Trying to set the record straight the first time

All charges were dismissed against Dr. Griggsby Wright and his reputation redeemed after false accusations
Over the past few decades, there seems to have emerged a very peculiar trend. More specifically, over the recent years there seems to be an odd and almost inexplicable fixation in the media regarding crimes of a sexual nature. It is difficult to fathom how the sensationalism of such a topic overshadows stories of world hunger, pandemic disease, or poverty.

Perhaps even more troubling is the frenzy fashioned by the media that creates the fixation.

As we have seen, when a story is released, a virtual lynch mob assembles to see to it that those accused by some unknown individual(s), with untested credibility, are brought to some form of justice. The fact that we in the media attempt to cajole an audience into forming an opinion of “guilt” before (all of) the facts are presented is irresponsible and perverse.

The Innocence Project has already demonstrated that many times we simply get it wrong. However, there are little or no reparations for the formerly accused, and only of late are we seeing those who fabricate false accusations brought to justice to pay for their malice.

CNN's Tucker Carlson recently wrote a book, Politicians, Partisans and Parasites, which includes an account of Carlson being falsely accused of raping a woman. Carlson's reaction to the false accusation is illustrative of how even a patently false accusation can potentially damage a human's life, especially thanks to the nonsense touted by advocates that such false accusations are so rare as to be negligible.

Tucker writes about learning of the accusation,

For an hour I sat on the front steps thinking about my life, my wife and my three children, my job, and how it was all going to end because of something terrible I didn't even remember doing.

In the end, Carlson spent thousands of dollars defending himself against the accusation. However, it turned out that the woman who had accused him had fabricated the entire event.

"I always assumed, like every other journalist does, that all sex scandals are rooted in the truth, period. You may not have done precisely what you're accused of, but you did something." From bitter experience, he now knows differently.

Our society has long acknowledged the existence of false accusations. In Biblical times, "bearing false witness" was recognized as a practice prevalent enough to be delineated as one of only 10 overriding social rules: the Ninth Commandment reads, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

In the Common Law tradition, upon which American jurisprudence draws heavily, the prevalence of false accusations contributed to "the presumption of innocence." The definition of this legal term is: "The indictment or formal charge against any person is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, the person is presumed by the law to be innocent."

Why? Because, in almost any circumstance, a certain percentage of accusers will lie. They will do so for a variety of motives. Sometimes there is a clear advantage to lying: for example, to gain money or the custody of children.

In a column about the Kobe Bryant case, journalist Wendy McElroy pointed to a study conducted by Eugene Kanin of Purdue University, the correct figure soars around the 40 percent range. Kanin examined 109 rape complaints registered in a Midwestern city from 1978 to 1987. Of these, 45 were ultimately classified by the police as "false." Also based on police records, Kanin determined that 50 percent of the rapes reported at two major universities were "false."

With all the issues hovering over Snoop Dogg’s head regarding a sexual assault charge made in January, 2005, Snoop aired out his frustrations subsequently on the Larry King show.

On the show Snoop spoke on the events that happened between him and a woman who claims she was sexually assaulted by the rapper and his entourage. The female in question, Kylie Bell, filed a lawsuit against the rapper stating that she was assaulted by the rapper and his crew following a 2003 taping of Jimmy Kimmel Live. She is seeking a total of $25 million in damages.

Snoop filed a suit against her for extortion back in December as a means of preemptive strike. He went on the Larry King Live show to air out his frustrations.

"I refuse to be another entertainer who writes a check for false allegations," the rapper said via satellite in Jacksonville in regards to her accusations that he paid for her to be quiet.

"I'm innocent...I wasn't even in the building… That's a serious allegation [rape]," he said. "This happened two years ago...I got a lot of money, true indeed, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give it to you…Rape is not my nature," he continued. "I feel very compassionate towards any woman that has been raped. I have a mother, a daughter and a wife and rape is a serious allegation. That's why I'm here tonight with you to let you know that that is not in my nature."

However, the pursuit of financial gain against an accused is not limited to famous celebrities. This can affect anyone in our society down to the average citizen.

As we have learned from the Duke Lacrosse case that the media many times relies exclusively on incomplete police reports consisting only of claims made by the accusers. The police reports are devoid of vital defense evidence however, and the accusations can be irresponsibly promoted by the media as "fact" in the most premature stages of a police investigation.

Some time ago, while attending a medical conference in Arizona, Dr. Griggsby Wright, an anesthesiology resident from the University of New Mexico was blindsided when he was falsely accused of sexual misconduct. The accusations turned out to be based solely on fictitious claims made by a sociopathic teenager and her delinquent accomplice. One of the teens had just been expelled from a local school only days before and the other had made strikingly similar accusations against a separate adult male only a few weeks prior to the false report made against Wright.

In this classic “shakedown,” the accusers couldn’t keep their stories straight. The prosecutor became even more suspicious when the single-mothers of these teens initiated the complaint and then quickly began seeking a financial payoff from Wright. The mothers approached the prosecutor and asked if, in exchange for them recanting their accusations, they could avoid an investigation and just get a “payoff” from “the doctor.” To the credit of the ignorance of theses individuals, Wright was still in his residency and not yet amassing an income they were searching for.

After months of investigation, a mound of additional exculpatory evidence and DNA results cleared Wright of the alleged wrongdoing. In fact, the accusers’ and her accomplice’s claims against Wright were so ludicrous and contradictory to the evidence, it leaves one wondering how they were ever even taken seriously in the first place.

Wright won the support of friends and colleagues through the entire matter. The end result was the falsified event being expunged from the court record, with the prosecutor composing a letter to Wright’s attorney, Darrow Soll, on the young doctor’s behalf testifying:

“There were serious credibility issues with the key witnesses, and evidence that would have substantiated their initial claims proved to be ‘nonexistent,” and “there was no evidence to ever suggest that Dr. Wright was a pedophile, a danger to patients, or a threat to society.”

However, not unlike what was witnessed in the Duke Lacrosse case, the initial local media reports were embarrassingly flawed, claiming Wright as having posed as an 18year-old in some sort of an internet chat room and had provided alcohol to two minors. Both accounts were completely false.

Unfortunately, as one can imagine, the social and financial status of these individuals made moot Wright pursuing a civil suit, and as in many jurisdictions at that time, because of political correctness, a prosecution was never sought against the grifters in Wright's case. Although this came at a cost of legal fees and a temporary hiatus from Wright’s medical training, the cost could have been much greater:

In a related story released in September, 2004 by the Lansing State Journal,

“A Michigan high school student was convicted of lying to police when she claimed she was sexually assaulted by her special-education teacher and was sentenced to 30 days at Ingham County Youth Center.

Rebecca Shong, 17, was found guilty in August of 2004 for filing a false police report in the commission of a felony. She also was ordered Wednesday to complete a residential program, the Lansing State Journal reported.

"We were expecting a sentence kind of like what was given," said her defense attorney David Zoglio. "My client feels that she can certainly do this program and is optimistic about her future."

Leslie High School special education teacher Craig Fry was charged in January with three counts of sexual abuse, but prosecutors dropped the charges after police said the girl lied. Fry, 50, then died June 26 from complications related to a heart attack.”

The stress brought on to Fry was most certainly tremendous. One must ask if the stress of the initial reports by the media eluding to Fry’s guilt of the accuser’s accusations were contributory to his unwarranted demise.

How do things ever get this far and so out of control?

In June of this year, author Steven Silverman wrote a published article about at least one cause titled, Prosecutors: Not as Nice as You Thought.

Silverman described the following: On Thursday, Scott and I attended a book discussion, signing and reception hosted by the Open Society Institute. The event featured Friend-of-Flex, Professor Angela J. Davis speaking about her new book, Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor. In light of the Nifong imbroglio, the timing of her exposé is perfect.

As the former director of the esteemed DC Public Defender Service, Davis is a master player and observer of the vicious game that is the U.S. criminal justice system. By her own admission, she's "obsessed with prosecutorial power."

Her intent with Arbitrary Justice is to show how prosecutors have become the most powerful officials in the criminal justice system. In particular, Davis digs into the brutal arbitrariness of prosecutorial power and the utter lack of accountability for rampant prosecutorial misconduct.

The Nifongs, Davis insists, are common. The real story behind that case is that prosecutorial misconduct happens all the time and is rarely exposed. A disproportionate number of the victims are people of color; all of them lack the resources of the falsely-accused Duke lacrosse players.

Despite her intimate knowledge of the system, Davis seems stunningly devoid of cynicism and proposes practical prescriptions for change. She insists that folks who become prosecutors are not necessarily consciously racist or prone to evildoing. When she declared that her book wasn't meant to be an attack on the prosecutorial profession, someone hilariously heckled, "I want my money back!"

Davis is correct: Prosecutors aren't inherently bad; the system is bad. And bad outcomes thrive in any system where incentives are twisted. Such is today's criminal justice system, which rewards prosecutors who win convictions more than those who competently administer justice for justice's sake.

Davis identifies the major contributors to the system's dysfunctions:

- Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
While prosecutors' plea bargain power has always provided them with lots of control over the outcome of criminal cases, their power to extract a plea -- and thus avoid a trial -- is intensified by the threat of mandatory minimum sentences.

Ironically, mandatory minimums were passed at the state and federal levels with the intent of eliminating sentencing disparities. The effect has been to shift the sentencing discretion to prosecutors without eliminating disparities.

Mandatory minimums have also been the driving force behind the exponential incarceration rates of the past two decades. The prosecutors haven't gotten nastier; their plea extracting tools have become increasingly menacing.

- Political Prosecutors
A typical campaign for state attorney general involves a "tough on crime" Democrat facing off against a "tougher on crime" Republican. The electorate then votes based on their political affiliation.

Though these attorneys general are elected officials, few citizens know who they are or how they manage their offices. Moreover, because prosecutors have sole discretion over who gets charged and when, politically-motivated prosecutors frequently choose targets to enhance their political profiles rather than in the interest of justice.

- Lack of Transparency & Accountability
Prosecutorial misconduct is widespread and unchecked. Davis notes that "Much of what passes for legal behavior might in fact be illegal, but because prosecutorial practices are so rarely challenged, it is difficult to define the universe of prosecutorial misconduct."

Ken Armstrong and Maurice Possley, the authors of a 1999 study of prosecutorial accountability concluded:

"With impunity, prosecutors across the country have violated their oaths and the law, committing the worst kinds of deception in the most serious cases...They have prosecuted black men, hiding evidence the real killers were white. They have prosecuted a wife, hiding evidence her husband committed suicide. They have prosecuted parents, hiding evidence their daughter was killed by wild dogs.

"They do it to win. They do it because they won't get punished."

The problem, as one editorial described it, "would be like trying to count drivers who speed; the problem is larger than the number of tickets would indicate." The problem is also difficult to quantify, because most of what the prosecutor does is behind closed doors. On the rare occasion when misconduct is discovered, judicial review is extremely limited.

"Of the eleven thousand cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct examined by the Center for Public Integrity, the appellate courts reversed convictions, dismissed charges, or reduced sentences in just over two thousand. However, in these cases, most of the prosecutors suffered no consequences and were not held accountable or even reprimanded for their behavior."

Davis also points to another mundane reason why prosecutors are rarely held to account: Few defenders are willing to "snitch" on a cheating prosecutor. Making nice with the prosecution is generally in their clients' best interests. After all, it won't be long before they have to beg the same prosecutor to cut a better deal for their client.

It doesn't take a game theoretician with a PhD to appreciate how cheating would flourish in a criminal justice system where unscrupulous prosecutors are virtually immune from punishment and are rewarded with promotions and career advancement.

Reform, Davis insists, should at minimum, seek to eliminate the arbitrary exercise of prosecutorial discretion and establish incentives to strengthen the existing mechanisms of prosecutorial accountability. And she does the heavy lifting of proposing practical solutions. An essential part of her reform plan is to educate the public about the duties and conduct of their elected prosecutors.

It's too bad that the public only seems to pay attention when their prosecutors falsely indict innocent rich white kids for raping a black woman. Then again, if this incident lights sparks of nationwide prosecutorial reform, please pass the lighter fluid.

Data Recovery Software
Virus Removal