Boston Criminal Attorney Blog

A few years ago, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law prohibiting defendants convicted of certain Massachusetts sex offenses from being placed as residents in nursing homes. Ostensibly, the law applied only to Level 3 sex offenders, which are considered the most likely to reoffend, according to the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board (“SORB.”) The goal, obviously, was to protect a vulnerable population from convicted sex offenders.

On its face, it sounds like good public policy. But, as is usually the case, something happened on the way to an otherwise good idea. In this case, that something was a Superior Court judge's ruling that a man (known only as “John Doe” in court pleadings,) who had been previously convicted of a sex offense and classified by SORB as a Level 3 offender, was no longer a sexually dangerous person. Subsequent to that ruling, “Doe” needed to be admitted to a nursing home. After Boston Police learned that this man had been placed into a certain nursing home, they told him he had to leave the facility, which he did. “Doe’s” lawyer later claimed in court that the law was unconstitutional because it was overreaching, and because it provided no opportunity for Doe to prove that he was no longer a risk to other residents and staff in the facility.

In a unanimous (7-0) ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) agreed, holding that the law prohibiting Level 3 sex offenders from placement in Massachusetts nursing homes violates the state’s Declaration of Rights, in that it turns a person’s right to choose where to live, into in effect a crime. The opinion was written by Associate Justice Fernande R.V. Duffly, one of the newest additions to the court under Gov. Deval Patrick. She wrote, “Those who have been released from incarceration … are free to live where they choose and to move freely within and without the Commonwealth.“ A restriction on the right to choose where one lives is a further imposition on the liberty interests protected by our state constitution.’’

Some would say this is a bad ruling (generally, conservatives); some would say it is a good one (generally, liberals.) Regardless of the view, one thing I can guarantee you, as a Dedham/Boston Massachusetts sex offense lawyer, is that it’s going to create a lot of confusion surrounding this law, and over the subject of Massachusetts nursing home abuse. Why? Because already, all the principal legal parties are claiming that the ruling says different things:

1) Doe’s individual attorney, trying to quell concern on the part of nursing home owners and relatives of nursing home residents, claims that the ruling applies only to Doe, and no one else.

2) In contrast, an attorney for the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS,) the state agency which provides legal counsel to indigent defendants, claims the opposite: That the ruling will apply to an entire class of previously-convicted sex offenders who are similarly situated to Doe.

3) Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose office unsuccessfully represented the state in arguing that the sex offender ban was lawful, tried to blunt the impact of the ruling, saying in a released statement, “We believe the current law banning Level 3 sex offenders from nursing homes can remain an important tool for protecting the homes’ residents, visiting children and other members of the public.’’ Her office has stated that because the court said it was applying its rationale to John Doe’s case only, the state may continue to “legitimately prevent offenders who are shown to present a risk of harm to their elderly neighbors from living with this vulnerable population.’’ In my view as a Dedham Massachusetts nursing home abuse lawyer, I’m not so sure about that.

4) Nursing home owners and operators don’t know what to make of the decision. They don’t yet know if they should refuse admission of any previously-convicted Level 3 sex offender, or allow them in. While many nursing home directors say existing regulations provide them wide latitude in their admissions decisions, due to their responsibility for the safety of their vulnerable residents, I can guarantee you that the attorneys advising nursing home operators also don’t yet know exactly what to advise their clients. Worse, it isn’t just the residents of nursing homes who could be vulnerable to an active sex offender: Many such facilities employ high school volunteers, who could easily be at risk from a sex offender who was previously convicted or preying on children or teens.

5) The Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which regulates nursing homes, don’t themselves yet know what the decision really means in practice. A spokesperson for the agency has said the agency’s attorney was still reviewing the court’s decision to determine how it might impact existing regulations.

If that isn’t enough, what makes matters even more confusing, is that the SJC previously held that it was constitutionally permissible for Level 3 sex offenders to lose protections other Massachusetts residents enjoy, such as privacy rights, after being classified as a Level 3 offender. Now it issues this decision, importantly, without clarification. It needs to clarify its ruling, and soon.

A lot of people ask me why it’s so crucially important that all criminal defendants be presumed innocent until proven guilty, especially when the evidence against the defendant at the time of the arrest and trial and trial seems so convincing. Usually, I answer that question with “What if you were the person accused? Would you think it right that you be presumed guilty?”

While this kind of hypothetical question usually silences the skeptic, it is real-life stories of people wrongfully convicted of crimes that they did not commit, which always brings home the point best. Exhibit “A” on this subject today is Anthony Powell, a man who spent 12 years of his life in prison for a Massachusetts rape that he did not commit. Powell was arrested in 1991 and charged with raping an 18 year-old woman in the Roxbury section of Boston. Based largely on the testimony of the victim, who identified Powell in court as her assailant, Powell was convicted and sentenced to twenty years in state prison. After serving 12 years for a crime he did not commit, Powell was released in 2004 after DNA evidence established that he could not have been the rapist. During those 12 years in prison, Powell never wavered in his claims that he was innocent, though who’s going to believe a convicted rapist, right?

Well, ironically enough, it was the prosecutor’s office that convicted Powell, the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, who eventually listened. In the 2-3 months after the March 1991 rape that Powell had been arrested and convicted on, two additional rapes and sexual assaults had occurred in nearby neighborhoods in Boston, but the assailant in those cases was never found. Years later, a man by the name of Jerry Dixon was convicted of several Massachusetts motor vehicle offenses, and was sentenced to nine months in jail for those offenses. Prior to Dixon’s release, corrections officials learned that he was required to retroactively submit a DNA sample stemming from of an unrelated armed robbery offense which also occurred in 1991. (Interestingly, the current Suffolk County District Attorney, Daniel F. Conley, prosecuted that case against Dixon in 1991, when Conley was still an Assistant District Attorney.) Dixon’s DNA sample was entered into the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System, or CODIS, and his DNA profile matched the DNA profiles that had been stored from the two 1991 unsolved rape cases that had followed the rape that Powell was convicted for.

Powell was released in 2004, and thereafter filed a federal civil rights suit against the state for damages stemming from his wrongful conviction. That civil case against the state was settled, and its terms remain confidential. As I said, ironically enough, one of the players in this drama who came out looking the “best” (using that term loosely,) was Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, whose office agreed to review Powell’s case in light of newly-discovered DNA evidence. Although Conley was not the elected Suffolk County District Attorney when Powell was prosecuted in 1991, Conley publicly apologized to Powell last week, on behalf of a system that Conley said had failed Powell. “Nothing can return those years to him,’’ said Conley. “No amount of compensation that he may have received is going to make this right.’’ I like Conley. As a Boston & Dedham Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer, I think he demonstrates a high degree of professional ethics and personal responsibility as a prosecutor.

Even more ironically, Powell’s strongest emotions are still felt toward the judge who presided over his trial, Robert Mulligan. Mulligan is now the Chief Judge for Administration and Management for the Massachusetts Trial Court Department. Powell reportedly feels that judge Mulligan was completely hostile towards him and his defense lawyer during the 1992 trial. I do not know if that claim is true, as I did not witness and was not privy to that case. However, Powell’s feelings toward the judge add even more irony to this case, because it is the judge in any trial who is supposed to remain perfectly neutral, not the prosecutor, and Powell’s most negative feelings remain towards the judge in his case, not his own prosecutor.

DAN evidence has proven time and again that many criminal defendants who professed their innocence were telling the truth. Care to know how it was that Anthony Powell was arrested in March 1991? He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and looked somewhat like the real rapist, Jerry Dixon. After raping the victim, Dixon told the victim to come to a nearby skating rink the next night with $100 in cash (why Dixon would think she would do this, I don’t know.) The victim alerted Boston Police who staked out the rink the next night. At the appointed time, Anthony Powell just happened to be walking in the area, and the victim identified him as her assailant. She said she was 100% sure, and the police and prosecutorial ball just kept rolling after that. Imagine that: A completely innocent man, out for a walk – and the next thing he knows, he’s arrested, charged, and convicted of raping someone he never even met. He is sentenced to twenty years in state prison. Kind of make one think of “The Shawshank Redemption”, doesn’t it? Except this wasn’t a movie; it was all too real.

Last week, Anthony Powell stood in a Boston courtroom and watched while the real rapist, Jerry Dixon, admitted to the rape that Powell was convicted of, as well as other Massachusetts rape and sexual assault offenses. So the next time someone’s speaking on the subject of crime and punishment, and yells out “Lock ‘em up and throw away the key,” remind him or her that it could be he or she who is behind that locked door someday.

The Massachusetts Legislature has enacted a number of laws relating to sexual abuse and sexual molestation against underage victims. There are several Massachusetts rape and sexual assault laws, but exactly what does “statutory rape” mean? Most people think they know the correct answer (“Sex with an underage girl”), while the truth is, most people are wrong about that. They’re wrong, because most people don’t know what: A) The word “sex” means legally; B) What “underage” means in Massachusetts; and C) The fact that an alleged victim is not limited to being a girl.

First, though, most people don’t know what “statutory” means. It refers to the fact that the prohibited act is defined by the Legislature, not the courts. Laws can come from a variety of different sources, including the courts. These types of laws are called “decisional law” or common law. “Statutory” means that the law came from an act of the Legislature, who defined what “rape” in this instance is. The relevant statute in Massachusetts is M.G.L. Ch. 265, Sec. 23-23B, which defines statutory rape as follows:

“Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under 16 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction. A prosecution commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file.”

Note four important elements: 1) That the use of force is not described or required, nor any lack of consent. In other words, the alleged victim could theoretically have fully consented to the act, and the crime still occurs; 2) The age of the defendant is not described, nor gender. This means that the alleged defendant could have been the same age as the alleged victim, older, or even younger, and as long as the prohibited act occurred, it is a crime. Also, the alleged defendant could have been the same sex as the alleged victim and a crime still would have occurred; 3) The gender of the alleged victim is not limited to being female. Boys can also be alleged victims of Massachusetts statutory rape, whether the defendant is man or a woman; 4) The prohibited act is with a “child”, defined as being “under the age of 16.” Note the final sentence of the statute: “A prosecution commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file.” This denotes the seriousness that the Legislature attaches to this offense, and it means that the charge is not subject to negotiation down to a “CWOF”. In defending these cases, these charges must be dropped, admitted to, or the case tried to a verdict (before either a judge or jury.) Hence, these are the combination of mistakes that most people make when they hear the words “statutory rape.”

While statutory rape is typically the charge that is brought forward when the sex with the alleged victim was or appears to have been consensual and when the alleged victim is under the age of 16, there are, of course, other laws addressing sex with a “minor” – a person under the age of 18. M.G.L. Ch. 272, Sec. 4 defines this crime: “Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.” This statute criminalizes sexual intercourse with anyone under the age of 18, and excepting the age difference, is similar to the statutory rape offense, in that it does not mention force or threats or force (hence it criminalizes the act even if consent was present.) Actually, there is another legal vehicle available to the Commonwealth to prosecute these kinds of cases which in my view as a Dedham Massachusetts sex offense lawyer is more appropriate, and that is known as “Contributing to the delinquency of a minor”, proscribed by M.G.L. Chapter 119, Sec. 63. This statute provides for lesser penalties, and removes the stigma of the charge being categorized as a sex offense. The importance of this is that any conviction or guilty plea involving a sex offense will trigger sex offender registration and reporting requirements.

So as you can see, even high school dating relationships can bring drastic legal consequences. Translation: Parents, educate your kids under the age of 18 regarding not only the science and health issues regarding sexual activity, but the potential legal consequences as well.

Our law firm is very experienced when it comes to defending not only statutory rape charges, but all forms of Massachusetts rape and sexual assault charges. If you or someone you know is potentially facing these kinds of legal charges, contact us for a free legal consultation. We can guide you to the best legal outcome possible. Don’t take chances with a firm that handles these types of cases only “now and again”. Your future or the future of the person you care about is too important to risk.

It seems that accusations of Massachusetts rape & sexual abuse can even reach into police departments.

Recently, an officer in the Lowell Police Department was charged with raping two prostitutes, and soliciting sex from other prostitutes, while on duty as a police officer. According to the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office, Aravanh Lakmany was indicted by a Middlesex County grand jury on Thursday, June 23 2011. The indictment alleges that Lakmany, working the overnight shift for as a Lowell police officer, solicited several prostitutes since early 2009. Prosecutors allege that Lakmany would order the women to get into the back seat of his cruiser, and sometimes his personal car, and would drive the women to a secluded area where he would engage in sex with them. The District Attorney has alleged that Lakmany traded sex for his promise not to arrest the women for prostitution. As a Boston/Dedham Massachusetts sex offenses lawyer, I can assure you that sex offenses can often be highly complicated cases. Many are not anywhere near as “clear-cut” as they might seem. This defendant, like all criminal defendants, should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Also, I should point out: This indictment should not taint the image of the average police officer. The vast majority of police officers whom I know are honest, hard-working people. But this indictment does make clear: Anyone can be accused of rape.

In my last post on this subject, I discussed the irresponsibility of some organizations and media outlets, in taking extreme license in promoting legally invalid definitions of rape. In that post, I had mentioned views advocated by some colleges and universities.

When it comes to the university and academic community, consider the views of no less august an academic institution than Harvard University. In 1992, Harvard assembled a University Date Rape Task Force to study this problem and make recommendations for legislative changes in this area of Massachusetts sexual assault law. Shockingly, that report defined the majority of consensual sex between a couple as "rape" by the male, and proposed the most far-reaching restrictions of consensual sex imposed by any secular university in America. How? By requiring that almost all sex acts between a couple meet the requirements of a veritable contract negotiation, involving “expressed consent” and/or “reasoned consent” in advance of any sexual contact whatsoever. Apparently, in reaching these recommendations, one can only surmise that most of these task force members never had sex themselves.

Consent to sex rarely if ever involves negotiations and “expressed consent.” It is almost always the product of just the opposite: An escalating series of amorous exchanges which produce decreased reason and increased passion. More so, people in sexual relationships learn their partners' preferences, enabling them to interpret what their partners want, without expressed discussions. Harvard University’s task force wanted to deem any sexual act engaged in by a couple as "rape" unless it occurred following an openly articulated, explicitly communicated "yes" by the woman (note: the report never even mentioned the possibility that a man could be the victim of a same-sex rape.) This Harvard-produced report ignored the fact that most couples often have sex without explicitly discussing it beforehand. It’s called spontaneity, the last time I looked. According to the Harvard report, rape encompassed "Any act of sexual intercourse which occurs without the expressed consent of the complainant."

Thankfully, several of those recommendations were never fully implemented at Harvard, and that all occurred 18 years ago. So why is it relevant now? Because it created a wave of hysteria about what “rape” legally is and isn’t; it dovetailed on the appearance of GHB and other date rape drugs; and this report and others has fed radical feminist agenda to expand the legal definition of this crime, to include events and actions that would never before have been considered “rape”. Think not? Consider the emergence of a new term of art in this area of law – this one now called “Gray Rape.” This 'creative' term has been developed to describe any act of sex occurring between two people (heterosexual or homosexual) which:

• Does not involve any violence, or the threat of any violence
• Does not involve any coercion or pressure
• Does not involve the covert use of any intoxicating or sedating drugs or chemical substances

but which involves some element of second-guessing or regrets, “the morning after”, or following the sex that transpired. Thus, if someone engaged in sex and did not object, but later had “second thoughts” about whether he or she really should have had sex (for any reason at all - religious, cultural or otherwise,) the other partner might be charged with being a rapist.

Do not make the mistake of thinking this doesn't happen, or that if it does, it happens rarely. Just recently, I defended a college student accused of "date rape." An investigation of the facts showed that the young man accused was no more guilty of rape than you or I. The young woman involved had learned that the accused (her boyfriend,) had cheated on her with another woman, and she wanted revenge. So after they had sex at a dorm party, she accused him of spiking her drink with another drug that she had already ingested herself. These stories are not rare. They happen all the time. Due to my efforts as his defense attorney, this young man was acquitted. Another person might not be so lucky.

Media efforts to publicize these inapplicable “definitions” of rape, is what leads many people to file rape and/or sexual assault charges against innocent defendants in Massachusetts. Rape laws were developed to punish horrifying acts of violence and physical violation, and indeed they should. Date rape laws were later passed to deal with this legitimate problem, also. But women’s magazines who trumpet sex on every cover (are you listening, Cosmopolitan?) would do more justice in this area by concentrating on what rape really is, and what it isn’t, instead of feeding baseless chatter just to sell their magazines.

In the meantime, while each allegation of rape should be taken seriously, the underlying facts should be taken equally seriously. An entire life can be ruined with the pointing of one dishonest or misinformed finger.

Date Rape, also referred to as “Acquaintance Rape” can be a serious problem, and is real.

Notwithstanding that the media have been reporting date rape as a new phenomenon, primarily due to the covert use of an anesthetic drug, the practical reality is that drugs (most frequently alcohol,) have been involved in social situations culminating in Massachusetts sexual assaults since Prohibition ended, and even previous to that. The use or ingestion of chemical substances (primarily alcohol) during social or dating encounters is almost universal, and as a drug alcohol is notorious for lowering inhibitions, especially sexual inhibitions. The most recent difference – and a major one – surrounding date rape, involves the the covert, or secretive, introduction of a sedating drug into someone else’s (the victim's) drink. Rohypnol and Gamma hydroxybutyrate -- GHB -- are two of the most common substances used in drug-facilitated sexual assaults. Rohypnol is known on the street as "roofies."

The Massachusetts Legislature has proscribed this activity on a statutory level, in M.G.L. Chapter 272: Section 3: “Whoever applies, administers to or causes to be taken by a person any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower such person so as to thereby enable any person to have sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with such person shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years not less than ten years.” In a legally “pure” date rape scenario, after unwittingly ingesting the drug, the victim is rendered unconscious or so sedated that he/she cannot either formulate or communicate his/her consent or lack of it.

It is that absence of consent which can create the legal basis for a charge of rape. If one cannot mentally formulate the requisite consent to engage in some type of sex, then any sexual acts that follow are by legal definition non-consensual. The best way to think of this is to consider someone who is developmentally disabled (intellectually or emotionally.) Such a person lacks what is known as the “legal capacity” to consent to sexual conduct. (A similar, though not quite entirely analogous legal concept, is present is cases of statutory rape, where the law “vitiates” consent on the part of the underage party, because the state deems anyone under a certain age to lack the capacity to consent to sex at that age.) However, in cases of date rape, it is not just the absence of consent that forms the basis of the charge. It is the concomitant, covert introduction by the alleged perpetrator of a sedative drug or substance that the victim was unaware of – thus indicating the perpetrator’s intent to deprive the victim of consent.

Thus, when a “true” version of date rape occurs, it is justifiably a serious crime, aside from being morally objectionable. And when this truly occurs, criminal prosecutions are appropriate –just as a legal defense is appropriate. The problem with these cases, arises not out of the “clear-cut” situations, but out of the more nebulous areas involving sexual conduct between two people. And by the way, this problem is not an entirely heterosexual problem – it occurs quite commonly between gay men, and gay women. This area of law is not limited to just the “he said-she said.”

The more difficult problems arise when an allegation of “date rape” is made against someone, without the covert use or introduction of any sedating drugs such as GHB or “roofies,” and without the presence of violence or threats of violence. As a Massachusetts rape defense lawyer, I can assure you that these kinds of accusations are becoming more and more common – chiefly due to legally unfounded and exaggerated definitions of “date rape” that have been advanced by feminist groups and several politically-correct and legally-nervous colleges and universities. (Colleges and universities are notoriously fearful of being sued for civil liability – specifically negligence and premises liability - following an allegation of on-campus rape.) These interest groups and academic organizations, in my view, have taken the existence of a clearly objectionable and repugnant idea (covertly drugging or sedating someone, to allow a perpetrator to engage in non-consensual sex,) and have used that repugnant practice as a justification to try and promote “new” and expanded definitions of rape, magnifying traditional legal definitions to encompass and include actions and circumstances that would have never previously met the legal definition of rape. Many, though not all, of these “new and expanded” definitions of rape have been advocated by feminist advocacy groups, many (though not all) of whom have a decidedly anti-male bias. (These same radical feminist groups won’t like that honest characterization, but then again they attack anyone who disagrees with their views.)

I'll discuss more of these extremely unwise approaches to redefine rape, in my next post.

Forcible rape or sexual asaault, when it actually occurs, is a crime that is despicable. I wanted that to be my opening sentence in this post, for a good reason. When rape actually occurs, it should be investigated and prosecuted thoroughly. But in almost all rape and sexual assault cases, the central problem is that no one else was around during the alleged rape, other than the alleged assailant and the alleged victim, to offer any corroborative testimony as to the allegations made, or to the consensual or non-consensual nature of the event.

Increasingly, the problem of false rape accusations is coming more and more to the media’s, and the public’s, attention. Recent high-profile cases such as the Duke University Lacrosse case, in which three white players on the Duke University Lacrosse team were accused by a black erotic dancer of raping her, only to be later vindicated, and the Hofstra University rape case where a student accused four male students of rape, only to later recant her story, are becoming more common. The problem in all these cases is, “Who is telling the truth?” Substantively, a legal defense to a rape case consists of one of two approaches: 1) That sex between the accuser and the accused never occurred; or 2) That sex did take place between the accuser and the accused, but it was consensual. It may come as a surprise to a good number of people, but false accusations of rape can take either form of these two scenarios.

Let’s examine two questions: 1) Why would anyone falsely accuse another person of rape?; and 2) How common is the incidence of false rape accusations? The most common answer to the first question, usually reveals some element of revenge, for something done to the accuser that she (or he, believe it or not,) is angry or enraged over. A study conducted on this subject in the Journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, (Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994,) reported that false accusers were commonly motivated by a need for an alibi or a desire for revenge. In the Journal Forensic Science Digest, (Vol. 11. No. 4, December 1985,) equally common reasons given by women who falsely accused somone of rape were "spite or revenge," and to compensate for feelings of guilt or shame (for having willingly engaged in the prior sex.) Alleged rape victims have admitted in the past that they had made the false rape charges for three reasons: 1) To create an alibi about some other event; 2) To exact revenge; and 3) To generate attention or sympathy. The need for attention is not uncommon, as was revealed in the case of the Detroit woman who gave police details about her alleged rapist and his truck, then admitted she had lied: it never happened. (Source: Detroit Free Press, April 21, 2004.) More recent has been the case of Dallas Cowboys football player Michael Irvin, who was falsey accused of sexually assaulting a woman in July of 2007. That woman later recanted her story, and the District Attorney involved dropped all charges against him.

Also, lest anyone think that only unintelligent or uneducated women might falsely accuse someone of rape, it should be known that educated women lie, too, and several reports compiled from college and university police departments corroborate this fact. A study conducted by the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Purdue University, made clear that university women were just as likely to file a false rape charge as a valid charge.

A new statistic has emerged on the topic of false rape accusations, increasingly known as the “1 In 4 Figure.” No, it doesn’t mean that one in four rapes are never reported to police; it refers to increasingly solid statistical evidence that indicates that 1 in every 4 reported rapes, never actually occurred; that “1 in 4 accusations of rape are false.” Lending credence to the growing acceptance of this figure, is nothing less than a study published in 1996 by the U.S. Department of Justice, entitled “Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish .” This study documented 28 cases of rape which, "with the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity who pleaded guilty," consisted of defendants who were convicted of rape by juries, only to be later exonerated by DNA tests. Each of those defendants - innocent men – had served an average of 7 years in prison by the time they were released.

There is a section of that report that quoted two prominent criminal defense attorneys, Peter Neufeld and Barry C. Scheck, co-founders of The Innocence Project, a legal organization whose goal is to seek the release of defendants who have been falsely imprisoned. Neufield and Scheck reported that "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect." This FBI data on false rape accusations is striking indeed.

As I said in the opening of this post, the increasing recognition of the “1 In 4” incidence of false rape accusations does not in any way minimize the tragedy of forced rape and sexual assault, when it actually does occur. But what this statistic's growing recognition does do and should do, is remind everyone of the importance of the presumption of innocence, and of the value of DNA-based evidentiary testing in these cases.

At our practice, we know from firsthand experience that not all rape cases are clean-cut, easy-to-answer stories. We know how to effectively investigate and defend accusations of rape. If you or someone you know has been accused of sexual asaault or rape, call us for a free consultation.