Neighbor accused of hugging 7-year-old in her swimsuit wrongfully convicted

December 16, 2016 :

There was certainly something odd about 31-year-old Jason Lee Hosley's decision to pick up and hug his 7-year-old neighbor as she stood wearing a swimsuit on her front porch in summer 2013.

The girl later testified that Hosley whispered a message to her: He wanted a girl as pretty as she was.

Hosley was convicted of second-degree disorderly conduct for hugging her and for returning later that July night to leave the girl a strange letter about the importance of reporting child molesters in the future.

But the Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday reversed Hosley's 2014 conviction, saying his behavior didn't fit the definition of the charge. Senior Judge Kip Leonard originally found him guilty after a trial in Marion County Circuit Court.

The Appeals Court ruled that Hosley would have had to display a "threatening physical act of aggression" -- physical force against the girl or an intention of inciting physical force -- for the charge to fit.

What happened didn't amount to violence, the court said. And neither the girl nor her father reacted with violence, although the girl testified she was "weirded out" by the man she barely knew, according to an Appeals Court summary of the encounter.

Her father was in the front yard setting up a Slip 'N Slide, according to the court summary. He testified that Hosley cried and looked distraught as he held his daughter. After Hosley put the girl down, the father let Hosley walk away because he didn't want to make the situation worse, according to the summary.

The Appeals Court noted that Hosley's act of leaving the letter at the family's home also didn't incite violence, though it did anger the girl's father. The letter thanked the family for its "respect, hospitality and ... tolerance" during "some of the most difficult of times," according to the court summary.

Hosley's letter included a "promise" that he signed and left a space for the girl to sign, as well. According to the court summary, the promise read: "IF ANY BOY OR OLDER MAN EVER TOUCHES MY PR(I)VATES OR HURTS ME IN ANY BAD WAY, I PROMISE I WILL TELL MY DADDY!"

The Appeals Court's ruling means Hosley is no longer convicted of a crime for the encounter and that all court and probation directives no longer apply.

According to court records, he was sentenced in March 2014 to five years of probation, sex offender treatment, to have no contact with children and to stay at least three miles away from the girl and her home in Hubbard, population 3,200.

The Appeals Court hinted that another charge might apply to the behavior Hosley was prosecuted for -- such as harassment, which is defined as "offensive physical contact." But Hosley wasn't charged with that.

Court records in Oregon don't show any previous convictions for sex crimes for him.

The ruling was made by a three-judge panel of the Appeals Court: Rebecca Duncan, Joel DeVore and Meagan Flynn. ..Source.. by Aimee Green

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

'Incorrigible' public masturbator shouldn't be locked up for life, Supreme Court says

9-22-16 Oregon:

The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday for the first time reversed a life prison sentence for an unstoppable public masturbator -- saying Oregon's three-strikes-you're-out law for repeat sex offenders isn't always constitutional.

The high court said locking away 39-year-old Dennis James Davidson with no possibility of getting out is a disproportionate sentence for his crimes.

Davidson masturbated in front of women on a neighbor's porch, in a park, next to a strip mall and at a school playground where children were present in Marion County over five years -- from 2006 until he was arrested in 2011 and ultimately sent to prison for life.

Although the court described Davidson as an "incorrigible" offender, it noted that Davidson has never been convicted of raping, sodomizing or sexually touching any victims -- like other sex offenders sentenced to life terms.

Davidson's behavior, the Supreme Court wrote, doesn't call for "the most severe penalty available under Oregon law, other than the death penalty."

The ruling represents a hit to the three-strikes law as a deterrent to public masturbators. The Oregon Supreme Court had as recently as this summer upheld the 2001 law as constitutional for another serial public masturbator, albeit one with a criminal history that included convictions for molesting children.

Ernest Lannet, who represented Davidson on appeal for the Office of Public Defense Services, said the ruling acknowledges that not all repeat felony sex offenders should be treated the same because they are not all the same. The wide range runs from child rapists on one end to public masturbators on the other, he said.

An individual defendant's circumstances should be considered, Lannet said. Davidson, for instance, suffers from a traumatic brain injury and has never been convicted of molesting anyone, he said.

Davidson was 16 or 17 when a friend struck him in the head with a baseball bat, causing brain damage, court records indicate. He eventually lost his left eye due to complications.

Davidson also appears to have a distorted view of reality, according to court records. In one case, he told police he was masturbating in front of a stranger in a parking lot under the belief that would increase the chances she would want to date him.

Read Thursday's opinion about Davidson here.

In the earlier case this year, the court ruled in June that it wasn't cruel and unusual punishment to sentence William Michael Althouse to life in prison after he was found guilty of exposing his himself to a woman on a Salem jogging path.

The so-called "true life" sentence for Althouse was constitutionally sound because of his long and deeply disturbing record of sexually assaulting children and exposing himself in public over three decades, the high court ruled. The cases included following a 9-year-old boy to his family's motor home in Seaside, winning his trust by asking to play a board game, then putting a shirt over the boy's mouth and sexually assaulting him in the motor home's bathroom.

The Supreme Court also Thursday upheld the life sentence of repeat child molester Douglas Wayne Sokell, a 73-year-old Forest Grove man who was caught in 2011 stroking an 8-year-old girl's buttocks and hips over her clothes in a Hillsboro library.

Sokell had previously been convicted of squeezing a 12-year-old girl's breasts in a store after asking her to try on a backpack he was thinking about buying his niece and reaching his hand up a 7-year-old girl's dress at a Newport library and rubbing her crotch area. Sokell had admitted to his therapist that he'd once raped a 10-year-old girl and that he has more than 120 child victims, according to court records.

"Despite the considerable sex offender treatment (Sokell) has received over the course of several decades, he has continued to re-offend," the court wrote.

"The passage of time and (Sokell's) advancing age have failed to diminish the danger that he poses to children," the court wrote.

Read Thursday's opinion about Sokell here. ..Source.. by Aimee Green

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Law could make sex offender data more accessible

12-11-15 Oregon:

There are 115 sex offenders registered in Baker County but only one will show up in a search of the Oregon State Police’s website. And he no longer lives in Baker County.

In fact, Wesley Scott Michael Kenny is included on the list only because this is the last county in which he registered, says Lt. Will Benson, Baker County Parole and Probation manager.

Kenny left the area, committed new crimes and is serving prison time somewhere in the South, Benson said.

The reason for the lack of information about registered sex offenders online is the result of Oregon law that prior to January 2014 limited OSP’s authority to list sex offenders on public websites to only those deemed “predatory” by the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.

The new system, which will evaluate and place sex offenders at Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 is a “new and improved” way to help law enforcement agencies better inform their communities of an offender’s risk of committing more crimes, said Brenda Carney, executive director of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.

The change came about by a new law passed in 2013: House Bill 2549.

Unfortunately, the law was an unfunded mandate, Carney says. The 2015 Legislature authorized money to put the leveling system into practice and that work is getting under way.

But it will take time for state officials to evaluate the approximately 28,000 registered sex offenders. And only those deemed Level 3 offenders, those with the highest risk to re-offend, will make the OSP online sex offender notification system, which includes the website and local notifications, such as through press releases to the media, about where these offenders live.

“It’s a work in progress,” Carney said. “We’re jumping in head first.”

The law calls for the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision to conduct a risk assessment for all sex offenders before they are released from custody. ..Continued.. by Chris Collins

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Oregon Supreme Court to consider: Is it 'cruel and unusual' to imprison public masturbator for life?

3-29-15 Oregon:

William Althouse is serving a life prison sentence -- but not because, like many in that situation, he killed someone.

Althouse, 69, has repeatedly exposed his genitals in public with sexual intent. In 2012, after a Marion County jury found him guilty of that conduct again, a judge sentenced him to life without any hope of being released.

The Oregon Supreme Court, however, announced Thursday that it will consider if that amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

The sentence is disproportionate to the offense, said Daniel Carroll, the defense attorney who represented Althouse at trial, told The Oregonian/OregonLive on Friday. "No one died," he said.

The high court's consideration of the case seems particularly timely given another lengthy sentence -- 18 years -- handed down to a 49-year-old Sherwood man last week who was found guilty of masturbating or exposing himself eight times at the drive-through windows of fast-food restaurants and coffee shops.

In Althouse's case, the state likely will point out that he isn't only a serial flasher -- his life sentence was meant to reflect a long and concerning history of sex offenses. His sex crime convictions include sexual abuse in 1982 and kidnapping, sodomy and sexual abuse in 1993.

Typically, first-time public indecency offenders receive probation and counseling.

It's unclear from court records how many times Althouse has been convicted of public indecency, but when he was convicted in 2002 of the crime, court records indicate that he had at least one earlier conviction. ..Continued.. by Aimee Green

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Appeals court overturns sex offender’s conviction for failing to report

3-13-15 Oregon:

An Oregon appeals court has ruled that a Roseburg man was wrongly convicted of failing to report as a sex offender, despite leaving his listed residence and not reporting the move, because the state failed to prove he had moved into a new residence.

Ronald Truel Hiner II, 33, was convicted in 2004 of sexual offenses. His convictions required him to comply with the state’s sex-offender reporting requirement, among other things.

The Oregon Legislature in 2009 amended the law to help determine the county an offender would be prosecuted in if he or she moved from one to another. The new language, however, left some loopholes. The statute says a sex offender is required to report to law enforcement within 10 days of the date that the offender “moves to a new residence.” Previously, the reporting requirement was triggered when a sex offender simply left his or her former residence, according to court documents.

Hiner argued the charge should have been thrown out at trial because the state was required to prove he had found a new residence, based on the language in the amended statute, and the state had failed to do so.

On appeal, he used the same argument.

The three-judge appeals panel concluded that the reporting requirement is triggered when the defendant leaves his or her former residence and acquires a new one. Therefore, the state was responsible for proving both during trial.

Douglas County District Attorney Rick Wesenberg said Thursday that this outcome is “an unintended consequence of that law change.”

“The problem is most sex offenders when they fail to report become transient. They go into the wind,” Wesenberg said. “Now, what this case says if they don’t go and get a new residence, then we can’t prove that they’re in violation of failing to report as a sex offender.

“This will affect prosecutions across the state,” he added.

Wesenberg said he’s already spoken to the Oregon Department of Justice about challenging the appeals court’s decision.

“My belief is they are going to evaluate it for appeal and evaluate it to approach the Legislature to fix this problem,” he said.

According to court records, in early 2012, Hiner reported to law enforcement officers that he lived at the Roseburg Rescue Mission, which operates as a homeless shelter. The mission’s records showed that Hiner slept there until late January 2012.

About 16 days after his last recorded stay, police responded to a report of an argument and encountered Hiner. Because there was a warrant for his arrest, police took him into custody. The state subsequently charged him with failing to report as a sex offender because he didn’t notify law enforcement within 10 days of changing his address.

Hiner then opted for a bench trial before Douglas County Circuit Judge Randy Garrison. During the trial, the state presented evidence that supported the assertion that Hiner had left his residence at the mission 16 days before his arrest and didn’t report the move. The state did not present evidence of where he had lived after leaving the mission, however.

Hiner moved for the charge to be acquitted, but the court denied the motion, concluding that the state was only required to prove he left his former residence and failed to report it within 10 days of moving.

The state argued that by using the present rather than past tense of the verb “move,” the Legislature’s intention was to require sex offenders to report after they start moving to a new residence, rather than when a move is completed.

The appeals court agreed that the state’s interpretation of the law is plausible. However, the law distinctly says a sex offender is required to report the “new address,” which implies the offender would have that address at the time the reporting requirement was triggered.

Also included in Hiner’s appeal was a judgment convicting him of methamphetamine possession. However, because he did not address any errors concerning the drug charge, the appeals court upheld that conviction. ..Source.. by Jessica Prokop

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Student Banned from Areas of Campus for Resembling Classmate’s Rapist

2-19-15 Oregon:

Yes — seriously.

A student at a liberal-arts school in Oregon was reportedly banned from going anywhere on campus that a fellow student would be — because he looked like the person who had raped her.

Professor Janet Halley wrote in a piece for Harvard Law Review that she had “recently assisted” a student who had been “ordered to stay away from a fellow student (cutting him off from his housing, his campus job, and educational opportunity) — all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away.”

The accused also had to endure a “month-long investigation into all his campus relationships, seeking information about his possible sexual misconduct in them,” which she called an “immense invasion of his and his friends’ privacy.”

And (believe it or not!) it gets worse. Even after this invasive investigation completely cleared him of any wrongdoing, he still wasn’t allowed to go anywhere where the student would be without risking punishment from the school.

“The stay-away order remained in place, and was so broadly drawn up that he was at constant risk of violating it and coming under discipline for that,” the piece continues.

According to Halley, the only way the accused student eventually learned of the source of the complaint against him at all was “by accident and off-hand.”

It’s devastating to think of a student being unable to walk around campus without having to risk being traumatized by reminders of her rape. But restricting a totally innocent student from walking around campus because he looks like the person who raped her is obviously unacceptable.

Halley’s article did not reveal the name of the school, the students involved, or the outcome of the situation. ..Source.. by Katherine Timpf who is a reporter for National Review Online.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender sues Deschutes County, OSP

1-30-2015 Oregon:

Terrebonne man alleges county did not adequately notify him of “predatory” status

A Terrebonne man registered as a predatory sex offender has filed suit against Oregon State Police and Deschutes County in federal court, alleging the predatory designation, of which he was unaware, caused irreparable damage.

The complaint, filed Jan. 21, alleges Dean Edward Olmstead, who was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse in 1992, was designated predatory without his knowledge while he was under the supervision of Deschutes County Adult Parole & Probation. His name, photograph and address were subsequently listed on the Oregon State Police website. As of Thursday afternoon, Olmstead’s profile was accessible by the public.

Although Olmstead , 47, received notice he must register as a sex offender for life when he was evaluated by a Deschutes County Parole & Probation officer in 1993, the notice “did not contain any language designating (him) as a predatory sex offender,” the complaint alleges.

Olmstead was placed on 60 months’ probation after serving a 30-day sentence on the sex abuse charges, according to the Oregon Judicial Information Network. Parole & Probation did not provide accommodations suited to Olmstead’s developmental disability during postrelease assessments, according to the complaint.

The complaint also alleges Olmstead’s probation officer, Becky Jackson, determined in 1993 Olmstead was a predatory sex offender after she conducted a “risk assessment,” a scored worksheet evaluating risk.

Under Oregon law, a predatory sex offender is a person convicted of one or more of a specific set of sex crimes, convicted of an attempt to commit one of those crimes or found guilty except for insanity for one of those crimes and exhibits characteristics revealing a tendency to victimize or injure others.

In 2005, according to the complaint, a Deschutes County employee reportedly indicated to the state police sex offender registration office that Olmstead was determined predatory by the parole board or while on supervision. However, a space on the form to indicate that Olmstead had been notified of this was left unmarked, according to the complaint.

Olmstead was not notified he was going to be designated as a predatory sex offender, was given no explanation as to why and was not given the opportunity to respond, according to the complaint, written by Olmstead’s attorney, Daemie Kim, who declined Tuesday to provide further information on the claims in the lawsuit.

“We’re confident that notification procedures were fully complied with, including to Mr. Olmstead,” Deschutes County Counsel Dave Doyle said Thursday. Oregon State Police did not return calls for comment.

Olmstead is demanding a jury trial and has sued for $100,000 plus attorney’s fees, according to the complaint.

Deschutes Circuit Judge Roger DeHoog dismissed a motion to set aside Olmstead’s predatory sex offender designation in 2013 due to lack of jurisdiction, according to the Oregon Judicial Information Network. ..Source.. by Claire Withycombe

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Local rep to testify before U.S. Senate panel Tuesday

12-7-2014 Oregon, Washington DC:

Southern Oregon University will have a voice on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to speak with lawmakers about how law enforcement can best handle cases of sexual assault occurring on university campuses across the country.

The university and Ashland police's collaborative and unique approach to pursuing on-campus sexual misconduct investigations has helped shed more light on the frequency of crimes like sexual assault and led to the convictions of more perpetrators.

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism will hear about why other universities and local law enforcement departments around the country should follow the lead of SOU and Ashland police when it comes to taking on reports of sexual assault.

"Nationally there are not many places where a campus administration and law enforcement entity collaborate on the level that we do here," said Angela Fleischer, 33, SOU’s Assistant Director of Student Support and Intervention for Confidential Advising -- a victims' advocate for the university.

Fleischer will be SOU's voice when she testifies before the Senate subcommittee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.

Fleischer, who helped the Ashland Police Department develop its highly regarded sexual assault reporting program called "You Have Options" in 2013, developed a similar program more recently at SOU called "Campus Choice."

Both programs have a similar approach to how and whether law enforcement or university officials gather evidence during an investigation into a sexual assault and both allow the victim to dictate the pace of the investigation. ..Continued.. by Sam Wheeler

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Prineville man’s assault conviction upheld

See also: Man who took video of beating -- but didn't throw punch -- rightfully convicted of assault, appeals court says (Decision)

12-2-2014 Oregon:

Appeals Court says man aided and abetted in an assault

The Oregon Court of Appeals has upheld the 2012 assault conviction of a Prineville man who helped his teenage son and his son’s friends plan and execute an attack on a man they suspected was a sex offender.

Lance Wayne Ryder, 44, was found guilty of third-degree assault, a felony, in June 2012, Crook County Circuit Court records show, and appealed the conviction a month later.


His lawyers asserted Ryder was not liable for the assault because he did not directly inflict physical injury and did not take action to “produce” the physical injury, according to an opinion penned by Appeals Court Presiding Judge Darleen Ortega and filed Wednesday.

The appeals court disagreed, stating there was “sufficient evidence” for a jury to find evidence of third-degree assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to the opinion, the victim was staying in Ryder’s basement in December 2010. Ryder’s teenage son and his three friends searched the victim’s jacket and found paperwork revealing he was a registered sexual offender. The four teenagers told Ryder what they’d found. With Ryder, they came up with a plan that was to begin with Ryder luring the victim to the basement with beer so the teens could “jump” him.

According to the opinion, Ryder did not “directly attack” the victim, but recorded the attack on his cellphone with the intent of uploading it to YouTube. He recorded the incident until he told the teenagers to stop. The victim then left Ryder’s house. Ryder does not have the use of his right arm and right leg due to a disability, the opinion stated.

Ryder was sentenced to 90 days in jail and three years probation, Crook County Circuit Court records show. The two-day trial was presided over by Crook County Circuit Judge Gary Lee Williams. ..Source.. by Claire Withycombe

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Convicted Pedophile Appeals Life Sentences

2-13-2013 Oregon:

A convicted serial pedophile filed an appeal on the multiple life sentences handed down by a Jackson County Circuit Court judge months before the Oregon Supreme Court sanctioned the judge over comments he made at the man’s sentencing, court records show.

In October 2011, a jury found Richard Lee Taylor, 60, of Medford, guilty of five counts each of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, first-degree sexual abuse and second-degree sodomy; and three counts each of first- and second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse. The jury found each count to be a separate and distinct incident of abuse, which laid out the foundation for the life sentences, said Jackson County prosecutor Adam Peterson.

In January 2012, Judge Tim Barnack sentenced Taylor, who had two previous convictions in Oregon and California for sexually abusing children, to 21 life sentences without the possibility of parole.

Barnack said Tuesday that Taylor had received due process during his trial, and that he had sentenced Taylor based on statutory requirements. Barnack declined further comment, noting he still has jurisdiction in the case.

Peterson said filing an appeal is “standard practice in all criminal cases of this sort.” A notice of appeals must be filed within 30 days, Peterson said, stressing he has received no notice that Taylor has been granted a retrial or a resentencing.

“I absolutely agree with the jury’s verdicts in this case, And I feel justice was done for the victims,” Peterson said.

Barnack was sanctioned by the state Supreme Court for berating Taylor during the sentencing. Barnack, a former Jackson County prosecutor, called Taylor a “piece of s—-” when he declined to comment or apologize at the sentencing. Barnack then continued to excoriate Taylor, telling him he didn’t belong outside a prison cell, and community members would wonder why he wasn’t hanging from a tree.

Barnack’s comments resulted in a sanction from the Supreme Court. The court said his behavior violated the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct which requires a judge to “observe high standards of conduct so that integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary are preserved.” Barnack has since apologized to the court, and has taken steps to prevent a recurrence, the court stated in its censure.

Taylor previously served a short prison term after pleading guilty to lesser charges in the same case, but Barnack said significant new evidence made it possible to reopen the case. Taylor also has a past conviction for sexual abuse in California, prosecutors said in asking for a life sentence.

Taylor’s public defender, Andy Vandergaw, objected to the life sentences, saying the particulars of his client’s California conviction were not fully known to the court. Vandergaw in January requested a lesser sentence for Taylor. He did not return calls for comment Tuesday.

At the sentencing, Peterson described Taylor as “nothing short of a sexual predator.” Saying Taylor was “a danger to any community,” Peterson asked for the life sentences under an Oregon sentencing guideline that allows prosecutors to seek a life sentence if a person is convicted of a third felony sex crime.

The case began in October 2009 when word reached a local school official that Taylor had sexually abused two 12-year-old boys. The boys were not fully cooperative with police in the initial investigation, so Taylor pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse and escaped a long prison sentence. He was sentenced to one year in jail and released in October 2010.

But while cleaning out Taylor’s apartment following his release, his brother-in-law found about 30 videos that included child pornography. The recordings showed Taylor sexually abusing the victims in the previous case, who this time fully cooperated with investigators, leading to the new trial and the life sentences imposed by Barnack. ..Source.. by Sanne Specht

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Appeal success frees offender

9-29-2014 Oregon:

Sex offender. Crime victim. Police informant.

Joseph Ferraro of Eugene falls into the category of “all of the above.”

But he had none of those labels until after he began dating Selena Irene York, the woman who gained notoriety for poisoning a former landlord with an antifreeze-spiked peach smoothie.

Ferraro was arrested in December 2010 and charged with sexually abusing a teenage girl. York, who lived with him at the time, emerged as a key witness in the case.

Ferraro was later found guilty and sentenced to prison, but left jail Wednesday as a free man after resolving the case in a plea bargain sparked by a successful appeal.

Ferraro’s case first took an unusual turn in early 2011, when he found out that York was draining money from his bank accounts while he awaited trial in the Lane County Jail. Left with no cash, Ferraro struggled to find an attorney to represent him.

After learning of the thefts, Ferraro fired off a jailhouse letter to police in Utah, implicating York in the 2008 poisoning of a 76-year-old man. Authorities said Ferraro’s letter gave them the break they needed to charge York with attempted murder.

Two months after sending the letter, Ferraro was convicted of 21 felony sex abuse charges, following a trial at which York testified against him.

Lane County Circuit Judge Lauren Holland subsequently sentenced Ferraro to 10 years in prison. But the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the conviction in July, ruling that Holland had improperly denied Ferraro’s request to postpone his trial in order to give his attorney sufficient time to prepare a defense.

Rather than schedule a second trial, Lane County prosecutors struck a deal with Ferraro that allowed him to plead guilty on Wednesday to a single count of third-degree sodomy. The remaining 20 felony charges were dismissed.

Holland sentenced Ferraro, 40, to three years in prison. But he was released from custody later Wednesday because he’d already spent nearly four years behind bars since the day of his arrest.

“Of course, the state is not happy the case has been reversed,” Assistant District Attorney David Schwartz said in court. “That being said, we’re satisfied with this outcome ... because he has served a significant amount of time (in prison).”

Had the conviction not been overturned on appeal, Ferraro — with earned “good time” credit — would not have been eligible for release until January 2019 at the earliest, a state prison spokeswoman said Wednesday.

According to the Court of Appeals opinion, Ferraro and York were living together in Eugene when police began investigating allegations that he had sexually abused and sodomized a girl who was younger than 16. Ferraro admitted the crimes to investigators, and York — who also knew the victim — became a central witness in the case.

A judge initially denied Ferraro a public defender because it appeared that he could afford to hire his own attorney, according to the opinion.

But Ferraro soon learned that someone had looted his bank accounts and sold his assets using a forged power of attorney document. York was later convicted of being responsible for the thefts.

After finding out a few months before his eventual trial that York had stolen his cash, Ferraro wrote a letter to police in Vernal, Utah, claiming that York had boasted to him about poisoning a man who had given her and her child a place to live. Ferraro’s letter mentioned that York had mixed antifreeze into the victim’s peach smoothie, and had planned to obtain power of attorney in order to take control of the victim’s property and finances.

The victim was hospitalized after being poisoned, but survived. He was initially reluctant to believe that York would intentionally harm him. Without his cooperation, the case stalled.

Police said Ferraro’s letter revived the investigation, and York was charged with attempted murder. She pleaded guilty in 2012 to a reduced charge of aggravated assault, and was sentenced to up to 15 years in prison.

Ferraro, meanwhile, ended up getting court-appointed attorney Gary Deal to represent him in the sex abuse case. But Deal had just 34 days to prepare his defense prior to trial, according to the opinion.

The appeals court ruled that Holland should have given Deal more time to investigate the case. The defense attorney had been working to obtain evidence or find witnesses who might have impeached the credibility of several other witnesses, including York, according to the opinion.

Ferraro’s defense theory involved the idea that York and the victim had a motive to lie, and that he had confessed to sexually abusing the girl as part of a plan to help York, according to the opinion. The Register-Guard generally does not identify crime victims.

Ferraro is now required to register as a sex offender. Deal said Wednesday in court that Ferraro agreed to plead guilty in order to get out of prison, and hopes to now get back on his feet with the help of friends and family. ..Source.. by Jack Moran

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Oregon prison officials didn't violate civil rights of imprisoned sex offender, judge rules

4-15-2014 Oregon:

A judge has ruled against an imprisoned sex offender who sued officials at Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, alleging that they subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment from other inmates.

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon heard testimony in February that extortion and assaults are routine among the 1,700 inmates in the Pendleton prison known as EOCI, and that the most vulnerable of them include sex offenders, the elderly, the disabled, and those who quit prison gangs.

Inmate David George Chandler, serving a long prison term for rape and sodomy in Clackamas County, accused prison officials in a 2008 lawsuit of violating his civil rights by mixing sex offenders with prisoners in the general population. His lawsuit alleged "endemic harassment, menacing, intimidation, coercion, extortion, and assault."

But Chandler's only evidence of physical harm came in 2005, when he complained to a prison staffer that a fellow inmate in an 80-prisoner mental-health dorm grabbed him by the throat, slapped him and called him "rape-o." Chandler required no medical attention.

Simon heard the case in a novel two-day bench trial inside the prison administration building.

He ruled Friday that Chandler failed to prove three key elements of his case: that he faced a substantial risk of serious harm; that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the excessive risks he claimed to face; and that the prison wrongly failed to put him into protective custody.

Simon's 20-page ruling concludes: "Based on the evidence presented at trial, the court finds in favor of the defendants."

The judge's findings are sprinkled with glimpses of the cruel environment inside EOCI, much of it taken from the testimony of three sex offenders who served time there.

All three of the inmates testified that they had faced extortion demands, and two of them paid the money – through their prison commissary accounts – for a time. A third was assaulted for refusing to pay what is known as "rent."

"On one occasion someone attempted to extort this witness," Simon wrote. "When he lived in the general population housing unit, he was told that all sex offenders in that housing unit were paying rent. He refused to pay and was eventually assaulted in his housing unit." ..Source.. by Bryan Denson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender safety in question after deaths at Oregon prison

2-12-2014 Oregon:

Three inmates have died in as many months at Two Rivers Correctional Institution in Umatilla.

The safety of sex offenders at two Eastern Oregon prisons has been put in the spotlight this month after a lawsuit and a series of unexpected deaths.

Early February marked the third unexpected death of an inmate convicted of sex crimes in as many months at Two Rivers Correctional Institution, Umatilla.

At the same time, an inmate at Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, Pendleton, is awaiting a judge’s decision after suing the prison for separation of sex offenders from the rest of the population to protect them from other inmates.

David George Chandler, 41, currently serving time at EOCI after being convicted on rape and sodomy charges in Clackamas County, claims the prison is violating his eighth amendment rights to protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

Court documents detail Chandler’s complaints, including a claim that an inmate once grabbed him by the throat, called him “rape-o” and slapped him. Chandler told the court he and other inmates incarcerated for sex crimes were required to pay “rent” in order to avoid being assaulted and were often put in danger in the dining hall when crowded conditions forced them into contact with gang members who had threatened them. Chandler has been at the prison since early 2005 and is currently housed in the mental health unit.

The two-day trial took place inside the prison on Feb. 6-7, presided over by U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon. The judge has not yet made a ruling.

Meanwhile at Two Rivers Correctional Institution, the Oregon Department of Corrections announced that Damion Banks, 31, died on Feb. 5. No further details were released about the circumstances surrounding his death. Banks had been at TRCI for less than a year on four counts of rape, two counts of sex abuse and one count of child sex in Washington and Clackamas counties.

He had been incarcerated since June 2010 and his earliest release date was March 2015.

Just 10 days before Banks’ death the Department of Corrections announced the unexpected death of inmate Shane Michael Morris, 39. Morris was found unconscious in his cell and staff rendered CPR before he was transported to a local hospital and pronounced dead.

Morris had been in TRCI since Oct. 2009 and incarcerated since July 2005 on three counts of sexual abuse and one count of sodomy in Umatilla County. His earliest release date was February 2019.

And in early December the department announced the death of inmate Larry Hurst, 67, on the evening of Nov. 30. Hurst was alone in his cell when he was found unconscious and a preliminary look at the evidence did not indicate foul play.

Hurst had been at TRCI since Sept. 2011 and incarcerated since April 2010 for delivery of marijuana to a minor and one count of attempted sodomy. He was eligible for release as early as January 2015.

As standard procedure in the case of unexpected death of an inmate, the Oregon State Police Criminal Investigation Division is investigating all three deaths. TRCI public information officer Sherry Iles said the prison could not comment on whether the deaths were related or on any other aspect of the ongoing investigations.

According to Department of Corrections data, on Feb. 1 TRCI had 792 sex offenders in its all-male population of 1,741 inmates, totaling 45 percent of the population.

Some of those inmates are currently serving time for non-sexual crimes but 185 are incarcerated for rape, 214 for sodomy and 291 for sex abuse.

On Feb. 1 EOCI had 782 sex offenders in its all-male population of 1,708 for a total of 46 percent.

Of those inmates, 193 are currently serving time for rape, 196 for sodomy and 307 for sex abuse. ..Source.. by Union Bulletin.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Federal appeals court tosses out Portland judge's sentencing of rapist caught with child porn

9-19-2013 Oregon:

A federal appeals panel has ruled that an Oregon court violated the constitutional rights of a child-pornography defendant when it sentenced him to a long stretch in prison based, in part, on statements he made during sex offender treatment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the 20-year sentence of Richard R. Bahr Jr. and remanded his case to the court of U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown, who handed down his original sentence.

The panel held that Brown's consideration of "compelled statements made by the defendant in the course of sex offender treatment during an earlier period of post-prison supervision violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination."

"Because the district court erroneously considered Bahr's statements made during an earlier period of post-prison supervision, we vacate the sentence and remand," the appellate panel wrote.

Bahr, a former resident of Wasco County, is now serving his time at the United States Penitentiary in Tucson, Ariz. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons lists his release date at April 8, 2028.

The 32-year-old prisoner was convicted of the third-degree rape of a child under Oregon law in 2003 and was required to complete an approved sex offender treatment program after his release from prison, according to Friday's 9th Circuit opinion.

"Bahr was ... required to take a 'full disclosure' polygraph test regarding his sexual history," the appeals panel wrote. "During the test, he revealed that, as a minor, he had sexual contact with six other minors. He also revealed that, as an adult, he had sexual contact with seven different minors."

Bahr also revealed that had at least eight sexual encounters with girls of 15 or 16 when he was between 18 and 20, according to the opinion. "In another portion of the treatment program, Bahr admitted in a workbook that he had sexually abused 18 children."

On Jan. 25, 2011, a federal grand jury in Portland handed up a two-count indictment that accused Bahr of possessing child pornography in the summer of 2010, having previously been convicted of the third-degree rape. Brown sentenced him on June 5, 2012, to 20 years on each count, but allowed the sentences to run concurrently.

It's unclear when Bahr will be resentenced, or whether his sentence will be changed. ..Source.. by Bryan Denson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Portland, Oregon: Sex offender magnet?

2-15-2013 Oregon:

She has only been here five days, but she’s already happy to talk about how much she loves Portland and how pleased she is to have moved here.

She is a registered sex offender, convicted of distributing child pornography eight years ago. Released from an Oklahoma prison two Fridays ago, she moved to Oregon the following Monday.

In Oklahoma, registering with police took many hours. Her registration with Portland police took under an hour. If ___ had stayed in Oklahoma, she would have had to re-register twice a year, and every month or two, she says, police would have come by to check on her. In Portland, once-a-year registration is enough and she is unlikely to meet up with police unless she causes them to come calling.

She is temporarily living in a quiet residential neighborhood in Southeast Portland with a cousin. Eventually, she may move out to her own apartment. It’s easier here. In Oklahoma, she says, as a registered sex offender she would not be allowed to rent within 200 feet of a school or preschool.

She can’t get over how helpful and kind people have been to her in Portland. “Everywhere I have been so far it has been really good people,” she says.

She is unaware that she is part of a trend. According to data compiled by Portland police, Portland has more registered sex offenders per capita than any other similar-sized city in the country. It likely has more than any city in the country, but officers in the police sex offender registry detail have not run the numbers for every city.

In addition, national data shows Oregon either first or second (behind Delaware) for the number of registered sex offender residents per capita.

Nobody knows what that means. Sex offender data is notoriously unscientific. Each state maintains different criteria for determining who must register as a sex offender. In some states, crimes such as public indecency or statutory rape can result in a conviction or plea bargain that includes registration, while other states are more lenient.

So it might be possible that the high percentage of sex offenders locally is more a function of procedures and record-keeping than of increased public danger. Except for one more bit of information Portland police have observed — sex offenders in substantial numbers have been moving into Portland, and few have been moving out.

About 130 new sex offenders are moving to Portland each year from other states, and only about a dozen are moving away, according to Bridget Sickon, Portland police sex offender coordinator. And that is based on the offenders who register when they come here.

Sickon doesn’t know how many others may have moved here without notifying authorities. Thirty or more times a year, Portland police make an arrest and discover they have picked up a registered sex offender who never re-registered upon moving here, she says.

“There is an influx from other states to here,” Sickon says with certainty.

Sickon has only theories to explain the trend. She echoes ___ in saying that Oregon isn’t as tough on sex offenders as many other states. Offenders who fail to register here are less likely to suffer severe consequences, she says.

More tolerant

Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney Caroline Wong says statutory rape laws might be partially responsible for Portland’s disproportionate number of sex offenders. In Washington state, for instance, the age of consent is 16, while it is 18 in Oregon. So it’s legal for a 22-year-old man to have consensual sex with a 16-year-old in Washington, but it’s sex abuse here.

On the other hand, many registered sex offenders are homeless, and in Washington state homeless sex offenders are required to report their whereabouts to police every week, not once a year as in Oregon.

The hardship of being a registered sex offender sends most sex criminals into a downward economic spiral, experts say. Most jobs and apartments are off limits. Even publicly subsidized Section Eight housing is unavailable. In Portland, about 275 of 3,992 registered sex offenders — seven percent — are homeless. Portland has long been known as a city that attracts homeless people because of its generous social services, so that is likely increasing the local sex offender count.

“They’re getting away from all those types of things and coming to a place that’s much more tolerant of people,” Sickon says.

By 7 a.m. on a recent Wednesday, the eight chairs in the waiting room on the 13th floor of Portland police’s Central Precinct are filling up with a mix of men and one woman. All are here to register as sex offenders, either because they have recently left prison or changed addresses. Some look like they might be clients at those Old Town social service agencies, but others are well-dressed and here early because they have jobs to get to. Registration lasts until 3 p.m., but for those who get in early the wait can be less than 30 minutes.

In a way, everyone in the small waiting room is a lifer, and their conversation reflects the tremendous burden of the sex offender label. One man, convicted of rape nearly 30 years ago, says he was a pimp but not a rapist, as one of his prostitutes claimed. He’s not a danger to strangers on the street, he insists. Still, pimping is a sex offense.

Another says his sex crime conviction involving his wife wouldn’t require him to register as a sex offender in his home state of Virginia, as it does in Oregon. He’s here, he says, because his ex-wife moved here knowing that, and he wants to be close to his child.

He says Portland’s reputation for tolerance might be attracting sex offenders. Why, he asks, are some public indecency convictions enough to label someone here a sex offender for life, while thousands of riders in the annual Naked Bike Ride are tolerated with civic pride? Portland sends mixed and confusing messages about its attitudes toward sex, he says. (Technically, only second convictions for public indecency can get ...continued... by Peter Korn

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Exposure of files on unsecured wireless no excuse to search, judge rules

1-23-2013 Oregon:

Warrantless search of file violated defendant's Fourth Amendment right, federal judge says in child porn case

An individual who inadvertently exposes the contents of his computer over an unsecured wireless network still has a reasonable expectation of privacy against a search of those contents by the police, a federal judge in Oregon ruled last week.

The ruling involves John Henry Ahrndt, a previously convicted sex offender who was sentenced to 120 months in prison for possession of child pornography on his computer.

Ahrndt had argued that some of the evidence that was used against him in court had been gathered illegally. He had filed an appeal asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in Portland to suppress the evidence on the grounds that his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search had been violated.

Oregon District Court Judge Garr King initially denied Ahrndt's motion to suppress but picked up the case again last year after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed King's first ruling.

In a 34-page ruling last week, King granted Ahrndt's renewed motion to suppress the evidence gathered by police from his hard drive and also ordered his subsequent testimony to them to be suppressed as well.

Ahrndt's case goes back to 2007 when one of his neighbors, a woman referred to only as "JH" in court documents, connected to the Internet using her own wireless network. When JH's network temporarily malfunctioned, her computer automatically connected to Ahrndt's unsecured wireless network.

When JH subsequently opened her iTunes software to listen to music, she noticed that another user library called "Dads LimeWire Tunes" from Ahrndt's computer, was also available for sharing, court documents said.

When JH clicked on the folder, she immediately noticed that it contained a lot of files with names suggesting explicit child pornography. She informed the county sheriff's department, which sent a deputy to take a look at her discovery.

JH showed the deputy a playlist of about 25 picture and video files with pornographic titles that she had found on the folder. After consulting with his supervisor, the deputy then asked JH to open one of the files and discovered that it did indeed contain an image depicting child pornography.

Based on that discovery, law enforcement agents obtained a search warrant to search Ahrndt's home. They seized a computer, a wireless router, several hard disks and other storage media from Ahrndt's home. A forensic investigation of the seized equipment turned up about 20 images depicting child pornography.

Ahrndt claimed that the search warrant that was used to gather the evidence against him had only been issued based on the deputy's illegal search of his computer files in the first place. He argued that if the deputy had not illegally opened the file on his computer that was available over the unsecured wireless network, there would have been no probable cause to issue the subsequent search warrant.

In analyzing the case, Judge King noted that there was nothing to show that Ahrndt was using or had intended to use iTunes or other file-sharing software to share the files in question with others. "The invasive action at review here is a remote search of computer data transmitted on an unsecured wireless network," he noted.

King conceded that the deputy did not violate Ahrndt's Fourth Amendment protections by merely looking at the list of files on his computer because the list had had already been pulled up by JH.

However, the deputy's subsequent action in asking JH to open one of the files did violate reasonable expectations of privacy, particularly since Ahrndt had not intended for the contents of his PC to be shared.

King rejected the government's argument that the highly suggestive file names alone were enough reason for probable cause. In his ruling, the judge said it was unlikely the government could have obtained a search warrant based purely on the deputy's recollection of the file names on Ahrndt's collection. In fact, if the deputy had not seen the image, there would have been no probable cause to ask for a search warrant against Ahrndt, he said.

"The mere act of accessing a network does not in itself extinguish privacy expectations, nor does the fact that others may have occasional access to the computer," the judge said, quoting from a previous case involving a similar issue.

"Although Ahrndt's failure to secure his network suggests a lesser subjective expectation of privacy, I could not say he lost all expectation of privacy in the contents of files on his personal computer," King wrote. ..Source.. by Jaikumar Vijayan

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

On the Money Trail With Oregon's Latest Sex Offender Bill

5-24-2011 Oregon:

This story begs the question: why would the state suddenly seek to broaden the list by including all sex offenders, rather than those who are predatory?

(SALEM, Ore.) - The sponsor of new proposed legislation that would require all sex offenders to become part of a government registry, State Representative Kim Thatcher (R) Keizer, recently brought forth a significant bill to increase state government transparency.

Logically, she would understand our quest to follow the money trail behind SB 67 and HR 2765; proposals which would disrupt the lives of any person ever convicted of a sex offense, regardless of how minor, by forcing their names onto yet another taxpayer funded public computer registry.

First, I must say that I have yet to hear of a child surviving a sexual molestation because their parents spotted a would-be convicted sex offender in a mandated state computer registry. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, or that we would even necessarily know, what I am saying however that we are a bit low on success stories stemming from Oregon's mandatory sex offender registry.

We do however know many stories of police and state authorities not fully investigating claims of sex abuse; we know the state Dept of Human Services will place children with known sex offenders; I don't see what the government can gain in terms of public safety by helping one or two people in the 'background investigation' business spike their incomes.

This story begs the question: why would the state suddenly seek to broaden the list by including all sex offenders, rather than those who are predatory?

I don't personally care if my neighbor got drunk and went streaking during a college party, do you? I don't care about minor adjudicated offenses being resurrected for the sake of further invading privacy. I don't care if Joey screwed Sally and she was 17 and he was 19, I don't think very many people care. However I know there are tens of thousands of sex offender families who would appreciate their names not being drug through the mud with legislation that sounds good at face value, but in fact faces several obstacles, including privacy issues from HUD (Housing and Urban Development)

Again, back to that money trail with Rep. Thatcher. Drop in the toll, here we go.

Vroooom

"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the money trail; the super information highway, where you are about to meet Dan Meister...

Rep Thatcher said she sponsored HB 2765 on behalf of Daniel Meister. Mr. Meister testified before the Senate Judiciary in support of SB 67. This is noteworthy, because Meister runs a private business called Pacific Screening, Inc., providing--for a membership fee-- background checks/screenings for various organizations (apartment communities and public housing the biggies but also churches, businesses large and small, non-profits, schools, and private citizens.)

It would appear that Mr. Meister is pushing this legislation in the interest of private profit. (Pacific Screening employees 5-9 people and posts an annual revenue of $500k-$1 million.)

In support of Senate Bill 67 he wrote (unedited):

"It is critical that the Oregon State Police be allowed the release the unrestricted names of sex offenders registered in Oregon.

"Organizations such as apartment communities, public housing agencies, churches, businesses large and small, non-profit groups, schools and private citizens rely on the Oregon State Police information.

"They rely on this information to be correct, up to date and complete. Organizations are basing rental decisions, employment decisions and volunteer decisions on this information... unfortunately, this information is not complete. The current Oregon Sex Offender Web sites does not contain the a majority of sex offenders currently living in the state."

- Daniel Meister, Pacific Screening Inc. 'Quality Applicant Research Services'

I would deem 'critical' the pending result of any such legislation. I would also note that there is a good reason that people aren't listed; because they served their time, made restitution, and moved on. Dragging skeletons out of closets is bad business. There are things called 'rights' that perhaps are being overlooked.

I can only imagine how difficult life must be for those who become a 'sex offender' and then manage to regain control of their lives; to assume their place in society with jobs and responsibilities, only to suddenly be re-exposed for a crime they have already paid their dues for, in a quirky double jeopardy framework, under Thatcher and Meister's sex background microscope law.

People who offend children are already on the list, and they don't come off. This is needless big government control at its finest, cleverly using political law to raise the incomes of a limited few while stripping and further eroding the rights of Oregonians.

I have a close friend who is a sex offender because he and his fiance were petting too heavily in a parked car at Bush Park in Salem. They have been married for years, have children, but that event is still on his record, and this would force my friend into a bizarre place that would utterly misrepresent him.

It's also worth noting that Meister's testimonial letter ends with broad, unsubstantiated claims and resorts to fear tactics in order to justify this legislation as being of emergency interest to the state:

In my biggest customer group, the apartment communities, are missing sex offenders every day. Not every sex offender we screen has a county criminal record (OJIN), but they are listed as a sex offender with the state. We just can not get the information. The law needs to change. If offenders are left off the sex offender list, we can not do a complete criminal search. At this time, the current Oregon Sex Offender Web sites does not contain the majority of sex offenders currently living in the state.

- Daniel Meister, 'Pacific Screening Inc. Quality Applicant Research Services'

I don't envy Thatcher or others in her shoes, nor do I doubt that she has the better interests of voters at heart. I really liked her transparency bill. Oregon's legislators carry a heavy load and they are tasked with mountainous responsibility. Knowing that to be the case, it is easy to understand how ideas presented to legislators that are well greased and presented with passion, are easy to be tricked by. To me the victim list expands when these things happen to include the legislators themselves. People like Thatcher know that it is important for all Oregonians to have a roof over their heads, and this bill would lead to past offenders losing jobs and housing and being tossed onto the streets. That will raise the danger level, not lower it.

Chasing Sex Offenders

I have some time with this subject, having spent the past 23 years in news. Before that, when I was a U.S. Marine on guard (barracks) duty, I caught a man, another Marine, who had allegedly tried to rape a young civilian woman visiting the base on a Saturday night. I pulled the guy out of a car and pinned him down in a phone booth as I called the MP's. I'm as serious as anyone about protecting the virtue of my fellow citizens.

Still, I have learned a great deal over the years and it isn't all about catching bad guys, however vividly those moments stand out.

My most memorable event was chasing the man known as 'Polk County's Most Notorious Sex Offender' Larry Lee Edwards, down the street as a camera man with KATU Channel-2 News with my 30+ pound TV camera and actually catching him, and making him talk. I was really proud of myself, but my ultimate lesson about Edwards, and all sex offenders, is that they are people too, regardless of how they may disgust us.

I met his father and interviewed him at the time, and the senior Mr. Edwards told me about how his son was in the Navy; how he had traveled the world and accomplished a great deal, but then suffered a long-term relationship break up that ruined him emotionally, and ultimately he responded by raping two young boys in the Dallas area.

When I chased Edwards down the street that day, he had just been released from 14 years in prison, and he had no place to live, so he was staying in an abandoned field in Dallas. This to me is the reality of further juxtaposing human beings based on their individual records. Guys like Larry Lee Edwards are potentially dangerous, their crimes were hugely significant, and they will always easily and quickly be found on a registry. But that guy who streaked down the road at a drunken frat party is who this legislation would float to the front and there is no need for this when taxpayer revenues are already strained and the authorities themselves are failing in their roles.

Instead let's clean up shop, hold cops and social workers accountable, and not waste taxpayer funds wrecking the lives of those who have paid their dues, done their time.

If this measure in enacted it would place approx 18,000 people on the registry. It passed the Senate 30-0 and has moved to the House.

One person who contacted Salem-News.com but preferred to not use their name, made another strong point, that is the way a reckless law like this would in fact endanger the families of sex offenders who are leading legal productive lives. These people are as innocent as anyone and equally significant.

The proposed Senate bill moved quickly at first but the legislation has slowed, as legislators agreed to move it to a work session, the next work session is set for tomorrow, Tuesday, 24 May 2011, at the capital, 1:00 p.m. in Room 343. ..Source.. by Tim King: Salem-News.com Editor and Writer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Former United States Probation Officer Convicted

4-29-2011 Oregon:

Mark J. Walker Pleads Guilty to Violating the Civil Rights of Five Female Offenders Under His Supervision

Mark John Walker, 52, of Eugene, Oregon, pleaded guilty today before Chief United States District Judge Ralph R. Beistline, who is a visiting judge from Alaska. Walker admitted to violating the victims' Constitutional rights to bodily integrity while acting under color of law, by engaging in sexual contact or aggravated sexual abuse with female offenders who were under his direct supervision as a federal probation officer from 2006 to 2009. Sentencing is scheduled for July 18, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. before Chief Judge Beistline.

As a United States Probation Officer, Mark Walker supervised offenders who were serving probation or supervised release terms imposed by a federal judge, including offenders with vulnerable backgrounds involving sexual abuse, mental illness and drug addiction. Walker had the power to recommend that offenders who violated their conditions of probation or supervised release be incarcerated or otherwise sanctioned. Walker was bound by the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, and was responsible for complying with the United States Constitution, as well as all federal, state and local laws.

While exercising his authority as a probation officer, Walker willfully violated the victims' civil rights by kissing them or touching their breasts, buttocks and inner thighs without their consent and in order to gratify his own sexual desires. With one victim, Walker pulled her pants down and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him when he visited her home as part of his official duties. At the time, he was wearing his badge and carrying his government-issued firearm, and the victim was not able to escape. The victims never reported the violations to authorities because they were afraid that no one would believe them and that Walker, as their probation officer, had the power to have them incarcerated or otherwise punished.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, the parties have agreed to recommend that Walker be sentenced to ten years in prison, followed by five years of supervised release where he will be under the supervision of a U.S. Probation Officer. The defendant will also have to register as a sex offender under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, and keep the registration current in any state in which he resides, is employed or is a student. Chief Judge Beistline has the authority to accept or reject the joint sentencing recommendation. ..For the rest of this story.. by Department of Justice Press Release

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...