home

Wilson Ordered Released

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 12:55:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's a great day for justice. In addition to the al-Marri decision (blogged here), we learn that Genarlow Wilson, who TalkLeft last wrote about here, has been ordered released from his 10 year sentence for having consensual oral sex with a girl who was only two years younger. If Georgia prosecutors had any humanity, they wouldn't appeal the decision, but an appeal seems likely, and it may keep Wilson behind bars pending the outcome.

< 4th Cir.: No Detention Without Trial for Person Arrested Within U.S. | Mudcat's "Populism" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wilson Ordered Released | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The AG filed an appeal, already (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:49:32 PM EST
    keeping him in prison until the appeal is decided.

    Nothin' like the chance of incarcerating a black man to bring out the as*cl*wn in a Georgia prosecutor.

    Bullsh*t!!!!!.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:24:11 PM EST
    I guess the kid needs to pull an Andy Dufrense to get the freedom he is wrongly being denied...the system is busted.

    Parent
    Serves the kid right... (sarcasm) (none / 0) (#11)
    by dkmich on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 05:32:41 AM EST
    He should have started a war or stolen 9 billion dollars, instead.  Then he'd be free, rich, and white.

    Parent
    Nice.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:51:18 PM EST
    I hope the prosecutors don't try to continue this mockery of justice....

     

    Fantastic news (none / 0) (#3)
    by HK on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    I hope the AG's appeal gets thrown out.

    On a lighter note, we have a certain abbreviation in the UK for the slang term for the consensual act that took place in this case; with that in mind, I could not help but smirk to read in the linked article that Wilson's lawyer is called B.J. Bernstein...

    More info, fwiw (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 02:33:18 PM EST
    The effort was complicated by a homemade videotape showing the New Year's Eve party. On it, a 15-year-old girl can be seen performing oral sex on Wilson. It also shows Wilson and other male partygoers having sexual intercourse with the 17-year-old.

    Prosecutors argued that the 17-year-old was semiconscious and not capable of consent. But a jury that watched the tape disagreed and acquitted Wilson of the rape charges.

    Despite that acquittal, Douglas County District David McDade told WXIA-TV in March that "six young men basically gang raped a 17-year-old." McDade did not return a phone call from The Associated Press seeking comment.

    Wilson was originally charged with raping a 17-year-old at the party, but was acquitted. He was ultimately found guilty of aggravated child molestation involving the 15-year-old girl. Four other male youths at the party pleaded guilty to child molestation of the 15-year-old and sexual battery of the 17-year-old. A fifth pleaded guilty to false imprisonment. Their party was captured on a profanity-laden and sexually graphic video filmed by one of the five.

    Baker has filed a response with the court, opposing Wilson's petition. A spokesman for Baker said he would have no comment on the case because it is still pending. The victim's family is also declining to talk to the media about the case, said Douglas County District Attorney David McDade, whose office prosecuted Wilson.

    McDade said race did not play a role in Wilson's case, pointing out that all of the defendants and both victims are black.

    "I said early on in this case if I or this office had turned our heads and looked the other way when these two young ladies and their families cried out for help," he said, "I would have justifiably been accused of putting a deaf ear to African-American victims."

    Certainly sounds like a pretty tawdry scene all around although there is, rightly so, no law against tawdriness.

    However, Wilson was acquitted of any charges related to the 17 year-old and as they, rightly so, changed that laws regarding his acts with the 15 year-old, from the info we have, he should be freed.

    Has anyone able to access the actual appeal from the prosecutors? It would probably shed more light on the case.

    btw, TChris, (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 06:54:57 PM EST
    has been ordered released from his 10 year sentence for having consensual oral sex with a girl who was only two years younger
    the girl was 15.

    15 year-olds, in the state of Georgia at least, can not legally give consent, so the act was not consensual, and he was not convicted of "having consensual oral sex with a girl who was only two years younger."

    Parent

    There was a 2 year difference in ages (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 11:13:36 PM EST
    so what is your point? Yes, GA had a bad law, (BJs are criminal, sex is a misdemeanor), and they changed it, just not retroactively.

    10 freakin' years for getting a BJ from a girl who initiated it.

    To put it in a more realistic context: He's supposed to get cornholed for 10 years because he was lucky enough to get a BJ when he was 17.

    To me it seems obvious payback for being found not guilty of the charge of rape.

    And some folks wonder why GA has a bad rep. Sheesh.

    Parent

    Or obvious.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 12:08:23 PM EST
    Payback for not pleading guilty to whatever charges the prosecutors brought forward.  

    I wonder what role the parents played in all this.  The parents of these girls must realize what a poor job they did parenting, but rather than take responsibility for their shortcomings in preparing their daughters for a world awash in sex and booze...it's easier to blame it on the boy and label him a sexual deviant for doing what most any 17 year old would do.

    Parent

    Sorry didn't see this until just now. (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 03:02:44 PM EST
    so what is your point?
    My point is TChris's statement is not true, 15 year-olds cannot give consent, the sex was not consensual.

    TChris is an attorney for cripe's sake, this is a law blog, he knows what he wrote is not, in any legal sense, true.

    To me it seems obvious payback for being found not guilty of the charge of rape.
    I certainly won't argue with that.

    Again, I'd be interesting in reading what the prosecutor says in his appeal. It could shed some more light on the case, although it may well be a crock of sh1t...

    Parent

    That pretty much sums it up (none / 0) (#6)
    by atlanta lawyer on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    You've got, I think, the relevant facts. There are some legal issues that are sometimes misunderstood in the reporting.  He was charged and aquitted w/rape of the 17 year old. AS to the 15 year old, At the time, vaginal sex with a girl under 16 was staturory rape, and, given their less than 3 year age difference, a misdemeanor for him at the time. But, oral or anal sex with someone under 16 counts as aggravated child molestation, even if consensual(in a common sense of the word, not a legal sense)  as it was in this case. Aggravated child molestation then and now caries a minumum sentence of 10 years to serve in prison w/o the possibility of parole, which is what G. Wilson got. After his case, the legislature changed the law to make oral sex b/t folk 3 years or less apart in age a misdemeanor, the same as vaginal sex. A misd. carries a max of 12 months in jail.
    The case was affirmed on appeal by the court of appeals and the Ga. Supreme Court, which, in it's opinion, invited the Legislature to make the change retroactive.  The DA's were opposed, and the measure stalled this year.

    Confusion (none / 0) (#8)
    by looking italian on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 04:21:27 PM EST
    I know what's been reported, and I know why, given the compare and contrast between the two statutory sections at the time.

    But no matter the close in age exception in O.C.G.A 16-6-3 ("...provided, further,that if the victim is 14 or 15 years of age and the person so
    convicted is no more than three years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor..."), there's still the issue of section (a) of O.C.G.A 16-6-4, which stated in 2001 - and still states:

    "A person commits the offense of child molestation when he or she does any immoral or indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person."

    I found no clear statutory definition for "immoral act" or "indecent act."  The closest I found in the "Sexual Offenses" portion of the state code was in the "public indecency" section, which listed "sexual intercourse" among things (including "lewd caress and indecent fondling of the body of another person") prohibited in a public place.  

    Now I may be skipping a link in the chain here, but it sure looks like vaginal intercourse or oral sex falls within the "indecent act" component of "child molestation."  And "child molestation" is a felony, with a mandatory minimum five year sentence - notwithstanding the conflicting close in age exception for intercourse in the "statutory rape" section immediately preceding it.  And in Wilson's case, the intercourse with the seventeen-year-old also appears to be in play, thanks to the "in the presence of" component of the "child molestation" section.

    I'm not a lawyer.  Judging by your handle, you are, in the state in question.  I hope you can tell me whether I'm wrong regarding this perceived ambiguity, and if so, how I didn't get it right (e,g, caselaw, more recent legislation as a trump card).  

    Parent

    comment from dkos re calls to AG's office (none / 0) (#7)
    by conchita on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:25:12 PM EST
       I just called the GA AG's office...
        ...and the lady who answered the phone said that the majority of calls today are calling for the AG to recind the appeal motion.

        Thurbert Baker is the GA AG, phone number 404-656-3300 - make sure their phone bank is flooded!

    link

    Hard cases make bad law (none / 0) (#14)
    by diogenes on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:02:54 PM EST
    A judge releasing someone because the sentence changed later is bad law.  You get the sentence that was in force when you did the crime.  If the legislature saw fit to change the law then what should happen is that the governor should commute the sentence.  If this precident holds then why not have courts LENGTHEN jail terms if the legislature increases them for future crimes?

    Pardon my french.... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:28:40 PM EST
    but f*ck all that.  

    A human being, Genarlow Wilson, has been caged for 32 months for consensual (in the verbal and/or by action sense, not "legal")sexual acts with his peers.  A tragic mockery of liberty and justice.  For whatever reason the governor is missing.  The judge only had the chance to right the wrong because the young man has a lawyer bustin his arse for him, otherwise he'd rot like so many others.

    You do his ten years for the sake of precedent John Law.

    Parent

    not the reason (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:25:49 PM EST
    A judge releasing someone because the sentence changed later is bad law.
    He released him because the sentence was cruel and unusual.

    If this precident holds then why not have courts LENGTHEN jail terms if the legislature increases them for future crimes?
    They already do that. See Skakel, Michael.

    Wilson Ordered Released | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment