Utah Supreme Court reverses Jeffs convictions
The Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed the convictions of polygamist leader Warren Jeffs and ordered a new trial, saying a jury received incorrect instructions before considering his role in the 2001 nuptials of a 14-year-old girl to her 19-year-old cousin, the Associated Press reports.
Jeffs, 54, was convicted in 2007 of two counts of first-degree felony rape as an accomplice. He is serving two consecutive terms of five years to life in the Utah State Prison.
A telephone call seeking comment from the Washington County attorney's office and the Utah attorney was not immediately returned Tuesday. Jeffs' lawyers scheduled a news conference later Tuesday.
Jeffs is head of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The group, based on the Utah-Arizona state line, practices polygamy in marriages arranged by church leaders.
Jeffs performed the religious marriage of Elissa Wall and Allen Steed in a Caliente, Nev., motel and later counseled Wall to be obedient and give her "mind, body and soul" to her husband in an effort to make an unhappy marriage work.
During the trial and later in her book, "Stolen Innocence," Wall said she objected to the marriage and was forced into sexual relations with her husband.
The Associated Press does not typically name victims of alleged sexual assault, but Wall has frequently spoken publicly about the case.
In its ruling Tuesday, the court agreed with defense attorneys who argued that jurors should not have been told to decide whether Wall's marital relations were consensual based on Jeffs' actions and his role as her religious leader. That essentially equates Jeffs with Steed — the person who allegedly has had nonconsensual sex.
Justices said prosecutors were wrong to make that leap.
"Only after there is a determination that an offense has been committed can the law impose liability on another party who 'solicited, request, commanded, encouraged or intentionally aided' in the commission of that offense," the court's opinion states.
Steed was charged with rape the day after Jeffs' September 2007 conviction, but the case has languished and it's unclear how it might now proceed.
Under state law, the parties in the case now have 14 days to ask for a rehearing of the case before the Utah Supreme Court.
The ruling from the high court comes as Washington County authorities investigate allegations that Wall may have lied about her medical records that were used in the trial.
County Attorney Brock Belnap launched an investigation in February after he was told by a third party that Wall's "medical records had all been created in one day to make it look like she had seen a caretaker on several different occasions."
The status of that investigation was unclear Tuesday. Wall's attorney, Roger Hoole, told The Associated Press he had no comment ahead of a news conference he planned for Tuesday afternoon.
An extradition hearing for Jeffs was canceled after the Supreme Court's ruling was released. Jeffs had been scheduled to appear in Utah's 3rd District Court on Tuesday so a judge could ask him to sign a warrant seeking his extradition to Texas to face criminal charges there.
Texas authorities used family records gathered during a 2008 raid on a church ranch near Eldorado to charge Jeffs with bigamy, sexual assault of a child and aggravated assault. The charges allege marriages between Jeffs and girls ages 17 and 15 in 2005.
In an e-mail to The Associated Press last week, defense attorney Wally Bugden said Jeffs intends to oppose extradition.
It's expected that Texas authorities will have to start a new proceeding to continue efforts to extradite Jeffs.
Comments
Here's a copy of the Utah Supreme Court's decision if anyone else is interested:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/07/27/supreme.pdf?hpt=T1
Posted by: Dana | July 27, 2010 5:15 PM
Gee, I wonder how many BYO graduates are on that court?
Posted by: Robert Littel | July 28, 2010 11:19 AM
Gee, I wonder how many BYU graduates are on that court.
Posted by: Robert Littel | July 28, 2010 11:20 AM
Robert. These are the Justices who made the decision.
Chief Justice Christine Durham; Wellesley College and Duke University
Associate Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant; Harvard Law School
Justice Ronald E. Nehring; Cornell University
It was based on the fact that Jeffs did not receive a fair trial because the jury was wrongly instructed. The Justices have not suggested that he is innocent. Your suggestion that the decision was religion based reveals more about you obsession than anything to do with the case.
Posted by: Perry Mason | July 28, 2010 12:19 PM
Perry Mason - As far as I know, BYU does not have a law school. My query concerns where they got their undergraduate degrees. I think it is safe to assume that being from Utah, that they are all members of this strange cult, as opposed to being cultist members of more mainstream Christian cults. Perhaps they had motivation to search out and find (or create) a loop-hole to let this despicable brainwashing child molester off the hook.
Posted by: Robert Littel | July 28, 2010 3:59 PM
http://www.utcourts.gov/judgesbios/showGallery.asp?dist=10&ct_type=S#2920
Bobbie sounds more like your anti-religion bias keeps you from being able to look at a legal question objectively as Perry Mason pointed out.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 28, 2010 4:35 PM
The court didn't let him off the hook Robert. They merely decided that the jury was given improper instructions. Rather than looking for Mormons under the bed Robert, try reading the decision. Brigham Young University does have a law school; the J. Reuben Clark Law School. Two of the Justices taught at BYU. If for you that is enough to accuse them of taking sides with a “despicable brainwashing child molester,” then again, it says more about you than about either the justices or the case.
The State will visit with the victim before determining whether they will pursue a new trial.
The lesson learned is that we are a society ruled by law. No matter how awful the crime the accused is guaranteed due process and a fair trial. There are societies that work differently Robert. And if you'd like I'll have Stella get you a one way ticket to one of them.
Posted by: Perry Mason | July 28, 2010 4:51 PM
Perry Mason - Like any good bigot Bobbie only believes in due process for those who agree with his views.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 28, 2010 5:07 PM
From what I have studied about Mr. Littel's posts both at this blog and in Boston, where he posted under a different name, one fact stands out clearly: No one has ever agreed with his views.
Posted by: Perry Mason | July 28, 2010 5:51 PM
The corruption that occurs in our society plays both ways. Last time I saw a figure, 23 people sitting on death-row for crimes they did not commit were vindicated in the last few years, with perhaps thousands in the same boat, not seeing such an outcome before being killed by the state. It would not surprise me if an effort was made by highly motivated Mormons in judicial positions, to give (or manufacture) a reason to give a truly guilty party an out. It has been proven over and over, that justice is quite often a negotiable commodity and has been meted out in a capricious manner more times than we are willing to admit. The question you should ask, is that if Mr. Jeffs had been a Baptist, or a Unitarian, would he have been given the same consideration?
As to no one agreeing with what I say, either here, or in Boston, when I beard the lion in his own den (religious blogs), it is to be expected that that would be the case because such blogs attract the delusional, who go to such places to validate their misperceptions. My only hope is to have a few, or even one, say, "Gee, I never looked at it that way before". Planting the seed of doubt is my goal, and it is to be expected that such seeds sprout infrequently because of the vapid nature of the soil in this garden of weeds.
Posted by: Robert Littel | July 28, 2010 6:45 PM
Bobbie - Prove the corruption and most people here including myself will believe. Otherwise you sound delusional.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 29, 2010 10:26 AM
You are not planting any “seeds of doubt” Robert. Just lashing out at imagined monsters leads people to believe that you are, if not delusional, at least impaired by your own prejudices. That's not to say there are no reasonable arguments for an atheistic position, but only that you have never provided one. Lashing out with anger and foul language is your stock in trade. If you feel that doing so will cause decent religious folk to say "Gee, I never looked at it that way before," then the “delusional” label is likely the best fit.
Meanwhile all of the decisions of the Utah Supreme Court since 1996 are available online. Why don't you read them and see if you can find evidence of your theory that through them justice has been “meted out in a capricious manner,” as you have charged.
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/index.html
Posted by: Perry Mason | July 29, 2010 1:58 PM