Man Acquitted in "Dungeon Rapes" of Two Teens

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:25:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

An acquittal in a South Carolina rape case. The defense had argued the two teenage girls lied and set him up. They were really after his marijuana. He testified he had consensual sex with one hours before the alleged rape.

....during the six-day trial, Hinson said the girls had consensual sex with him just hours before the alleged crimes took place, which explained why evidence on one of the girl's shirts was consistent with Hinson's DNA. He also described in detail a trip to a sex shop with one of his accusers to purchase a sexual device about a week before the alleged crimes and identified the device in court.

When Hinson saw police cars arrive at his property, he said he assumed they were after the four pounds of marijuana stashed in the underground room so he panicked and hid in the nearby woods.

As to the dungeon,

More...

The room under Hinson's tool shed was about the length and width of a mid-sized car with a ceiling about 4 1/2 feet high. He testified Sunday about how he carefully built the room over two years.

Hinson had a prior rape conviction in 1991.

Prosecutors are not respecting the jury's verdict. They spent a year preparing their case.

"We are shocked and stunned. We believed Mr. Hinson was guilty as charged. We still believe he is guilty as charged," said Attorney General Henry McMaster, who helped prosecute the case.

< The 50 Best Restaurants in the World | Distracted Driving >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Man Acquitted in "Dungeon Rapes" of Two Teens | 19 comments (19 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

what does respect mean? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Dadler on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:34:23 PM EST

the trial's over, he was found not guilty. is that not enough?

is the prosecutor having him arrested again?

you are mistaking respect for comprehensive emotional/intellectual surrender.

do you "respect" a jury when your clients are shafted?

come on, J, you know the harsh reality most of the time: prosecutors are inhumane to defendents, defense attorneys ar inhumane to victims.

by the way, i've been outta town and missed the VaTech post, but i must say your "gun control is no cure" thread was disappointing and nonsensical. we are flesh and blood and there is no "cure" for that, obviously. OBVIOUSLY. if someone wants to come up from behind you, jam a knife into your back and then run away to never be caught (which has literally happened twice in the last few years here), unless you have eyes in the back of your head then you are dead or seriously injured.

the issue of multiple round clips has nothing to do with taking away people's precious firearms. it has to do with making a distinction between sense and insanity. you can't justify making cannons illegal with your (il)logic.

you seem, like many people, to consider this tragedy and the many others like it as as acceptable tradeoff for our free and easy, laissez faire, candystore attitude about semi-automatic weapons (aka the sacred 2nd amendment)...but you won't just be a big person and stand up and say that.

Sorry to be cranky, but I assume you're not here to have your ass kissed on every thread.

Peace.

the bottom line is (4.50 / 2) (#9)
by cpinva on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 08:31:56 AM EST

that the state, with all its resources, and a year to prepare its case, failed to convince 12 people, beyond a reasonable doubt. this means they're either incredibly inept, no crime actually occurred, or defense counsel was astonishingly good.

given the guy's prior conviction, and the propensity for juries (apparently) to believe the worst in cases such as this, i'd have to opt for the "no crime actually occurred" scenario.

this doesn't mean i think he's an innocent lamb, or that he won't commit a crime in the future. however, neither of those are grounds for jailing someone, at least not yet, in this country.

: Or ... (none / 0) (#10)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 08:39:40 AM EST

it means the jury was not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the specific crimes charged were committed.

I understand that the prosecutor's accusations (none / 0) (#1)
by hairylegs on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:52:31 PM EST

go against the way our judicial system is set up, but I can't help but say... please - the man is guilty as sin. Even a trial by jury can't change reality.

Sometimes, you should just be able to call it like you see it. It is possible that parts of his story are true - that doesn't mean he didn't rape them. No one would go to that much trouble for marijuana - it isn't even addictive, for crying out loud!

trial by ignorance (none / 0) (#4)
by Sailor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:53:44 PM EST

the man is guilty as sin. Even a trial by jury can't change reality.

What reality? The one in your head? Did you sit on the jury? Did you hear all of the evidence?

Sometimes, you should just be able to call it like you see it.

Yeeeees, that's why we have trials ... so some ignorant, ill informed person who can't understand simple instructions and only relies on what the media tells them can make a better informed decision than the folks in the community who were actually in the jury room can make.

Hey, it could happen. All you white folks still complain about OJ, even after the lead cop admitted to perjury.


: Would you trust him with your daughter? (none / 0) (#6)
by Pancho on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:48:16 PM EST

He should be locked up forever.
Yes, I am still mad that the piece of crap OJ got away with murdering two people. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

so (none / 0) (#2)
by orionATL on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:02:39 PM EST

so, where's the four pounds of pot?

do the prosecutors now intend to put him away for trafficking, growing, whatever?

if were on that jury, i would just want to know whether or not the police found the pot.

no pot,

questionable "alibi".

: Isn't it the defense's theory... (none / 0) (#14)
by kdog on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 05:46:32 PM EST

that the girls took the reefer? If the defense theory is true, the reefer would be long gone by now.
I have no clue whether the guy is innocent or not, nor do any of us. I do know when reasonable doubt exists, it is the solemn duty of every juror to vote not guilty...thank the sun-god this jury did just that, shows me the system still works sometimes.

The perp (none / 0) (#3)
by diogenes on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:14:33 PM EST

He was convicted of the rape of a twelve year old in the past. He is 48, but enticed 17 year olds (presumably 16 year olds would have gotten him a statutory conviction; I'm sure he's aware) to have "consensual sex". I wonder how many other teenage or younger victims he's perped before or in the future. Why do I think that the world would have been better off if he had gotten a 20 year to life sentence for raping the twelve year old?

: What are we down to now? (none / 0) (#5)
by manys on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:12:58 PM EST

Is that a two-strikes rule you're proposing, or a one-strike in arrears?

I'll (none / 0) (#8)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:12:30 AM EST

lay money on the table now that he will be in court again for a different rape charge against different women sometime down the road.

"two strikes" (none / 0) (#11)
by diogenes on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 02:29:02 PM EST

I admit that treating sex offenders has made me skeptical of their ability to change their "sexual orientation", especially when a 48 year old is having "consensual sex" with seventeen year olds following a prior rape conviction concerning a 12 year old. That's a medical opinion, and the standard of proof of course is much less than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

CourtTV (none / 0) (#12)
by 1980Ford on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 03:35:12 PM EST

What a hoot it is to read the rants over at Fascist TV.

Guilty until proven innocent and guilty after proven innocent.

Proven innocent? (none / 0) (#15)
by kst on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 10:50:43 PM EST

Nobody was "proven innocent"; juries don't generally do that. He was found "not guilty", which means that the prosecution didn't prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not making any comment on whether he's actually guilty (I lack any real information), but I'm a little surpised that Jeralyn used the phrase "Found Innocent" in the title of the main article.


: I'm surprised too (none / 0) (#16)
by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 10:54:28 PM EST

I have no idea why I phrased it that way, other than that it flowed better as a headline....I just changed it to "acquitted." Thanks for pointing that out.

: A distinction without a difference (none / 0) (#17)
by 1980Ford on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 02:03:53 PM EST

Over at CourtTV anyway, but I'll rephrase it:
Guilty until proven innocent and and guilty after proven not guilty.
That phrasing is actually more powerful.
The real point was the danger of trial by media. At CourtTV it is easy to vote on guilt or innocence though knowing NOTHING about the evidence.
CourtTV is a sham.

i believe (none / 0) (#13)
by cpinva on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 05:05:28 PM EST

it means the jury was not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the specific crimes charged were committed.

that would qualify as the "no crime actually occurred" option, since that's what he was charged with.

: NO and NO (none / 0) (#18)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 02:20:11 PM EST

"Guilty until proven innocent and and guilty after proven not guilty"
"that would qualify as the "no crime actually occurred" option"
The defense has NO BURDEN OF PROOF an acquital is entirel a negative: the prosecution failed to prove.... It does denote or connote that the defense PROVED anything including that the defendant is not guilty of the specific crime[s] charged, let alone that no crime was committed.
I realize that to some that seems like semantics but it isn't. It's a foundation of our system.

that should be (none / 0) (#19)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 02:21:08 PM EST

does NOT denote or connote