In March an off-duty police officer noticed a vehicle driving the wrong way along the Broken Arrow Expressway. Homicide Detective Jason White said that he turned on his flashing lights, honked his horn, and even rolled down the window to yell at the wrong-way driver. He testified that the driver, who was talking on his cell phone, looked directly at him, but failed to pull over.
The driver, John Freeman, then crashed head-on into another vehicle, instantly killing the other driver. Freeman, then 25, was determined to have a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.22 percent, nearly three times the legal limit.
Freeman, who was hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries after the accident, was charged with first degree manslaughter in the DUI death of 64-year-old O.Z. Walker.
Earlier this week, Freeman pleaded nolo contendere, or no contest, to the manslaughter charge against him. Tulsa County Judge James Caputo accepted the no contest plea and rendered a guilty verdict. He then sentenced the 26-year-old man to life in prison.
For purposes of parole, a life sentence is calculated at 45 years. Because manslaughter is an "85 percent crime," Freeman must spend more than 38 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole. Upon release, he is ordered to serve nine months to one year of post-imprisonment supervision.
A first offense of DUI is usually a relatively minor misdemeanor charge; however, if an impaired driver causes a fatal accident, the penalties become much more severe. First degree manslaughter is considered a violent crime which cannot be expunged from one's record. It requires that anyone convicted serve a minimum of 85 percent of the sentence before becoming eligible for parole, and it carries a possible life sentence.
First degree manslaughter is defined in 21 O.S. § 711 as follows:
Homicide is manslaughter in the first degree in the following cases:
First degree manslaughter carries a minimum penalty of four years in prison.
In the late 1980s and 1990s, "satanic panic" swept the nation. Tales of satanic cults engaging in ritualistic abuse and murder frightened parents around the nation.
In 1983, the McMartin preschool case prompted day care sex abuse hysteria when the mother of a 3-year-old boy jumped to the conclusion that his painful bowel movements must have been caused by sexual assault. Judy Johnson accused her estranged husband and by Raymond Buckey, a teacher at the McMartin preschool, owned and operated by Buckey's grandmother and mother.
The accusations spiraled out of control with hundreds of children being interviewed. Despite bizarre claims unsubstantiated by evidence, seven people related to or employed by the McMartin family were criminally charged with sex abuse and satanic ritual abuse involving 48 children.
The initial accuser was subsequently diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic and died of complications from alcoholism before the preliminary hearings took place.
Over six years on investigation and criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and in 1990, all charges related to the McMartin case were dismissed.
The case prompted further hysteria in Texas, when Fran and Dan Keller were accused of Satanic ritual abuse at the Oak Hill day care facility they operated. The Kellers were accused after a child seeking therapy for behavioral issues related to her parents divorce said the pair had abused her. Again, dozens of children were interviewed using the same dubious techniques by which the McMartin children were "coached." Despite bizarre unfounded claims, despite the initial accuser saying she had not been abused and that her testimony was coached, the Kellers were convicted and sentenced to 48 years in prison. Their conviction hinged on a medical expert's testimony that he found two tears in a 3-year-old girl's hymen that were consistent with sexual abuse, and that the tears had occurred within 24 hours of her examination.
However, the case didn't seem to add up, and Late last year, the pair was freed from prison after re-examination revealed recanted testimony and the admission of the medical expert that three years after the trial, he saw an example of a normal pediatric hymen that was identical to what he had seen in his examination of the "abused" girl.
After serving 21 years in prison, the Kellers were freed. However, a judge says that while their conviction has been overturned, the two have not proven their innocence. Thus, they have been freed, but not exonerated. The Kellers argue they are the victims of unethical therapy techniques, shoddy police work, and serious legal errors, and that they should be exonerated. However, the court has ruled that there must be new evidence--such as DNA evidence--to overrule a court's finding of guilt. But when that guilty verdict was based on a lie, should burden of proof be with the wrongfully convicted?
Our court system is based on the premise that someone should be held innocent unless proven guilty. Why should wrongful conviction nullify that premise for exoneration?
On Monday, police in Cleveland, Ohio, shot and killed an armed suspect after he reached into his waistband for a weapon. Ordinarily, if an armed person fails to order police demands to put his or her hands in the air, or in fact reaches for a weapon, the police shooting is considered justified. After all, police put their lives on the line in the interest of public safety, and sometimes, they are called upon to make quick decisions for their own safety.
Monday's case is not ordinary, however, and police are reeling after their quick decision is being scrutinized. You see, the "armed suspect" was armed only with a toy gun--and he was only 12 years old.
The police who approached 12-year-old Tamir Rice at the playground were responding to a 9-1-1 call in which a caller said that a young man was brandishing a pistol and pointing it at people inside a recreational center. The caller said that the gun was "probably fake" and that the person pointing it was "probably a juvenile," but it is not clear whether the dispatcher relayed that information to police. At least one source says that police were not told that the caller said the gun might not be real.
Even if they had been told, would it have mattered? Would you be willing to bet your life on "probably?"
Police say the air gun that the boy had tucked in his waistband was "indistinguishable" from a real gun, and that an orange tip used to show that the weapon was a fake had been removed. This incident has some gun control advocates calling for a ban on toy guns. It is not the first time the issue has been addressed, as there are a number of cases of children and adults with toy guns being shot and killed by police.
Whether or not a toy gun ban is necessary, it seems important to teach our children--and apparently adults as well--that unless police can confirm that a firearm is a toy or replica, they will treat it as if it is real. Altering a replica gun to make it look more realistic is a bad idea. Pointing any weapon--real or fake--at the police is a sure way to get shot. Right or wrong, for police trying to preserve their own safety, tasers often aren't fast enough.
A "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality can protect police, but it can also lead to the unnecessary death of a whose game of make believe ends in tragic reality.
Former Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper Eric Roberts is one of several Oklahoma law enforcement officers charged in separate cases with rape, sexual battery, and other sex crimes. Accused of raping a woman after a traffic stop in July, Roberts was formally charged last month with multiple felony and misdemeanor crimes related to that incident and two other alleged sexual assaults.
On Tuesday, Roberts, 42, pleaded not guilty in Creek County District Court to the ten felony and four misdemeanor charges against him, which include sexual battery, second degree rape, and bribery. The bribery charges come as a result of the Trooper allegedly telling women that he would not arrest them in exchange for sex or sexual contact.
The case against Roberts came after a July traffic stop in which he allegedly stopped a woman without cause, and upon claiming to detect the scent of marijuana in her car, made her get in his patrol vehicle and send her friend to drive the car to another location, where he was to bring the woman later.
The woman says that Roberts drove her to a secluded location and raped her before bringing her back to her friend. She notified the OHP of the incident, and Roberts was suspended under "allegations of misconduct."
The accusations were not made public until the woman filed a lawsuit against Roberts and the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.
At first, the woman's case looked shaky--despite her attorney's claim that she was a law-abiding citizen, it turned out that she not only had a criminal past, but also had an outstanding warrant. Furthermore, one of the past charges against her was for filing a false police report in making a false rape claim against an ex-boyfriend.
However, after the lawsuit was made public, another woman came forward accusing Roberts of similar activity and was added as a plaintiff to the suit.
Investigators reviewing Roberts's traffic stops say there are at least six incidents in which he turned off his dash cam. Two of those cases are mentioned in the lawsuit. In a third incident, investigators say that although no sexual contact occurred, the trooper's actions were "inappropriate." They say that the remaining three cases included behavior that was "questionable," but not illegal.
In addition to former OHP Trooper Roberts, two other former Oklahoma law officers are charged with on-duty sexual assaults.
Former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw has been bound over for trial on 35 felony sex crime counts for allegedly raping and sexually assaulting women during his patrol in the department's Springlake division.
Former Tulsa County Sheriff's deputy Gerald Nuckolls is accused of sexual battery against two women while purportedly investigating a hang-up 9-1-1 call. He is scheduled for a preliminary hearing in January.
On Saturday, a little girl playing outside in Ardmore was forced into a stranger's vehicle and taken away. A statewide AMBER Alert was issued, leading to a tip that directed police to a trailer park in Marietta, Oklahoma, some 20 miles away. Sunday morning, police rescued the little girl and arrested Fount Duston, the 34-year-old man accused of kidnapping and raping the 7-year-old girl.
Since then, media outlets have tried to find a criminal history for the suspect. The man does not appear to have an Oklahoma criminal record, nor have reporters been able to uncover his name on any sex offender registries. It appears as though this incident is his first offense.
Sex offender registries are intended to protect the public safety and to keep children from the hands of sexual predators. Unfortunately, these registries, while making public notification of sex offenders in the area, do little to protect anyone. In fact, some would argue that they do more harm than good.
Sex offender registration was first required by the Jacob Wetterling Act of 1994 and later amended by Megan's Law (1996) to include public notification of sex offender status. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (2006) further supports these laws by creating a national sex offender registry and by organizing sex offenders into three risk-level classifications, with Level 3 sex offenders considered to be the worst offenders and at the highest risk of re-offense.
Clearly, Megan's Law had good intentions. It was named for Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old girl who was raped and murdered by a neighbor, Jesse Timmendequas, who lured her over to see a puppy. Timmendequas was a twice convicted sex offender who admitted to molesting a 5-year-old girl, a 7-year-old girl, and two infants--only 2 and 3 months old.
Had Megan's parents known the danger that lurked across the street, legislators argued, the girl might have been spared her tragic fate. Hence, Megan's Law was adopted only a month after her murder.
Unfortunately, statistics show that sex offender registration and public notification of sex offender status are ineffective.
There are a number of reasons why:
A Human Rights Watch report, "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States," says that the current sex offender laws do more harm than good. According to the report's author, researcher Sarah Tofte, "Politicians didn’t do their homework before enacting these sex offender laws. Instead they have perpetuated myths about sex offenders and failed to deal with the complex realities of sexual violence against children.
The myth of "once an offender, always an offender" clogs the registry with people who are really no threat to anyone else, and it slows down law enforcement in keeping tabs on high-risk offenders. Jamie Fellner, Human Rights Watch U.S. program director, says, "The public believes everyone on a sex offender registry is dangerous, but what’s the point of requiring registration by a teenager who exposed himself as a high-school prank or even by someone who molested a child 30 years ago?"
It is clear that sex offender registration laws aren't working the way they were intended. Often enacted as a knee-jerk reaction to horrible and tragic crimes, these laws and their unintended consequences were not clearly considered before being passed. Obviously, sex offender registration reform is needed, but legislators are not too keen on being seen as siding with sex offenders. Public perception needs to change through education, rather than allowing fear-mongering through media hype and political rhetoric.
A Mid-Del school teacher who resigned after being accused of sending inappropriate messages to a middle school student turned himself in to Del City Police last week and was subsequently arrested. Christian Ridner, 39, is out on bail following his Halloween arrest.
Investigators say Ridner sent the girl messages through social media, saying that he "liked her body." Reports indicate that he met the girl at her school, saying that he was her mentor, and that he tried to arrange a meeting with her at a football game, but she refused.
Police say that when the girl refused to meet Ridner at the game, she told her principal that she and the teacher had been "in a relationship" for about three weeks, and she reported the inappropriate messages to her parents.
The former middle school teacher is currently charged with one count of engaging in sexual communication with a minor.
Children today seem to mature more quickly than in the past, and often, young teens are more sexually experienced that parents would like to believe. Regardless, engaging in sexual conversations or sexual activity with a minor is always against the law in Oklahoma, and the consequences are severe.
In the eyes of the law, it does not matter who initiated the conversation or what lies were told to facilitate a conversation. If an adult has sexually explicit communication with a minor, he or she may be criminally charged under a number of Oklahoma laws. Most commonly, such a person will be charged with lewd or indecent proposals or acts to a child under 16 or with soliciting sexual conduct or communication with a minor by use of technology. Often, the defendant will be charged with one or more crimes related to the offense. If the communication is carried out over a computer or computer network, the state will generally also charge the defendant with violation of the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act.
Lewd or indecent proposals or acts to a child under 16 covers a wide variety of actions, and it is punishable by 3 to 20 years in prison if the minor is aged 12 to 15. If the child is under 12, however, conviction carries a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison.
Soliciting sexual conduct or communication with a minor by use of technology is a felony sex crime punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison.
Violating the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act by using a computer or network to break any Oklahoma state law is a separate felony punishable by a maximum of 5 years in prison in addition to any penalties for the underlying crime.
Even if no sexual contact occurs between the adult and the minor, the mere fact of a sexually explicit conversation is enough to trigger criminal charges and serious legal penalties.
It is certainly not the most common sex crime, and it is one which most people simply cannot fathom. Now, an Oklahoma couple has been jailed after police found a video in which a woman engaged in a sex act with a dog.
Robert S. Mettler, 44, of Claremore, allegedly admitted to police that watching women and dogs engage in sexual activity was a "fantasy" of his. Police serving a search warrant at the home found multiple pornographic videos of women committing sex acts including intercourse with dogs.
One of those videos led to the arrest of Mettler's wife, Brenda Mettler, 42. Investigators say the video depicted a white Boxer performing oral sex on the woman. She allegedly told police that it was a "one-time deal" that happened several years ago, and that the dog in the video is no longer alive.
The video had been posted on the internet, and both Mettlers denied knowing it had been uploaded to a bestiality website, with Robert saying that his account must have been hacked. However, investigators say they found the same video featuring Brenda and posted on the website on Robert Mettler's cell phone.
Both Robert and Brenda Mettler were arrested on complaints of crimes against nature, animal cruelty, and distributing obscene material. Each was booked into the Rogers County Jail and released on $60,000 bond.
"Sodomy" is a vaguely defined term under Oklahoma law. In various circumstances, it can refer to anal sex, oral sex, or bestiality, although few people would put those acts on the same level as "detestable and abominable crime[s] against nature." Oklahoma's "crime against nature" law is found in 21 O.S. 886:
"Every person who is guilty of the detestable and abominable crime against nature, committed with mankind or with a beast, is punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections not exceeding ten (10) years."
Additionally, anyone charged with crimes against nature involving bestiality will also be charged with animal cruelty. "Acts of Cruelty to Animals" is prohibited in 21 O.S. 1685:
"Any person who shall willfully or maliciously torture, destroy or kill, or cruelly beat or injure, maim or mutilate any animal in subjugation or captivity, whether wild or tame, and whether belonging to the person or to another, or deprive any such animal of necessary food, drink, shelter, or veterinary care to prevent suffering; or who shall cause, procure or permit any such animal to be so tortured, destroyed or killed, or cruelly beaten or injured, maimed or mutilated, or deprived of necessary food, drink, shelter, or veterinary care to prevent suffering; or who shall willfully set on foot, instigate, engage in, or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal, or any act tending to produce such cruelty, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not exceeding five (5) years, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00). Any animal so maltreated or abused shall be considered an abused or neglected animal."
Finally, because the pair is accused of uploading the video to a bestiality website, they have been charged with distributing obscene material, which is a felony under 21 O.S. 1021, a part of the Oklahoma Law on Obscenity and Child Pornography. A portion of this statute reads as follows:
"Every person who willfully and knowingly . . . distributes . . . any obscene material . . . shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a felony and shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) or by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ten (10) years, or by both such fine and imprisonment."
If convicted of the crimes of which they are accused, the defendants face up to 25 years in prison.
Sexual assaults and rapes at parties are nothing new. Drugs and alcohol can lower inhibitions of assailants and weaken the victims' ability to defend themselves against an assault. In some cases, mob mentality creates an atmosphere in which multiple people assault an individual. Sadly, these cases have been around forever. However, what is a new and rising factor in these cases is the use of cell phones to record and distribute the assaults.
One of the most high-profile cases is the Steubenville rape case, in which several high school football players in Steubenville, Ohio, recorded themselves sexually assaulting an obviously unconscious and highly intoxicated 16-year-old girl. The case was brought to the public's attention when an anonymous hacker group released the video, alleging a cover-up by school employees. It is one thing to hear about a sexual assault, but to see the victimization of a defenseless person prevents the public from disregarding the allegations.
Now, a case in Kentucky shows that not only girls, but also boys can be brutally victimized in alcohol-fueled parties and assaults.
Five people, including two teens, have been charged in connection with the gang rape of a 15-year-old boy at a party last week. The brutal assaults left the teen in critical condition at an area hospital.
Investigators say the boy was rushed to the hospital with life-threatening injuries early Sunday morning after he was sodomized by four people at a party, who recorded and distributed the attack. As of this writing, the teen is still in critical condition.
Three adults and two juveniles have been arrested and charged with various crimes, including first degree sodomy and possession of child pornography:
Two unidentified 17-year-olds are also charged in the case. One is charged with first degree sodomy and tampering with evidence. The other is charged with possessing matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor.
In Oklahoma, first degree rape is punishable by a maximum of life in prison. It is an "85 Percent Crime" that requires anyone convicted to serve a minimum of 85 percent of his or her sentence before the possibility of parole. It is also one of the violent crimes for which a juvenile offender is charged as a youthful offender rather than adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court. A juvenile delinquent will typically be released from a juvenile detention facility shortly after he or she reaches the age of 18, but when a youthful offender turns 18, he or she is typically released from the juvenile facility to a state prison to complete his or her sentence.
In April, 16-year-old Anne Josette Hill told her family she was going to visit a friend. They haven't seen or heard from her since.
When her family reported her missing, police first believed the girl to be a runaway, and the case was handled as a missing persons case. However, the case quickly became more grim when Hill's white Monte Carlo was discovered a few days later, abandoned in Edmond.
In May, the case was turned over to homicide investigators.
On Friday, almost 6 months to the day after the Piedmont teen disappeared, another teen girl walked into a police station and told investigators that she was there when Hill was murdered.
Chloe Thomas, 17, was accompanied by her father when she went to Oklahoma City police. He told them that his daughter confessed to involvement in Hill's killing.
Thomas told investigators that she was staying at an Edmond apartment with a friend, 16-year-old Chadd Raymond. The apartment belonged to Raymond's brother, who was in prison at the time. The girl said Raymond's brother's cell phone began to receive text messages from Hill, who was wanting to come buy drugs from him. Thomas says she and Raymond responded to the texts, pretending to be the brother, to lure Hill to the apartment.
When she arrived, says Thomas, the three teens watched a movie together before Hill decided to leave for a party. When she tried to leave, Thomas says, Raymond attacked, choking the girl to death.
Thomas told investigators that she and Raymond took the girl's body to the woods, laid it on the ground, and covered it with leaves and sticks. Her affidavit states that the two then abandoned Hill's car in an Edmond neighborhood.
After Thomas gave her statement, police arrested her and obtained an arrest warrant for Raymond. Both teens were arrested on first degree murder complaints.
Raymond was enrolled as a freshman at Edmond Santa Fe High School, having also attended the district's alternative high school, Boulevard Academy. Thomas had been attending Boulevard Academy, but dropped out just days after Hill was reported missing.
In Oklahoma, teenagers under 18 may be tried as juvenile delinquents, youthful offenders, or adults. Being tried as a youthful offender serves as a middle ground between being adjudicated delinquent, which may not be appropriate for more serious crimes, and being convicted as an adult, which may not be appropriate for all young offenders. Teens are typically tried as youthful offenders for serious and violent crimes such as rape, armed robbery, second degree murder, first degree burglary, and assault with a deadly weapon.
For first degree murder charges, anyone aged 13 and older may be tried as an adult. According to state law, 13- and 14-year-olds charged with murder are tried as adults unless they are certified as youthful offenders. However, older teens aged 15, 16, or 17 charged with first degree murder are tried as adults.
At Edmond Santa Fe High School, custodian and sports announcer Sam Selig was better known as "Santa Fe Sam." He was popular and well-liked, but in April, he suddenly resigned, and rumors began to circulate about the reason for his resignation.
According to reports, DHS notified authorities of the possible sexual abuse, saying that the boy's family knew of the molestation but had tried to handle the situation as a family matter. When police questioned Selig about the incident last spring, he allegedly denied molesting the boy but admitted to sexually abusing a different relative.
A local news station reports that after Selig's resignation among the accusations, a co-worker sent him a Facebook message asking about the allegations. The co-worker says Selig responded, "Yes, that is what getting stupid drunk does for you."
Law enforcement officials say the investigation has been difficult, because while one alleged victim lives in Logan County, another lives more than two hours away.
During the course of the investigation, the alleged victims told police that Selig displayed child pornography in their presence. The OSBI confiscated and evaluated the man's computer, allegedly finding four images and two videos of child pornography.
Officials do not believe any Edmond Public Schools students were involved.
The allegations come as a shock to Edmond Santa Fe High School students and community members who knew Sam Selig. One investigator involved in the case says he wouldn't have believed the allegations either if he hadn't been privy to evidence gained during the investigation.
If the allegations are true, and if the accused man really does blame is acts on "getting stupid drunk," it wouldn't be the first time alcohol led to sexual abuse and serious legal consequences.
Last month, a 40-year-old Piedmont woman was accused of molesting an 11-year-old boy, who ran from the home to get help. When police arrived, they found Alethea Montgomery to be so intoxicated that they couldn't interview her until the following day. When they finally asked her about the allegations, she at first denied molesting the boy but then said, "He is not a liar and I do stuff in my sleep. I hope to God I didn’t do something, but if I did, I was asleep." The woman later said that she had no recollection of the incident, but that she believed the boy and the accusation made her feel physically ill.
In June, 28-year-old Jamie Etsitty was arrested and charged with first degree rape after she allegedly raped her friend's 13-year-old son while the boy's mother waited in the car. The boy told police that Etsitty was drunk and "pushy" with him, forcing him to perform sex acts while the two were supposed to be collecting the woman's belongings so she could stay with his family. Etsitty was so intoxicated that she passed out while the boy's mother drove her home and called police.
