Open Discussion #16

Continued from Open Discussion #15

VERDICT

Raymond Merril Jessop was sentenced to 10 years in prison and an $8,000.00 fine.

NO PROBATION.

He will have to serve a mandatory 5 year sentence and after that he becomes parole eligible.   It is not mandatory parole — he will have to keep meeting with the parole board until he is paroled or his 10 year sentence is completed.   Persons convicted of sexual assault of a child typically do 85% of their sentence.    If Raymond insists that he was persecuted for his religious beliefs for 10 years, then he will spend 10 years in prison.

Still Deliberating

The jury in Raymond Jeasop’s trial began deliberating on punishment about 11:45 this morning. They are still deliberating.

It does not surprise me that deliberations at this phase are taking longer than guilt/innocence deliberations. Punishment is not as black and white — there is an expansive range of options, and the decision has to be unanimous.

The jury can hang on punishment.

Raymond Jessop Trial: Punishment

This report, like the last, is based on information from people who were present in the courtroom as well as lawyers involved and others familiar with the legal process:

Today the Schleicher County jury heard evidence  related to Raymond’s character and aspects of the way he lived his life.  The State began with the testimony of from an FBI agent who testified about the time period Warren Jeffs was on the 10 Most Wanted List.   Then a Ranger testified about chain of custody information.

Then came the testimony of Carolyn Jessop.   The defense was obviously anticipating Carolyn’s testimony having a strong effect on the jury because nearly every question was met with an objection by Attorney Stevens, whether it was objectionable or not.   Carolyn is Raymond’s stepmother and had personal knowledge of Raymond’s life as a young man — although the age difference between Raymond and Carolyn is only about 5 years.   Carolyn identified a picture of all of Raymond’s nine wives and named each of the wives and their relationships with each other:   Here’s the breakout:

1.  Three wives are full sisters:  Maryanne, Lenora, and Teresa Jeffs.   Their parents are Warren Jeffs and Annette Barlow Jeffs.   Teresa and Lenora were both married to Raymond underage.

2.  Mary Musser Johnson and Marie Musser Johnson are full sisters.    Mary is Raymond’s legal wife, and they are still legally married.

3.   Three of the wives were previously married to Raymond’s brother, Ernie:  Rhoda, Janet and Elizabeth.   Rhoda and Elizabeth are sisters and are also sisters of Warren Jeffs.

Carolyn testified that Mary was happy to be married to Raymond until he was given a second wife and moved out of the master bedroom.   Then she was miserable.

Carolyn’s testimony never gained much momentum because of all the objections.   It’s hard to say what effect this testimony had on the jury — Stevens successfully disrupted the testimony, but in the process irked the jury.  The only cross- examination question elicited the information that Carolyn was from 6 generations of polygamists on her mother’s side.    The defense likely determined that Carolyn’s testimony was not terribly damaging to Raymond, and there was no need for many follow up questions.

Dr Larry Beall was the next witness for the State.   He is a psychologist who specializes in trauma caused by “cult abuse.”    Brandon Hudson asked for an instruction that Dr Beall not use the word “cult” but the request was denied.    Dr Beall’s testimony was informative and damaging to Raymond.    He talked about the effect of sexual assault on adolescent females in polygamous cults.   He testified about the coercive nature of such communities and the lack of brain development in young girls and the inability to form mature and rational judgments in the adolescent years.    This testimony was apparently elicited for the purpose of dispelling the fiction that Janet “consented” to underage marriage or sexual relations at age 15

Becky Musser testified next, and she was an outstanding witness.   She was very poised and measured and knowledgeable.   She authenticated marriage records, family group records and priesthood records showing the marriages of Raymond to his nine wives, Raymond’s whereabouts in the relevant time period, among other things.   Becky explained aspects of FLDS life to the jury, and she was very clear in her presentation that girls have no choice and no control and no opportunity to think for themselves in the FLDS community.   The defense did not cross-examine her, probably because anything they could have asked would have  opened the door for further damaging testimony against Raymond.   Becky also identified Raymond’s nine wives by name, as shown in a picture of all nine of them lined up side by side.

The final witness for the State was Ranger Nick Hanna, who is obviously accustomed to testifying and presents himself very well.   Nick authenticated and read from various priesthood dictations and records that were not admissible in the guilt/innocence phase of the trial.   The most damaging testimony was portions of dictations that: 1.  described Janet “struggling” in labor for three days and all of the adults around her, including Raymond, refusing to take her to the hospital because it would get Raymond in trouble, and 2. recounted instances where Raymond served as Warren’s decoy in a caravan when Warren was on the 10 Most Wanted List.    Many objections from the defense, all overruled.

The defense called four or five witnesses who were all people from around Eldorado and San Angelo — they were all people for whom Raymond had done construction work, and none of them had known him before June of 2009.    None of them had any idea what his life was like at the Ranch or how many wives he had or anything else.   They did all testify that he was nice and he was an honest worker.   Truth be told, this was about as well as the defense could do and this testimony might have an effect on the jury.   Seeing other “normal” people in the community saying nice things about Raymond will make it easier for the jury to soften a little.

The jury was excused at about 8:00 PM and the attorneys met in chambers for their “charging conference.”   They were finished by about 9:30.

Tomorrow, closing summations will begin at 9:30 AM.   Each side gets 30 minutes.   Each side will have two attorneys use 15 minutes each.     Then the jury is given its charge and deliberations begin.   The range of sentences for sexual assault of a child is 2-20 years.   If the jury sentences Raymond to 10 years or less, they must also consider whether Raymond is a good candidate for probation.   If Raymond is sentenced to 20 years, he will have to serve at least 10 years day for day with no credit for “good time.”   After 10 years he would become parole eligible, but it is not mandatory — he would have to continue meeting with the parole board  until he is granted parole or until his sentence is complete.

Stay tuned…..

What Really Happened: The Trial of Raymond Jessop

This report is based on information provided by people who sat through the trial, including professionals involved in the case and professionals familiar with the legal process.

Since Raymond’s trial began, there has been various and numerous inaccurate reports and speculation about the goings on. Bill Medvecky, chief child abuse proponent and convicted felon, keeps reporting from his backside and from the pro-crime, anti-law perspective. Brooke Adams injects some factual information and observations into her accounts, but Brooke is apparently without the aid of legal professionals who can explain things to her before she publishes embarassingly crude legal analysis.

Just to clear things up a bit:

1. Prospective jurors who were FLDS members were excused at the request of Raymond’s attorney. Stevens is a very very good attorney, one of the very best in the State. Although he has very little to work with, he is very competent and is doing well by Raymond. This does not mean he can work miracles, but it does mean that every move he makes is calculated to help Rsymond in some way. I can assure you Bill Medvecky will not think of some better legal strategy than Stephens. He quietly, and without fanfare, approached the bench and asked that FLDS jurors be dismissed — recognizing, of course, that they could be excused for cause, and recognizing that their answering questions under oath in the voir dire process could prejudice other jurors against Raymond or could lead to those jurors incriminating themselves. This was the proper and smart thing for Stevens to do — after all, he is concerned only with Raymond’s interests and not the persecution hyteria of the FLDS or Willie’s obtuse offerings of legal strategy. Raymond’s rights were not violated by the judge, the State, or his attorney.

2. A juror was not excused and an alternate seated without the knowledge of the defense. The juror is interviewed in chambers, on the record, in the presence of both sides’ counsel and the defendant. Both sides get to make a record of any objections or move for a mistrial as incident to the excused juror. Alternates are then brought in amd go through a mini requalification, again with attorneys present as well as the defendant, on the record.

3. The proceedings Friday morning were not secret or announced at the last minute. Just because Brooke and Willie did not understand what was happening does not mean the defense attorneys were caught by surprise. The defense attorneys were all present and ready to proceed bright and early Friday morning.

4. For each of the jurors to qualify, each and every one had to answer under oath that they could consider the full range of punishment upon Raymond’s conviction — probation, all the way up to 20 years.

5. The documentary evidence admitted was not “stolen” or gotten illegally, and that issue has been fully litigated in a 4 day hearing that resulted in a lengthy written order. Just because you and Willie wish it would all go away does not mean that anyone other than the convicted felon did anything illegal.

6. It is not religious persecution for a jury to convict a man of sexual assault if a child just because the crime is a tenet of a wacko religious cult.

7. 15 year old girls have constitutional rights too. They also have a right to be protected from sexual predators, and they cannot waive that protection.

8. “it’s so unfair” and “the judge is a Nazi” are not grounds for appeal. Hurt feelings are not grounds for appeal. Extreme outrage is not grounds for appeal. Blogger opinion is not grounds for appeal.

9. Not enough Hispanics on the grand jury is not grounds for appeal by Raymond Jessop, a non-Hispanic, particularly when his attorney failed to timely raise the issue.

10. The defense is not entitled to preview the testimony of the State’s witnesses and the defense is not entitled to know in advance everything the witnesses will say.

11. The defense is not entitled to make all of their objections outside the hearing of the jury.

12. The judge in no way limited Carolyn’s testimony or made any findings about the weight or credibility of her testimony. The judge ruled that Carolyn’s testimony is not scientific and the defense is not entitled to a pre-hearing to determine Carolyn’s qualifications to testify or determine the reliability.

13. It is not reversible error to have a juror whose husband was on the grand jury and the juror did not hide the information from the defense or anyone else.

14. There is a victim to the crime that Raymond Jessop was convicted of: Janet Jeffs. Whether she would openly state she is a victim is immaterial.

15. Janet Jeffs was not legally married to Raymond’s brother. She was not emancipated just because she was given to Ernie as a child sex object. Even if she had gotten court approval and gotten married legally to Ernie, that does not excuse Raymond from sexually assaulting her at age 15.

16. If Janet were called by the defense in the punishment phase, she cannot answer self-serving questions from the defense and plead the fifth to questions from the State. It is highly unlikely Stephens will call Janet to testify for Raymond because it would be disastrous for Raymond. Stephens will likely call business associates in the community who can testify that Raymond us a hard worker and contributes to the community. Very unlikely that Stephens will call any other FLDS members.

Any questions?

Through the Looking Glass

Ah, the upside down world of the apologists. Where getting your cheek swabbed with a Qtip is a horrible indignity, but being assigned as a concubine to two men before you are 17 is an honorable religious ritual.

^^ By Betty on Coram Non Judice, November 6 at 4:09 PM.

This is a great comment in its simplicity and its truth.  It captures in one sentence the unreality we’ve witnessed from the FLDS and supporters since the April ‘08 Rescue.

See, for instance, Hugh’s post from  July 2008:   Texas Nazis Terrorize Child in Broad Daylight or Kurt’s post about Texas “terrorizing children” in reference to a 2 year old having her cheek swabbed ….at her own home, in her mother’s arms.   Terrorizing?   Really?  Heaven forbid the child ever has her teeth brushed or a dental exam.

On the other hand, after listening to a week of testimony and considering evidence admitted at a trial where Raymond Jessop was very competently represented, 12 people unanimously decided that Raymond had sexually assaulted a child.

By age 16 Janet had been passed from brother to brother as a child sex object and impregnated by a man more than twice her age… who, incidentally, already had several other wives.  Evidence was presented that 16 year old Janet was denied medical treatment in childbirth for three days just so Raymond could get away with raping this child.   Even the child abuse proponents are not denying that Ray impregnated a 16 year old who was not his legal wife.   No one is claiming that Janet fell in love with Raymond and entered a sexual relationship as an expression of her love,  or that a long courtship led to an illicit sexual encounter, or that Janet voluntarily chose Raymond to be her second “husband.”  At the time of the Rescue, she and her baby hadnt even seen Ray for a year and a half.   Why?  Because Warren said so.

None of the child abuse supporters seem bothered in the slightest that Janet was first “married” to Ernie at age 15 or that she was not allowed an education or that she was taken from her parents’ home and placed in “marriage” at age 15 or that her father was banished and contact with him was forbidden — and that she suffered depression over the abrupt loss of her father to the whims of the cult leader.

No, the child abuse proponents argue stridently that Janet is not a victim — Janet  chose each and every one of those circumstances and she’s happy.   Nope, there’s nothing coercive or oppressive (not to mention illegal) about Janet’s wholesome and fulfilling existence.   She’s satisfied with her cult life and could leave if she wanted to, just walk out the door with her three year old child.   Who wouldn’t choose such bliss?

All I can say is, thank Heavenly Father Raymond didn’t swab Janet’s underage cheek.

GUILTY

At 6:30 PM a jury in Schleicher County found Raymond Merril Jessop GUILTY of sexual assault of a child.

Verdict Poll : Texas vs. Raymond M. Jessop

Jury is in deliberation, your cyber-juror vote is requested.

Utah Supreme Court Denies FLDS-Parker Appeal

The Supreme Court of Utah isn’t humored by the FLDS attempts to harrass the courts with frivolous filings – so this appeal denial was delivered – coincidentally – just  hours before Warren’s “accessory to rape” appeal starts.

More Medvecky

Read it for yourself.   Here’s the appellate decision in Bill Medvecky’s case of grand larceny, burglary, and tampering with governmental records.

 

 

Is Bill Medvecky a sexual predator?

TxBluesman asked this question on Bill Medvecky’s site:

So Bill, in addition to the one file that you were convicted for, you took 11 other files that you weren’t charged with?

Gee, a shame that they didn’t try you for those crimes also. Maybe they could have stacked the sentences.
And, if I recall correctly, wasn’t the parole board concerned about the allegations that you sexually abused a special needs foster child? Isn’t that why the state was upset that you broke into the CPS offices – that you were getting rid of the evidence against you?

Sorry Bill, I don’t believe you.

1. TxBluesMan on October 29th, 2009 at 8:17 am

It’s a fact that Bill Medvecky served time for grand larceny and burglary and tampering with governmental records, all related to files he stole from CPS related to one or two of his foster children at the time. I have heard “rumors” that Medvecky had a special needs foster child removed from his care based on allegations that he sexually abused a mentally incapacitated child — Medvecky was apparently a foster parent for a number of mentally retarded children who could not testify against him.

Once again TxBluesman appears to have the inside track. I’m sure his comment will be deleted from Medvecky’s site. Now ordinarily, a blogger’s personal background, criminal or otherwise, I would consider irrelevant and inappropriate for public discourse. However, due to the nature of the FLDS crimes of sexual assaults on children and Bill Medvecky’s obsessive support of sexual predators — together with the fact that Medvecky takes every opportunity to personally smear anyone who opposes the FLDS — these allegations or rumors that he sexually abused a mentally retarded child , and stole the child’s CPS file to avoid prosecution, are pertinent to the discussion.

I welcome Bill Medvecky to respond and correct this information if it is false. I welcome any explanation he might give that would explain why he was seen by three witnesses committing the crimes he was convicted of or what reason he could possibly have for destroying governmental records if they did not include evidence of the deplorable act of Medvecky sexually abusing a mentally retarded child.

Blogroll

While certain blogs have eliminated their blogrolls altogether, we have added a few interesting links to our blogroll:

1.  Trent Nelson has started a running collection of links to articles about polygamy.   No commentary, no particular position is taken, just the links.    I like this idea, and it’s a great one stop source for current news items.   Trent’s page can be found at:

http://trenthead.com/polygamy/

2.  Perry Bulwer is a Canadian lawyer, human rights advocate, who has been blogging about religion and child abuse for some time.  He refers to himself as a “cult expert” and he does seem to be rather informed and conversant on the issues — he is also a former member of the cult Children of God.   Very informative.   There is a Canadian leaning to his chosen topics, but he covers news in the US also.     Perry’s main site, Chain the Dogma, where you can also find information and discussion about religious topics, can be found at:

http://www.perrybulwer.com/

3.   Perry Bulwer has maintained a comprehensive collection of articles and discussion regarding Religion and Child Abuse.   His archive, which he no longer updates, can be found at:

http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/

He now maintains the archive to the above link on his main site and continues to update as news happens :

http://www.perrybulwer.com/religion-and-child-abuse-news/

What’s My Line?

Below is the affidavit filed by Willie Jessop in the Utah Supreme Court in support of The FLDS Church’s Petition for Extraordinary Writ.   If I have time later, I can really have fun with this.  For now, let’s briefly look at Willie’s affidavit compared to statements he has previously made under oath.

Right out of the gate, Willie steps up and identifies exactly who he is and who he “represents”:

“I a member and duly authorized representative of the Petitioner Association, which comprises an informal association of members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the “FLDS Church” or the “Church”). I am also a member in good standing of the FLDS Church, and a beneficiary of the United Effort Plan Trust, which is the subject of this action.”

1. FLDS member
2. “duly authorized representative” of FLDS
3. Member of the UEP beneficiary class

Is that the same thing as “spokesman”?   Just curious because Willie doesnt mention who authorized him and what they authorized him to do on their behalf.   I’m pretty sure Willie tried to pull this stunt when he and Shurtleff were palling around and making settlement proposals in the UEP probate case.   I’m pretty sure also Judge Lindberg addressed that squarely when she said she has seen no evidence that Willie is a representative of anything with any authority to represent anyone or bind them contractually or otherwise.

It’s also odd that in Utah Willie is a “duly authorized representative” but in Texas he’s just Willie Jessop and doesn’t speak for anyone or have any authority to act for anyone else…at least that’s what he said under oath to  the House Human Services Committee of the Texas legislature.

But in his deposition in January, he couldnt answer those questions because the answer would have incriminated him on some unknown criminal offense ranging from witness tampering to money laundering and everything in between:

Q. In your dealings with litigation involving the UEP who do you represent?

MR. SCHAFFER: Upon advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer and invoke his right remain silent under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon the fact that there are ongoing criminal investigations being conducted by both the state and federal government.

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Are you refusing to answer based on the instruction of counsel?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. Who gave you the authority to represent anyone in UEP litigation?

MR. SCHAFFER: Upon advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer that question and invoke his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon ongoing criminal investigations which are being conducted by both the state and federal government.

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Are you refusing to answer based on instruction of counsel?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. Okay. Are you asking for affirmative relief in litigation concerning the UEP?

MR. SCHAFFER: Upon advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer that question and invoke his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon ongoing criminal investigations by the federal and state government.

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Are you refusing to answer based on the instruction of counsel?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. Are you a member of the beneficiary class of the UEP trust?

MR. SCHAFFER: Upon on advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer and invoke his right to remain silent under Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon ongoing criminal investigations by federal and state authorities.

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Are you refusing to answer based on the instruction of counsel?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. Okay. Do you know how to identify who is a member of the beneficiary class of the UEP trust?

MR. SCHAFFER: Upon advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer and invokes his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. He is doing so because of ongoing criminal investigations by both federal and state government.

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Are you refusing to answer based on the instruction of counsel?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. Okay. Has any — has any particular person given you authority to represent them in litigation involving the UEP trust?

MR. SCHAFFER: Upon advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer and invoke his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon criminal investigations by federal and state government.

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Are you refusing to answer based on instruction of counsel?

A. Yes, ma’am.

.  .  .

Q. Okay. Are you associated with the FLDS religious organization?

MR. SCHAFFER: At this point, upon advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer and invoke his rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and remain silent — he’s -= as well as the Texas Constitution, but he’s doing so based on the fact that there are ongoing criminal

investigations being conducted by the state and federal government.

MS. MALONIS: Okay. Are you instructing him not to answer?

MR. SCHAFFER: I’m instructing him not to answer.

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Okay. Are you not going to answer the question?

A. (By Willie Jessop)I will follow the legal advice of my counsel.

Q. Okay. Do you hold a position of authority within the FLDS community?

MR. SCHAFFER: On advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer that question and invoke his right to remain silent under Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon ongoing criminal investigations by both the state and federal government.

MS. MALONIS: Okay.

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Do you refuse to answer based on the instruction of counsel?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. Do you have any decision-making power within –over the FLDS group in Texas?

MR. SCHAFFER: On advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer that question and invoke his right to remain silent pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon ongoing criminal investigations by both state and federal government.

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Okay. Do you refuse to answer based on the instruction of counsel?

A. Yes, ma’am.

What’s really going on here?

FLDS Hail Mary: Petition for Extraordinary Writ and Willie Affidavit

Raymond Merril Jessop Trial – Witness List