19 Kids and Counting” stars Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, molested at least three of his sisters and an unrelated female when he was 14 years old has raised questions about criminal prosecution of child sexual abuse cases and who qualifies as a mandatory reporter.

Statute of Limitations for Illinois Child Sexual Abuse

With the exception of murder and several other violent crimes, every crime has a statute of limitations attached to it. The statute of limitations specifies the amount of time the prosecutor has to file charges against a suspect for his alleged involvement in the crime. In Illinois, the statute of limitations for aggravated criminal sexual abuse (defined as sexual contact with a minor who is a family member) is 10 years, if the victim reported the crime within three years of commission of the crime.

In certain circumstances, however, the statute of limitations is tolled. This means that the time limit does not start running until a different time as specified under law. In Illinois, the statute of limitations for aggravated criminal sexual abuse doesn’t begin to run until the victim turns 18, at which point she has 20 years to press charges. So if a child is sexually assaulted when she is three years old, she has until she is 38 years old to press charges against her alleged attacker – meaning the abuser can potentially be prosecuted for his crime 35 years after it happened.

Many people have questioned why charges cannot now be filed against Josh Duggar. If the abuse had taken place in Illinois, the Duggar sisters, who are in their early 20s, would still be able to press charges, as the statute of limitations only began to run when they turned 18. However, there is a difference between whether a crime may be prosecuted from a legal standpoint, and whether it may be prosecuted from a practical one. It appears that the sisters would make very uncooperative witnesses, which would make it difficult for the prosecution to move forward with a case. This is not an uncommon occurrence in sex crimes cases; the prosecution can have sufficient evidence to corroborate the crime, but is unlikely to move forward if the victim expresses an unwillingness to cooperate.

Illinois Mandatory Reporters and Child Sexual Abuse

In a televised interview discussing the abuse, the Duggar parents said that they did not initially report the abuse to the authorities because they are not mandatory reporters. A mandatory reporter is any person required by law to report a suspicion of child abuse or neglect, and includes teachers, doctors, daycare workers and therapists. Parents are not mandatory reporters in Illinois.

However, parents have a responsibility to protect their child from harm, and while failing to report your child for sexual abuse may not lead to criminal prosecution under the mandatory reporting statute, it could lead to criminal charges of neglect or child endangerment for failing to remove either the victim or the abuser from the home in order to protect the victim from further abuse.

April 22, 2015

New Crime Bill Would Extend Statute of Limitations for Some Chicago Crimes

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Legislation introduced by Illinois State Senator Michael Hastings (D-Tinley Park) would extend the statute of limitations for armed robbery, home invasion, kidnapping or aggravated kidnapping if these crimes were committed during the course of a sex crime.

Illinois Statute of Limitations

Statutes of limitation are imposed to encourage people to come forward and report crimes close to the time they allegedly occurred. Waiting years to report a crime has serious ramifications, as illustrated by the recent spate of accusations against comedian and television star Bill Cosby – any physical evidence that may have existed at the time to corroborate (or not corroborate, depending on the circumstances) is long gone, turning the case into nothing more than spew of he said/she said accusations that do nothing to promote justice, and everything to destroy the reputation of the accused and the accuser (depending on whose side of the story is believed).

Statutes of limitation place time limits on how long the prosecution to file charges. The statute of limitations begins to run on the date the crime was allegedly committed. If the prosecutor fails to file charges against the accused before the statute of limitation expires, charges can never be brought, even if the very next day the accused admits to having committed the crime.

Statutes of limitation vary depending on the crime. In Illinois, the statute of limitation for sexual assault is 10 years, provided the victim reported the crime to the police within three years of when it happened. The statute of limitations for armed robbery, home invasion, aggravated kidnapping and kidnapping are three years.

But if passed the new law, which the Senate unanimously approved last week, would extend the statute of limitations for these crimes to 10 years, if they were committed during the course of a criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault or aggravated criminal sexual abuse. The goal is for consistency in the prosecution of sexual assault crimes. Under current law, the possibility exists for a person to break into a home, sexually assault the victim, and later be arrested and convicted of sexual assault but not home invasion, based solely on when the attacker was arrested.

But the legislation raises questions about whether, in order to have the extended statute of limitations apply, the victim must report the armed robbery, home invasion or kidnapping within three years, or whether she must only report the sexual assault, and can tack on the additional crime later. Under the first scenario, she would report to the police within three years of the alleged rape that she was attacked during a home invasion, thus granting the 10 year statute of limitations for both crimes.

Under the latter scenario, the victim reports the rape within three years. Four years after the rape, she reports to police that the rape occurred during the course of a kidnapping which she did not mention earlier, because she was taken from a known drug dealer’s house, and she did not want it to get back to her family or employer that she had a drug problem. Will the fact that she reported the rape within three years allow the additional charge of kidnapping to be brought against her accuser, even though the three year statute of limitations that normally applies to kidnapping has expired, or must she have reported them both within the three year statute of limitation period? This is hopefully a question that the state House will take up during their deliberations as to whether or not to pass the law.

March 13, 2015

Teacher Charged with Indecent Solicitation and Attempted Predatory Assault of Teen

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A substitute teacher with the Chicago Public Schools was recently arrested and charged with indecent solicitation of a child and intent to commit predatory aggravated sexual assault. The arrest was made after police and the school discovered suggestive texts allegedly sent from the defendant to the former student, a 14-year-old.

Chicago Indecent Solicitation of a Child

Indecent solicitation of a child is committed when an individual age 17 or older knowingly solicits a child to engage in sexual penetration or sexual conduct, with the intent to commit the act, or knowingly discusses sexual conduct or penetration with the intent that the act be committed.

The police in this case have texts allegedly sent by the defendant to the victim requesting a date and asking her to have sex with him. Assuming that police statements regarding the nature of the texts is correct, a defense against this charge would require proving that either the defendant did not send the texts, or that he did not know he was sending them to a minor.

The news is full of stories about teens send elicit text messages to each other, often as a way to harass or bully other students and even adults. Teens also have a history of playing pranks on teachers or trying to get them in trouble for retaliation against a poor grade or some other perceived slight.

Children today grew up with technology and are avid users of all forms of social media, including texting. Thus many of them are adept at hacking into other’s phones, intercepting IP addresses, or even making it look like a text came from a person it did not.

In any case where technology, particularly computers or smartphones, played an essential part in the alleged crime, it is vital to have a forensic expert examine the phone that allegedly sent the texts, the phone that received the texts, and all data associated with the messages to determine if the messages were actually sent by the owner of the phone. This can be traced via IP addresses, date, time and location the messages were sent, even whether the phone was re-routed through a different address. Evidence obtained in a forensic search could show that the messages were sent at a time when the phone was not in the defendant’s possession, from a location he never frequented, or from a different address altogether.

If it can be proven that the defendant did in fact send the texts, then it would be necessary to prove that he knew he was sending them to a minor. Presumably, since he had taught in the girl’s school, he was aware that she was underage. But it is possible that he believed he was sending them to a different person – perhaps he transposed a number, or the student shares a name with an adult in his phone contact list and he didn’t pay close enough attention to the recipient when he inputted the number (it is not uncommon for students and teachers to interact via social media or e-mail, so the idea of him having a student’s cell phone number is not that far off). The student may have mistakenly believed he was soliciting her, or may have realized his error but thought it was funny to play along. Regardless, if it cannot be proven that the defendant knew he was interacting with a minor, then he must be acquitted or the charges dropped.

March 5, 2015

Cook County Jailer Charged with Sexual Misconduct

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A female jailer at the Cook County Jail was arrested and charged with felony custodial sexual misconduct recentlyafter an internal investigation allegedly confirmed the jailer had sexual contact with an inmate. The arrest was part of an ongoing operation by the Cook County Sheriff’s Office to uncover corruption and inappropriate conduct at the jail.

Sexual Misconduct with Chicago Inmate

You may be wondering how it is possible that sexual contact between two consenting adults be a criminal offense – and a felony, no less. The answer lies in the fact that the jailer is in a position of authority over the inmate. Much like doctors, psychologists, lawyers, or any other professional in a position of trust and/or authority over another cannot have sexual relations with their patient/client, a prison guard is in a position of authority over all inmates, and the law deems the inmate incapable of granting consent to any type of sexual act.

The defendant is charged with custodial sexual misconduct. A prison guard or other penal system employee commits custodial sexual misconduct if she engages in sexual conduct or sexual penetration with a person in custody. Note that penetration is not necessary to be convicted of custodial sexual misconduct. Any type of sexual conduct – such as touching private parts above or underneath clothing – is considered sexual misconduct.

There are three possible defenses available to a defendant in this situation.

The sexual conduct never happened

The first is that the conduct never happened, and that the victim fabricated evidence. In this situation, the arrest was part of an ongoing investigation by the sheriff’s office looking for corruption within the jail’s ranks. It is unknown if inmates were offered any special privileges or offered reduced jail time if they cooperated with the investigation and/or helped uncover corruption. Any transcripts, recordings or notes of conversations between the victim and other prison officials would need to be examined, and the victim and officials he had contact with interviewed, to determine if he was promised anything in exchange for informing on allegedly corrupt officials. If any such evidence came to light, it would show that the victim had motive to make up a sexual encounter for his own self gain.

The defendant was the victim

The second possible defense is that the defendant was the victim, rather than the one who initiated the sexual conduct that resulted in the charge. If there is any evidence that she was coerced or threatened to engage in sexual conduct with the victim, then the charges would have to be dropped or a verdict of not guilty handed down at trial.

The defendant did not know the victim was an inmate

The third possible defense is if the defendant had no knowledge, and no reason to believe, that the victim was in custody. Evidence that could tend to prove the defendant did not know the victim was an inmate include:

Where the encounter took place (i.e., if he was granted privileges that allowed him to be out of the general population), or
Whether he was wearing a prison-issue uniform during their encounter, or attire that could have made the defendant think he was either another guard or a civilian

If none of these defenses are feasible based on a review of all the evidence, then it may be in the defendant’s best interest to negotiate a plea for a lesser charge.

January 20, 2015

Illinois Governor Signs “Revenge Porn” Law

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

If you’re on the internet at all these days, you’ve no doubt heard of “revenge porn”. An ex-romantic partner, whether in a fit of jealousy or just a pure desire to get back at you for dumping him, posts private, nude images you had sent him online for all the world to see. Or maybe a current girlfriend, angered that she caught you flirting with another girl, posts naked pictures to her social media account without your consent, in an attempt to ridicule you. Regardless of the motivation behind it, as of January 1, posting such pictures without your partner’s consent is a class 4 felony that could land you in prison.

Illinois Revenge Porn Law

The law, which was proposed by Sen. Michael Hastings of Tinley Park in 2014, prohibits the “non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images”. It is seen by proponents as closing a loophole in the pornography laws, which make it a crime to post nude images on pornographic sites without the subject’s consent. But the law did not criminalize disseminating nude pictures, which were shared privately between two consenting adults, on social media.

Under the law, an individual is prohibited from intentionally sharing an image of a person over the age of 18 if the person is:

Identifiable from the either the image or information displayed in connection with the image, and
Engaged in a sexual act, or whose intimate parts are exposed.

In addition, a reasonable person must have understood that the images were to remain private, and the person sharing the image must have known, or should have known, that the person in the photo did not consent to its being shared.

For purposes of the law, “image” includes any photograph, film, videotape, digital recording or other depiction or portrayal. Although the law was drafted with the idea of the image being shared on social media, posting the photo in public places would constitute a violation of the law. A conviction under the law is a class 4 felony, which carries the possibility of 1 – 3 years in prison.

Defense against Illinois Revenge Porn

Although many consider revenge porn something to laugh at and not that serious – after all, the person voluntarily shared nude photos of herself – conviction under the law is serious. Defending against a charge of revenge porn requires a careful examination of all the evidence, including having a forensic expert examine the all data related to the dissemination of the image, to find the flaws in the prosecution’s case. Evidence that would go against a conviction include:

Unintentional dissemination of the image, for example if a virus caused your phone or computer to share the image via a text or e-mail;
If the phone was in somebody else’s possession when the image was sent;
Whether somebody had hacked in to your phone or computer and sent the image;
If a reasonable person would have believed sharing the images was acceptable, for example if the woman in the picture had those same images on public display in her home, or;
Nobody would have been able to identify the person in the image – for example, his face was blurred or cropped out – but for the fact that he told everybody it was him.

December 12, 2014

Statute of Limitations in Chicago Rape Cases

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

It’s been a bad couple of weeks for America’s Dad, Bill Cosby. In the past month, at least 20 different women have come forward to say that Mr. Cosby had sexually molested, drugged and/or sexually assaulted them in incidents dating back as far as the 1970s. Just this week the Los Angeles Police Department met with one accuser, who claims Cosby sexually assaulted her when she was just 15 years old.

Can Charges be filed in Decades Old Chicago Rape Case?

The alleged sexual assaults in the Cosby case happened decades ago and, if true, the majority went unreported. If a Chicago resident were to claim she was sexually assaulted 15 years ago, is it possible for criminal charges to be filed against the accused?

Illinois law imposes statutes of limitations on all crimes except murder. Statutes of limitations are time limits imposed on the prosecution, requiring him to file charges against the accused within a stated time period. If charges are not filed within the specified time period, they can never be filed.

Statutes of limitations vary among crimes (they are also different for claims filed in civil court, so when looking up statutes of limitations make sure you are reading the criminal code). For the crime of sexual assault, the prosecution must file charges within 10 years of the commission of the offense, provided the victim reported it to the police within three years of its occurrence.

For example, imagine a woman who was raped on March 20, 1995. If she reports the rape to the police any time on or before March 20, 1998, the prosecution has until March 20, 2005 to bring charges against the alleged perpetrator. If, however, the woman reports the rape to police on March 31, 1998, the prosecution cannot file charges, because the law required her to have reported the rape within three years of its occurrence.

If the alleged sexual assault occurred when the victim was under 18 years of age, the prosecution has 20 years from the date the victim turns 18 to file charges. So, if a child was raped July 7, 1975 at the age of 8, the prosecution has until July 7, 2005 to file charges against the accused. If the charge was for misdemeanor criminal sexual abuse, the prosecution has 10 years from the date the victim turns 18 to bring charges.

So depending on when the woman reported the sexual assault and her age when it happened, it is possible for charges to be brought for a sexual assault that occurred a decade, possibly even three decades, ago. However, the likelihood of success in such an old case is slim. Witness memory fades and, without physical evidence, such as a rape kit or other DNA evidence, the case would be nothing more than he said-she said, which is difficult to prove over such a long period of time.

November 12, 2014

Chicago Men Charged with Sexual Assault of Escorts

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Two Chicago men have been charged with unlawful restraint, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery and aggravated criminal sexual assault with a weapon for allegedly luring escorts to vacant office buildings in an attempt to rape and rob them.

Sexual Assault of Escorts

Upon first hearing of this case, many people might think, “How could these women have been raped, when they were hired for sex?” (Although not all escorts provide sex to their clients, for this post we will assume these women intended to do just that).

In a prior post I discussed a similar case involving a McHenry County man convicted of raping prostitutes he connected with via Craigslist. So although these women went to the building with the intention of having sex with the defendants, under the law they may withdraw their consent at any time.

Whether consent was granted or withdrawn is difficult to prove in sexual assault cases, and always comes down to a he said-she said argument. It is particularly difficult to prove lack of consent in cases involve sex workers, since sex was the whole motivation for the defendant and alleged victim to meet. In these cases, the best defense would be to provide evidence showing that the alleged victims only claimed lack of consent because the encounter did not go as planned.

Assault of Chicago Escorts: Business Deal Gone Wrong

Encounters with prostitutes or escorts are a business deal, so the strongest defense (assuming forensic evidence proves that sexual intercourse took place) is to provide evidence of a business deal gone wrong, and the alleged victims fabricated or exaggerated the events in retaliation.

Like any business deal, the women likely quoted the defendants a price for their services. Upon arriving at the building and completing the transaction as planned, the defendants may not have been able to pay the quoted price. Or they may not have ever intended to pay. In either event, this would not constitute sexual assault – instead, it would be theft of services. However, a sex worker would not be able to press charges for such a crime, since prostitution itself is a crime. Their only recourse, then, would be to fabricate a claim of sexual assault, as well as all other charges as retaliation.

It is important in sexual assault cases which rest on consent, or lack thereof, to examine all of the evidence – forensic and eyewitness – as well as the circumstances that led to the meeting and details regarding the sexual intercourse, to determine whether it can be used to prove or disprove consent.

Defense in Case Involving Multiple Defendants

In cases involving multiple defendants, if the facts tend to show that a guilty verdict is likely, an experienced criminal defense attorney will work with his client and the prosecution to obtain a lesser sentence or to have charges reduced in exchange for cooperating with the prosecution.

In cases involving multiple defendants, it may be that one defendant instigated the crime, or that one did not actively participate, but was only an accomplice or unwilling participant. In these cases, the prosecution may be willing to cut a deal in exchange for testimony to convict the co-defendant. This is an especially attractive proposition to the prosecution in cases where lack of consent may be difficult to prove, such as in the case of a sex worker where the jury may believe she could not be raped since she sells sex for a living.

David L. Freidberg has worked with many Chicago prosecutors throughout his almost 20-year career to successfully negotiate a plea deal for his clients that save them substantial prison time. He will put these negotiation skills to work for you. Continue reading

November 7, 2014

Chicago Man Charged with Murder While Out on Bond for Sexual Assault

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

A Chicago man out on bond for a sexual assault charge was arrested recently for an unrelated murder. The defendant, who is accused of raping three girls last year along with eight other men, allegedly shot two men on Chicago’s west side; one of the men died at the scene, while the other suffered a gunshot wound to the arm.

Chicago Defense of Unrelated Crimes

This case is a criminal defense attorney’s nightmare – a client, out on bond, gets arrested for committing a second crime. And in this case, the second charge is worse than the first. But it does raise a variety of possible defense tactics, whether it is the same attorney representing the defendant on both charges, or if the defendant has one attorney for the sexual assault charge and one for the murder charge.

Of course, the typical defense against both crimes would be present here. Defense against the sexual assault charge would include:

Mistaken identity;
Lack of DNA evidence tying the defendant to the sexual assault;
Consensual sex, if DNA evidence is present;
The defendant was forced to participate in the sexual assault by the other participants, under threat of great bodily harm (committing a crime to prevent injury is not a true defense, but may result in a lesser sentence due to mitigating circumstances), or;
The victims fabricated the story in retaliation for some unknown slight, or because they were later embarrassed to have consented to sex group sex.

Defense against the murder charge would include:

Mistaken identity;
The defendant was not the one who fired the gun (this would require ballistics analysis by a team of forensic experts); or
The defendant fired in self-defense (if it can be proven he was the one who fired the gun).

But, assuming the prosecution has enough evidence to take both cases to trial, the two pending cases give the criminal defense attorney leverage in negotiations to enter into a plea agreement or to have the charges reduced.

The defendant is one of nine men allegedly involved in the 2013 rape of three women. In a gang rape, it is likely that one of the men was the ring leader; there may be one or more men who have committed prior sexual assaults that the police have not linked them too. If the defendant can help the prosecution bolster its case against other men involved in the rape, or if he has knowledge of any unsolved sexual assaults any of the defendants may have been involved in, the defense attorney may be able to strike a deal with the prosecution for a reduced sentence or a reduction in charges in either the murder case, sexual assault case, or both.

Likewise, the criminal defense attorney can leverage the defendant’s testimony in the murder case to seek a reduced sentence in either the sexual assault case, the murder case, or both. If the co-defendant in the murder case was actually the one who pulled the trigger, and the defendant is willing to testify to that, thus allowing the prosecution to gain a conviction on heightened charges, the prosecution may be willing to strike a deal.

It is always the goal of any criminal defense attorney to achieve an outright dismissal of charges, or to obtain an acquittal in court, for his client. But when the evidence shows that the defendant is likely to be convicted, an experienced criminal defense attorney knows when to use any leverage available to help his client win a reduction in charges or a reduced sentence.

October 27, 2014

Cook County Man Whose Rape Conviction Overturned Denied Innocence Certificate

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

In 1983, a Cook County jury convicted Stanley Wrice of rape and deviant sexual assault and sentenced him to 100 years in prison. Through the years Wrice claimed his innocence, saying that his confession was the result of police torture at the hands of detectives working under the command of former Police Commander John Burge, who has since been convicted on charges of abuse, perjury and obstruction of justice.

Wrice was released from prison in December 2013, after a judge threw out his conviction, finding that his confession had been the result of torture. Wrice had spent 31 years in prison.

Last week, a Cook County judge denied his request for an innocence certificate, ruling that Wrice had failed to prove his innocence by a preponderance of the evidence.

Proving Innocence of Chicago Crime

How could Wrice have had his conviction overturned due to a coerced confession, but be denied an innocence certificate? Because of the difference between actual innocence and innocence in the eyes of the law.

Dismissal of one piece of evidence does not necessarily mean acquittal. The court must determine whether there is a likelihood that, even with the evidence that was tossed out, the remaining evidence against the defendant supports the guilty verdict. If so, the conviction must stand.

That is what happened in Wrice’s case. There is no dispute that he was tortured at the hands of the police, or that his statement was made under duress as a result of that torture. But the court found that, even with the lack of a confession, there remained sufficient evidence of his guilt to deny issuance of the innocence certificate. That evidence included, strong circumstantial evidence, eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence recovered at the scene. The court’s ruling also stated that Wrice’s testimony that he was present in the house during the rape but had no idea what was going on defied common sense.

So despite the fact that Wrice’s conviction was tossed out in December based on the coerced confession, the court denied the innocence certificate, finding that he had failed to prove his innocence beyond a preponderance of the evidence.

Actual Innocence vs. Not Guilty

This case highlights the difference between actual innocence and a not guilty verdict. A defendant who is “actually innocent” is just that – innocent of the crime as charged. Whether it was a false accusation, a case of mistaken identity or police corruption, the defendant was arrested, charged and convicted for a crime he did not commit.

But “innocent in the eyes of the law” is different. A defendant can be found not guilty at trial, but that does not necessarily mean he is actually innocent of the crime as charged. A “not guilty” verdict in court does not mean that the court finds the defendant innocent. Instead, it means that the prosecution failed to meets its burden in proving that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And the judge in this case ruled that even without the confession, there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s guilt. Continue reading