WDL Does Damage Control

The Sunday issue of the Daily Light was not a surprise. JoAnn Livingston earned her paycheck with the story below.

I’m going to let Jeremy Phillips weigh in with a response because he’s the one that has helped The Ellis County Press with the stories recently about County/District Attorney Joe Grubbs‘ office allowing scores of accused sex predators to go free.

We admit that there are jail/prison terms and the like (see past ECP articles); however, Livingston cannot be trusted with an issue like this. After all, she flat-out denied that Grubbs said what he said to the Dallas Morning News last year about the Dr. Chitale scandal. She helps cover for the DAs office and that is no theory; it shows in her reporting.

So Jeremy, have at it.

Crime and Punishment
Court records: Most plea agreements for sexual offenses call for prison terms
By JOANN LIVINGSTON
Daily Light Managing Editor

Contrary to political rhetoric in this year’s campaign, an in-depth analysis of cases reveal more Ellis County sex offenders are in prison because of a plea agreement with prosecutors as opposed to having gone through a criminal trial.

A common misconception is that plea agreements are for probation only.

Not true, according to data and statistics reviewed by the Daily Light that show the majority of Ellis County sex-offense cases are through a defendant pleading guilty in open court – and two-thirds of those agreements are for prison time.

In 2006, 33 defendants agreed to prison sentences for sex-related offenses – without going to trial.

In 2007, 23 defendants agreed to prison on sex-related offenses through plea agreements with prosecutors.

In all, Ellis County has 144 people in prison for sex-related offenses. Including these and all-other offenses, Ellis County’s prison population stood at 1,194 as of this week.

Taking it to trial

Although some criticism has been directed toward the Ellis County and District Attorney’s Office for not taking more sex-related offenses to trial, statistics show the odds grow in a defendant’s favor if he or she and their defense attorney(s) get the matter before a jury.

Looking at data from the past several years, prosecutors have maintained about a 2 to 1 edge in total wins, but jurors did acquit defendants in five of the 15 cases tried before them.

Since 2006 and through February of this year, of the 15 cases put to a jury, eight have received prison sentences, two were placed on probation and five were found not guilty.

In 2006, seven cases involving sex-related offenses were put before a jury. Of those, four received a prison sentence, two were placed on probation and one was found not guilty.

In 2007, five cases involving sex-related offenses were put before a jury. Of those, three received prison sentences, with two found not guilty.

To date so far in 2008, three cases involving sex-related offenses have been put before a jury. Of those, jurors found the defendant not guilty in two cases and guilty in one.

Deferred adjudication

Deferred adjudication is another topic where political criticism has been directed toward prosecutors.

Of the plea agreements reached in recent years, according to the data reviewed, about two-thirds involved pleas assessing prison sentences, with about one-third pleaded for deferred adjudication.

If offering probation, prosecutors are restricted to offering deferred adjudication, as required by state law. Regular probation cannot be granted for a sex-related offense.

“We look at the facts of the case and the relative strengths of the case,” chief felony prosecutor Don Maxfield said. “We don’t lightly consider putting someone on probation for a sex case. …

“There are those cases, where the victim is too fragile or may not want to testify. They may not want to get on the stand and tell a courtroom full of people about their first sexual experience. How many of us would want to do that?” Maxfield said of the many facets considered by prosecutors in determining how to proceed with a case.

Although deferred adjudication – if successfully completed – allows a defendant to say no final conviction was ever entered relating to the case, the law requires lifetime registration as a sex offender for a multitude of offenses – and violations during the probationary period can subject an offender to the full range of punishment.

In 2006, 12 cases were pleaded for deferred adjudication. Of those, three were subsequently revoked on a non-sex-related violation.

A fourth case was revoked on a sex-related offense. That case involved an 18-year-old male and a 14-year-old female, with court recordings indicating a stipulation was filed stating the matter was prosecuted only because of the ages involved and that consent was not an issue.

“This was not a forcible rape,” assistant district attorney Patrick Wilson said. “The only reason this was criminal was because of their ages.”

The girl’s family signed an affidavit of non-prosecution, but the state proceeded with its case because of the law, Wilson said.

According to the records, less than one month after being placed on deferred adjudication, the 18-year-old was caught again with the female by one of her relatives, resulting in a second case filed. After subsequent court proceedings, he is now in prison with an expected release date of July 2011.

In 2007, seven cases were pleaded for deferred adjudication. Of those, three have since been revoked on a non-sex-related violation. A fourth case is pending a revocation hearing on a non-sex-related violation.

New laws, more teeth

Criticism has been levied against the concept of deferred adjudication, which some view as “going light” on sex offenders. It is true, that if successfully completed, a defendant is able to say that he or she has never been convicted of a crime.

In fact, though, deferred adjudication has several teeth.

Before being placed on deferred adjudication, a defendant must plead guilty to the offense and put his or her thumbprint on legal papers in open court. A defendant on deferred adjudication also is subject to the entire range of punishment for his or her offense if revoked for violating any provision of community service.

A defendant on deferred adjudication for a sex crime is required to register as a sex offender as detailed under law. Almost all registrations are for life and that registration remains in place – even if the probation is successfully completed.

There are some provisions under the law that allow for a less-than-life length of registration and an eligible defendant – based upon age, type of offense and successful completion of community service – can petition a court to no longer have to register.

Defendants in deferred adjudication cases are not eligible to have all of their records expunged, though.

Recent changes to the law have added even more teeth to deferred adjudication.

The law now states that even if a person successfully completes deferred adjudication, if, at a later time, another sex-related offense (under specifics outlined in the state code) is committed, he or she is subject to an automatic life sentence in prison.

“A deferred adjudication is considered a conviction for purposes of enhancement for a subsequent offense,” Maxfield said.

A similar case was heard recently in 40th District Court, where a man with a prior, out-of-state conviction involving a sex-crime, was found guilty of a new offense in Ellis County and was sentenced to life in prison.

DPS Web site

Information and data reviewed by the Daily Light, along with the Texas Department of Public Safety Web site, indicates there are about 173 sex offenders registered in Ellis County. Not all of those registrations involve local cases as their offense.

A review of the data indicates that 103 of those people registered as sex offenders in Ellis County committed their offense in another county and were prosecuted there before moving here.

Of the 70 remaining registered sex offenders, who were prosecuted in Ellis County, 24 have served or are serving time in the prison system. Forty-six are probation cases and, of those, 37 have had no motions to revoke filed against them.

With the exception of the one case involving the previously mentioned 18-year-old, prosecutors said they knew of no other sex offender on probation who had committed a new sex offense.

All other revocations or motions filed for revocation, according to the data reviewed, were for technical violations of a defendant’s probation, such as a DWI, family assault/violence or failure to comply with other conditions.

E-mail JoAnn at joann@wninews.com