After five instances of potential prosecutorial misconduct the Appeals Court demands James Simmons have a new trial.
Pittsburg, KS - A case that began with an incident in 2006 and has already seen a trial and a conviction will have to be retried after the Kansas Supreme Court found prosecutorial misconduct.
The Crawford County prosecutor charged James M. Simmons with three counts of rape,one count of aggravated criminal sodomy, one count of misdemeanor theft, and one count of aggravated kidnapping. A Crawford County jury found James M. Simmons guilty of two of the three counts of rape, as well as the count of misdemeanor theft. He was acquitted of the other charges.
Simmons and his attorney, Shawn E. Minihan, of the Kansas Appellate Defender Office, identified five potential cases of prosecutorial misconduct and several other issues in the case, and asked the Court of Appeals for an opinion on the case, which affirmed the original ruling. The Kansas Supreme Court was asked for an opinion, and it investigated the case on the claims of misconduct on the part of the prosecutor. The state included briefs from then-county attorney John Gutierrez, then-assistant county attorney Brian Duncan, and then-Kansas Attorney General Steve Six, but was argued by deputy county attorney Reina Probert.
In order to find prosecutorial misconduct, the state Supreme Court applies a two-prong test. The comments by the prosecutor must be "outside the wide latitude allowed in discussing the evidence" and "constitute plain error," meaning the statement prejudiced the jury and prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial.
The first instance of prosecutorial misconduct involved the prosecutor asking a series of questions during jury selection related to Stockholm Syndrome, a psychological phenomenon that describes when hostages develop empathy for their captors. The issue involved the prosecutor asking that potential jurors "view that evidence in light of the Stockholm Syndrome..." Furthermore, the prosecutor brought up several relatively famous examples of the syndrome.
The Supreme Court found this went further than probing for potential bias, and eventually did not pertain to any evidence presented at trial. It also warned about the inferences that could have been made by the line of questioning. The court also found that Stockholm Syndrome is a point of contention in the world of psychology, and should not be used as a real diagnosis or a lens through which to view evidence.
The second instance of prosecutorial misconduct was a comment by the prosecutor during closing arguments. The judge in the original case, Donald Noland, immediately called for the comment to be thrown out and for jury members to disregard the comment. The sides both agreed that the comment constituted misconduct but the state argued it was harmless, while the defense argued it interfered with a right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court found that the issue was misconduct, and opted to mull the two instances together in determining Simmons' right to a fair trial.
Link:
http://www.morningsun.net/newsnow/x2028115404/Appeals-court-demands-new-rape-trial