Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Public Sector Gulags => Topic started by: Oscar on August 17, 2011, 07:39:15 AM
-
A man convicted of a rape against a 13 year old boy years ago are seeking a new trial. Guilty or not. What is a 13 year old boy doing in a detention center holding much older boys? It is almost free pass to rape younger boys.
Victim who recanted testimony granted immunity for rape convict's hearing (http://http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_9cec5bd4-c882-11e0-814b-001cc4c03286.html), by Mike Dennison, Missoulian, Tuesday, August 16, 2011
-
Wow. What a tragic case. Another victim of the War on Drugs...
-
Apparently, Cody Marble was in juvie for some petty drug-related charges in 2002.
Four days after his release, a fellow inmate, possibly in an attempt to curry favor with the guards and/or exact retribution of some sort or another, claimed that he saw Marble raping another inmate in the shower six days prior.
Despite the lack of physical evidence, the fact that this type of violent crime was completely out of keeping with Marble's character or previous criminal history, despite evidence that the accuser could not possibly have witnessed such an event during the time period claimed, not to mention a guard who happened to overhear of plans for such a frameup, Cody Marble was convicted of rape and got 20 years.
Most (but not all) of that jail time was effectively suspended due to his juvenile status, but Marble still has the charges on his record, has to register as a sex offender everywhere he goes, gets his name and address posted in the local newspaper as a sex offender on a regular basis, is not eligible for certain programs, has difficulty finding a job, etc.
-
Here's some earlier news coverage, from about three years ago.
The first part of the below article (not including the "sidebar" starting with "Sex offenders find themselves in Catch-22...") was also published the same day by the Helena Independent Record under the title "Jailhouse rape case has doubters (http://http://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/jailhouse-rape-case-has-doubters/article_b4f7000b-bc3b-5e26-b0c3-8fe62b675a6c.html)."
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Missoulian
Questions raised over rape conviction (http://http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_0ba82af9-7196-53a5-9afb-13d41d923763.html)
By MIKE DENNISON of the Missoulian State Bureau missoulian.com | Posted: Sunday, May 11, 2008 12:00 am
(http://http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/missoulian.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/6/26/63c/62663c34-af8e-578f-be82-34171a1be662.preview-300.jpg)
Cody Marble appeared in Missoula County District Court last month on a parole violation.
Photo by MICHAEL GALLACHER/Missoulian
Convicted of a jailhouse rape six years ago, Cody Marble has had to attend sex-offender counseling - but one of his counselors believes Marble may be innocent.
Another sex-offender therapist and psychologist who examined Marble after his 2002 conviction for raping a 13-year-old boy at the Missoula County Juvenile Detention Center says the same, and has made a sworn statement saying he thinks the crime never occurred.
A Detention Center officer who was in the cell area moments after the rape allegedly occurred says she, too, thinks it didn't happen - but was never asked that question at Marble's jury trial.
Marble himself insists on his innocence. But the 23-year-old Missoula man has failed at every attempt to overturn his conviction, and now faces a possible return to Montana State Prison for up to 15 years, for violating terms of his probation.
Is Marble's case that of an innocent man convicted on questionable evidence, in a system and society where accused sex offenders are seen as guilty until proven innocent?
The prosecutor for the case and an assistant attorney general who reviewed it say no, and that Marble's claims of a frame-up and ineffective defense counsel don't wash.
"I'm confident the jury made the right decision," says Dorothy Brownlow, chief deputy attorney for Missoula County.
Brownlow says attorneys from both sides examined the case thoroughly, and that it's hard to see how a 13-year-old victim and four other juveniles who testified about the crime would have all told a similar lie.
Indeed, Marble is hardly a sympathetic figure, having been in and out of jails, juvenile programs and prison since age 14, repeatedly violating probation or parole rules by using marijuana and methamphetamine.
He also ignored defense counsel's advice to accept a deal on the rape charge, to plead guilty in exchange for a three-year deferred sentence, avoiding prison. Instead, he insisted on a trial, was convicted and received a 20-year sentence.
There's also no black-and-white evidence, such as DNA, that could exonerate him. In fact, there was no physical evidence at all of the rape.
A Missoula District Court jury convicted Marble in November 2002, mostly on the testimony of the alleged victim and other juvenile jail inmates. Marble says the other boys made up the crime to get back at him for perceived slights, or to attempt to get more favorable treatment in their own criminal cases.
"There's no one thing that I can say that will make you say, 'I believe you,' " Marble said in a recent interview from the Missoula County Detention Center. "You have to listen to the (counselors) who evaluated me. Look at my criminal past. Come talk to me, look at me."
Several people who've examined Marble or with knowledge of the case say the crime doesn't add up. Their comments either couldn't be or weren't heard by the jury, and District Judge Douglas Harkin has ruled that the sworn statement filed last year by Missoula psychologist Michael Scolatti wouldn't have been allowed as evidence at trial.
The case began six years ago, a few days after Marble, then 17, was released from the Missoula County Juvenile Detention Center. He'd been in the center nearly five months, in a cell pod with seven other boys, waiting to see what penalty he would face for walking away in 2001 from a youth treatment program in Marion.
His father bailed him out of the center on March 12, 2002. Four days later, sheriff's deputies came to the Marbles' home and arrested Cody, saying boys from the cell pod had accused him of raping a 13-year-old inmate in the cell-pod shower area on March 10.
Marble turned down the plea bargain just before the scheduled trial in November. The jury convicted him after a three-day trial. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison, with 15 of those years suspended.
Scolatti, who's been examining and counseling sex offenders for nearly 28 years, evaluated Marble before he was sentenced.
As part of Marble's 2007 petition seeking to overturn his conviction, Scolatti provided a sworn statement saying he doubted anyone would commit such a crime in an open shower area, visible to everyone else in the cell pod and possibly in sight of guards.
"Such exposure would most commonly serve as a strong deterrent from the type of conduct for which (Marble) was convicted," he wrote.
In a recent interview, Scolatti said he also watched a jail videotape of the cells when the crime allegedly occurred. The tape, which did not show the shower area, showed all eights juvenile inmates moving in and out of their cells, including Marble and his alleged victim.
"There wasn't any sort of anxiety or hyperactivity," he said of Marble's demeanor. "It was so nonchalant. You'd have to be the biggest psychopath in the world to act like that or, you didn't do it."
Scolatti said the Marble case is the only time in his 28-year career that he's submitted a sworn statement about someone's likely innocence in a sex-offender case.
Susan Latimer, a detention officer on duty that night and who did a "cell check" shortly after the rape allegedly occurred, also says she thinks the rape never occurred.
"If a sexual assault would have happened, there are cues you pick up on," says Latimer, who previously worked with sexually abused children at a mental health center in Great Falls. "There was nothing. I never picked up anything sexual."
In a recent interview, Latimer, who lives now in Darby, also told the Lee Newspapers State Bureau she was prepared to express those thoughts on the witness stand - but that nobody asked her.
Latimer was called as a prosecution witness, and testified that she felt "a little tension" in the cell block when she made her check, seeing Marble arguing with a fellow inmate.
Defense lawyer Kathleen Foley cross-examined Latimer for a few minutes, asked almost nothing about the cell check and didn't ask Latimer about her thoughts on the likelihood of the crime or Cody's character.
"Kathleen Foley had a great opportunity, and she releases me (as a witness), and I'm thinking, 'My God, this kid is sunk,' " Latimer said. "She didn't ask me much of anything that I can remember that would have supported Cody."
Latimer said she would have testified that Marble was a respectful kid who was not aggressive and who didn't pick on other kids in the cell pod.
Foley declined to talk to the Lee Newspapers State Bureau about the case. Her law partner, veteran defense lawyer William Boggs of Missoula, says when Foley deposed Latimer three weeks before the trial, Latimer gave no indication she would be a friendly witness.
Latimer said several times during the deposition that she didn't know whether Marble was guilty or innocent and that she didn't have an opinion, Boggs pointed out.
"She was evasive and slippery and uncooperative during the entire deposition," Boggs said. "As a defense lawyer, you see a witness like that, and you keep your distance like you would from a coiled snake."
Latimer says now she felt the defense treated her like the enemy, when in fact she was trying to be objective about the case. During the deposition, she also said she hoped that Marble was innocent, but couldn't be sure what had happened that night at the jail.
Boggs said Foley worked hard on the case and that Marble ignored their advice to take the plea agreement rather than risk a trial where five people, including the alleged 13-year-old victim, were prepared to testify that Marble raped the boy.
The deal offered Marble a three-year deferred sentence, avoiding prison, if he pleaded guilty to rape. He also would have had to register as a sex offender and undergo sex-offender treatment.
Marble and Foley also dispute the circumstances of the plea-agreement rejection.
Foley said in court documents that Marble at first wanted to consider the plea deal, but that his father, Jerry Marble, nixed the idea, saying that "no son of his was going to plead to a faggot offense." Jerry Marble says he recalls telling his son he shouldn't plead guilty if he was innocent.
Cody Marble says he never even considered the deal, and "literally flicked it back across the table at (Foley)."
"I did not commit a crime; I did not intend to plead guilty," he said.
Marble also did not testify in his own defense at the trial. He says now he believes he should have, and that Foley advised him against it.
In her response to Marble's petition claiming ineffective counsel, Foley said she was concerned Marble would testify that neither he nor the alleged victim were even in the shower area, and that she "felt that would be wholly incredible to the jury."
Marble says he knew firsthand of previous attempts by juvenile inmates to make false accusations against inmates they didn't like, as a form of retribution, and believes he was set up by the other inmates.
Keith Williamson, a supervising officer at the Juvenile Detention Center, told other guards he had heard of and suspected a plot by inmates to falsely accuse Marble.
Under questioning by Foley at the trial, Latimer briefly mentioned Williamson's suspicions. But Williamson couldn't testify himself: He died of a heart attack in June 2002, months before the trial.
Foley attempted to ask Latimer more about Williamson's suspicions, but Judge Harkin ruled it was hearsay evidence and stopped the questioning.
The five inmates who testified against Marble, including the 13-year-old boy who said he was raped, denied any conspiracy.
The alleged victim, now 19, is serving a 10-year prison term at Montana State Prison for rape. He pleaded guilty to having sex with an underage girl in 2005.
He did not respond to a written request from the Lee Newspapers State Bureau for an interview.
The juvenile inmate who initially reported the rape to authorities on March 16, six days after it allegedly happened, did not testify at the trial. He was released from jail in the summer of 2002 and disappeared.
The teenager initially told investigators he saw Marble raping the alleged victim in the shower area. But a videotape of the cells showed the accuser had been locked down in his cell during the entire time of the alleged rape, away from the area where the assault was said to occur. He later changed his story to say he'd heard about the rape, rather than saw it.
During the trial, Judge Harkin allowed Foley to put Brownlow, the prosecutor, on the witness stand and question her about how the teenager had initially lied.
Prosecutors also had no physical evidence that a rape occurred. A doctor who examined the 13-year-old accuser six days after the alleged rape found no scars or any signs of physical trauma in or around the boy's anus. He testified at trial that any damage could have healed by that time.
Brownlow says it's not unusual for a rape to be reported days after it happened or to be reported by someone other than the victim.
"I think the way it was reported adds to its credibility," she said in a recent interview. "The victim was in jail together (with his assailant), so he felt that the repercussions for reporting it could have been really significant."
The 13-year-old boy was released from jail the same day as Marble, on March 12. He said nothing about the rape until authorities interviewed him March 16, at a Missoula home for troubled children.
Marble began serving his prison sentence in 2003 and was released in June 2007, having served the five unsuspended years of his 20-year sentence. As a condition of release during his suspended sentence, Marble arranged for sex-offender treatment sessions with Missoula counselor Roger Dowty.
Dowty, who has the largest sex-offender treatment practice in western Montana, says 10 percent to 15 percent of sexual offenders deny their crime, and that he's treated many of them. But with Marble, the denial strikes Dowty as genuine.
"If I were to place a bet, my bet would be that he's not guilty," Dowty says. "I would place a large amount of money on that."
Dowty says Marble could be a casualty of what Dowty calls "representative vigilante-ism," his term for Montana's harsh public attitude toward sex offenders.
That attitude is reflected by a criminal-justice system that aggressively prosecutes accused sex offenders, sometimes regardless of whether the case is strong, and punishes them severely if they choose to go to trial and lose, he says.
"There's nothing worse than being labeled as a sex offender in America," Dowty says. "The whole concept of being innocent until proven guilty is gone. Where you have something like that going on, where you cannot exercise the right to be innocent without just a huge penalty, that's a sign of a big problem."
Marble worked as a maintenance man for a property management firm until October 2007, when he tested positive for methamphetamine use and was briefly detained. He was arrested again a few days later, when police entered a Missoula hotel room where they said they found Marble, another man, some methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
Marble is awaiting sentencing for violating his probation for drug use, but is fighting the drug-possession charge.
As Marble sat in the Missoula County jail this winter and spring, waiting to appear in court on the probation violations, Judge Harkin twice ruled against the man's petition seeking to overturn his conviction. The petition accused Foley of "ineffective counsel" and prosecutors of various misconduct, but Harkin rejected Marble's arguments.
Marble has asked Harkin to reconsider the latest ruling.
While Marble was dissatisfied with his defense lawyers, he has much harsher words for prosecutors and law enforcement officers, whom he says made little attempt to scrutinize his accusers or find the truth of the case.
"They want a conviction whether you're guilty or not," he says. "They will lie, cheat and steal to do it. I would have read through the (initial police) reports and, if they looked as absurd as they do, I wouldn't have filed charges."
Brownlow obviously doesn't agree, saying the evidence against Marble was strong.
"I feel very strongly that (we) were careful to make sure we had as much information as we could, and that we had a good, solid case," she said.
Marble and his father, Jerry, say they intend to keep fighting the case, although their legal options are narrow and they don't have an attorney. Cody Marble says he has some hope he can prevail, but isn't optimistic.
"I trusted the system and was pretty naive," Marble says. "I had no reason to think that the system would fail me."
Sex offenders find themselves in Catch-22 if they deny guilt
HELENA - For convicted sex offenders who deny they did anything wrong, completing the full treatment program at Montana State Prison is impossible - and, therefore, parole is out of the question.
That's because most sex offenders are required to complete the treatment before they can be considered for parole. And if you deny your crime, you can't complete the treatment.
"Those guys kind of get stuck," says Blair Hopkins, clinical services administrator at the State Prison in Deer Lodge. "They need to be able to admit to some type of sexual inappropriate behavior. For someone who just flat-out denies everything, they really can't complete (the second phase)."
Hopkins and other counselors estimate that 15 percent to 25 percent of those convicted of sex offenses are "deniers," who say they didn't commit the crime.
A small fraction of those might actually be innocent, counselors say.
But that makes no difference in how they're treated under the treatment program or parole rules, Hopkins says: "We have to assume that if they've been convicted of the offense, they've done it. If I said, 'I believe you,' then I'll have 300 guys at my door saying that."
Montana's prison system has a relatively high amount of sex offenders, which includes people convicted of rape, sexual assault, incest, prostitution, child molestation or indecent exposure.
Hopkins looked at 20 states in late 2006, and found that for most, 12 percent to 16 percent of their inmates are sex offenders.
In Montana, it's 25 percent, and one-third of the men incarcerated at the State Prison - 500 people - are sex offenders.
That means long waiting lists for treatment programs. About 250 sex offenders in prison are on the lists now, and the wait for Phase II treatment can be up to two years.
Each year, about 65 sex offenders leave prison without treatment, because they either refused it or their sentence expired before they could complete it.
Most sex-offender therapists in Montana say it makes more sense, and would be no less safe for the public, to send fewer sex offenders to prison and more directly to treatment outside the prison, while on probation.
"I thought it was too lenient when I started (28 years ago)," says veteran psychologist Michael Scolatti of Missoula, who has treated hundreds of sex offenders. "Now, we're enacting laws that don't allow us to show some discretion."
Roger Dowty, another Missoula sex-offender therapist, says he also tries to find ways to treat even those who deny their crimes.
Recent studies have shown that "deniers" are no greater risk to re-offend than those who admit to their crimes, counselors say.
Statistics from the state Corrections Department show that those who don't get any treatment are a greater risk. A 2007 report by the state said only 2 percent of sex offenders who complete treatment return to prison for a new sex crime, while among those who don't complete treatment, the rate is 25 percent.
Copyright 2011 missoulian.com.
-
Missoulian
Drug use returns convict to prison (http://http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_33a65976-371a-519a-aba5-5a072c509860.html)
By TRISTAN SCOTT of the Missoulian missoulian.com | Posted: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:00 am
A Missoula man convicted of a jailhouse rape six years ago is going back to prison for violating the terms of his probation, despite an addiction counselor's testimony advocating long-term drug treatment.
Cody Marble, 23, was convicted in 2002 of raping a 13-year-old boy at the Missoula County Juvenile Detention Center. Although he has maintained from the beginning that he is innocent of the sex offense, Marble has admitted to using drugs, and pleaded guilty in June to criminal possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
At a Missoula District Court hearing on Tuesday, Judge Doug Harkin sentenced Marble on the probation violation, sending him to the Montana State Prison for a term of 15 years with 10 years suspended. That sentence will run consecutive to Marble's actual drug sentence. Lawyers have reached a plea bargain in that case, and are calling for a five-year commitment to the Department of Corrections with immediate placement in the Nexus Treatment Center, a meth-specific inpatient treatment program in Butte.
But before Marble can get the drug treatment that everyone agrees is critical to his successful re-entry to the community, he must serve out a portion of the five-year prison sentence.
That didn't make a lot of sense to Paul Sells, a licensed addiction counselor in Missoula who evaluated Marble and testified at Tuesday's sentencing hearing.
"He needs treatment," Sells said. "He's been to prison, he was released, he violated his probation, he went back to prison. I don't think prison is working."
Sells said nine months of highly structured, meth-specific drug treatment would go a long way toward addressing Marble's criminal thinking patterns, whereas the Montana State Prison's standard short-term care programs are not similarly geared. Sells also noted that Marble "has done well when he's on tight supervision."
Based on Sells' testimony, Marble's public defender, Rob Henry, asked the judge to impose a 15-year commitment to the Department of Corrections with 10 years suspended. That sentence would have run consecutive to the drug sentence, for a total DOC commitment of 10 years, followed by 10 more years on probation.
But Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul objected to the sentence, saying it failed to address the threat Marble poses to the community as a sex offender.
"I don't think anything has changed between 2003 and 2008," Paul said. "I think he needs treatment, but it's my recommendation that he receive that treatment at the tail end of a prison sentence."
Harkin has sent Marble to jails, juvenile programs and prison since he was age 14, and has seen him repeatedly violate probation or parole rules by using marijuana and methamphetamine. Before the rape conviction, however, Marble had no felonies on his record.
"Given the amount of time that I have been working with Cody Marble with almost no success, where is he most ready to get started with treatment? " Harkin asked Sells. "And it's a loaded question, because I've sent him to every treatment program and he didn't follow through."
But Sells said those programs were community-based and did not offer the sort of structured, long-term inpatient care that Nexus specializes in.
A Missoula District Court jury convicted Marble in November 2002, mostly on the testimony of the alleged victim and other juvenile jail inmates. There was no physical evidence at all of the rape, which Marble says the other boys made up to get back at him for perceived slights, or to seek out more favorable treatment in their own criminal cases.
Before going to trial, Marble ignored defense counsel's advice to plead guilty to the rape charge in exchange for a three-year deferred sentence, avoiding a prison term. But Marble insisted on a trial, was convicted and received the 20-year sentence.
Marble has failed at every attempt to overturn the conviction, and in December a judge denied his petition for post-conviction relief. He is currently appealing that denial before the Montana Supreme Court.
In May, a Missoulian State Bureau investigation revealed that one of Marble's sex offense counselors believes the man may be innocent. Another sex-offender therapist and psychologist who examined Marble after his conviction says the same, and has made a sworn statement saying he thinks the crime never occurred.
Reporter Tristan Scott can be reached at 523-5264 or at [email protected].
Copyright 2011 missoulian.com.
-
Essentially the same article (as the one below) was also published on the same day by the Helena Independent Record under the title Cody Marble followup: Back to prison (http://http://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/article_b06b67b2-d152-5a26-91b3-521bc64476ff.html).
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Missoulian
Column: Inmate maintains the system failed him (http://http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_b3878c8a-21cb-5451-a966-122e8ad2bacb.html)
By MIKE DENNISON Missoulian State Bureau missoulian.com | Posted: Sunday, September 28, 2008 12:00 am
HELENA - This spring, I wrote about a jailhouse rape case involving a Missoula man, Cody Marble, and questions raised about his 2002 conviction for a crime he says never occurred.
Marble, 24, who was free on probation last year after serving a five-year prison sentence, is now back in the Montana State Prison at Deer Lodge.
He was taken there two weeks ago from the Missoula County jail, after being sentenced for violating his probation by possessing methamphetamine. For that and other alleged probation violations, Marble got an additional 10 years in prison.
He probably won't be eligible for parole until early 2010. By then, Marble will have spent the better part of 11 years in Montana's criminal justice system, much of that time behind bars or in some type of secure juvenile or adult facility.
Our May story reported on two sex-offender counselors who've examined Marble and who had doubts about his guilt, as well as a jail officer who believes Marble may be innocent. She said she was never asked her opinion while on the witness stand at the trial.
Marble was convicted by a Missoula District Court jury in November 2002 of raping a 13-year-old boy and fellow inmate at the Missoula County Juvenile Detention Center.
Marble, 17 at the time, says the boy and five other juvenile inmates who testified against him cooked up the story as a form of jailhouse retribution. No physical evidence of rape existed. Marble's accusers first reported the rape six days after it allegedly occurred in March 2002 - and four days after Marble had been released from the detention center.
Marble rejected a plea agreement that would have kept him out of prison, an agreement that required pleading guilty to the rape. Instead, he insisted on going to trial, was convicted and got a 20-year sentence, with 15 years suspended.
He continues to try to overturn his sentence in the courts and seek a new trial, but so far has failed.
When Marble was accused of the jailhouse rape in 2002, his prior crimes had been little more than possessing and using marijuana. He had been in and out of juvenile programs since he was 14, while his family was embroiled in domestic disputes involving his mother, grandmother and father. His mother, Toni Marble, also had attempted suicide more than once.
On July 29, 1999, Marble was sent to a juvenile center in Medical Lake, Wash., for "ungovernable behavior." That night, his mother killed herself with carbon monoxide in an enclosed car.
Marble began using meth after he was accused of the rape. Upon his 2007 release from prison, he was put on a waiting list at Turning Point Addiction Service in Missoula. He relapsed four months later and was arrested. At that point, he was offered a "fast track" treatment option at Turning Point, but was late for an appointment and missed another, canceling that option.
Now, nine years into the system, Marble says he has never had what he considers timely, effective treatment options for his grief or drug use in the wake of his mother's death. Both he and his father, Jerry Marble, say the system has focused on punishment rather than appropriate treatment.
"There was no treatment or anything," Cody Marble says. "Just 10 years of punishment for essentially getting high. I want to go to drug treatment; whatever it takes to do that. That's the only problem I've ever really had."
"I'm the one who keeps pounding on Cody: Drugs aren't going to bring your mom back, and you're just making it worse for yourself," adds his father. "I challenge anybody to walk in his shoes and not turn to drugs or alcohol."
After spending five years in prison for a crime he says he didn't commit, Marble came out as a convicted rapist, designated a "Level 3 sexual predator" who had to register with local authorities.
Other requirements of his release included going to sex-offender treatment, which he had to pay for; no drinking or entering bars or casinos; getting a chemical-dependency evaluation and treatment, which he had to pay for; no possession of pornography or X-rated videos; and payment of a nearly $22,000 bill to Missoula County to cover his public defender costs for the rape trial.
At the sentencing for Marble's probation violation this summer, District Judge Douglas Harkin denied his request to be sent to a meth-treatment program outside of prison. However, even if Harkin had agreed, it's unlikely the treatment program would have accepted him because of his rape conviction. He will have some treatment options at the state prison.
Those who prosecuted the rape case have no sympathy for Marble and say they have no doubt he's guilty of the 2002 rape.
Andrew Paul, a Missoula County deputy prosecutor who assisted on the 2002 rape trial, notes that Marble was arrested last October in a Missoula motel room, where he was looking at pornographic images on a computer and had alcohol and drug paraphernalia in the room.
Paul pushed for a stiff re-sentence for Marble's probation violations.
"Numerous treatment opportunities have been made available to Cody Marble, both for chemical dependency issues and psychological issues," Paul wrote in an e-mail to me last week. "(He) is an untreated sex offender who uses meth, won't comply with any type of treatment and refused to follow the rules of probation - rules that are established to both rehabilitate the offender and protect society."
Missoulian State Bureau reporter Mike Dennison can be reached at (406) 443-4920 or by e-mail at [email protected].
Copyright 2011 missoulian.com.
-
Missoulian
Missoula man loses latest state Supreme Court appeal in rape case (http://http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_6a496966-a8c6-11de-bb25-001cc4c002e0.html)
By MIKE DENNISON Missoulian State Bureau missoulian.com | Posted: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 11:05 pm
HELENA - A Missoula man who says he's innocent of a 2002 rape conviction has lost his latest appeal to the Montana Supreme Court.
Cody Marble, 25, had filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court, arguing that his original case was not properly transferred to state District Court, where he was tried as an adult although he was 17 at the time of the alleged rape.
State law requires that a "transfer hearing" be held to move a criminal case from Youth Court to District Court, if the defendant is under 18, he said. Marble never had such a hearing before he was tried by a District Court jury in Missoula.
But in a 5-0 ruling last week, the high court said the law doesn't allow someone to use a habeas corpus writ to challenge a conviction or sentence if they've already exhausted their right to appeal.
Marble had earlier appealed his conviction on other grounds and had those appeals rejected by state courts, including the Supreme Court.
In a telephone interview from the Montana State Prison, Marble said Wednesday he'll now pursue the same issue in federal court.
He said the Supreme Court appeared to dismiss his latest appeal on procedural grounds, without considering whether his rights had been violated by the failure to have a transfer hearing in 2002.
"The (lack of a) transfer hearing is my best issue, other than the fact that I'm really innocent, which doesn't seem to have a bearing on anything," Marble said.
Marble was convicted of raping a fellow male teenage inmate at the Missoula County Juvenile Detention Center in 2002, while the two were in an open area of a group of cells.
Marble said fellow inmates made up the incident to get back at him for perceived slights, and that investigators did a poor job of examining the case before filing charges. He also claimed in his appeals that he had ineffective defense counsel - a claim rejected by state courts.
Prosecutors on the case have said they have no doubt that Marble is guilty, noting that the victim, a 13-year-old boy, and several other juvenile inmates all testified against him at the 2002 trial, which resulted in a conviction.
Marble was sentenced to 20 years in prison with 15 years suspended.
Marble is currently serving a prison term for violating the provisions of his parole in 2007 and for possession of dangerous drugs, which led to revocation of his parole. He said he will be eligible for parole next spring.
The Corrections Department had categorized Marble as a Level 3 sexual predator after his conviction, but Marble successfully challenged that classification in court this year. A judge agreed with Marble's contention that he should be Level 1, the lowest level of classification for a sex offender.
Copyright 2011 missoulian.com.
-
Cody Marble finally gets out on parole:
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Missoulian
Missoula man granted parole; still insists he did not rape fellow inmate (http://http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_f21d2f42-2334-11df-8695-001cc4c03286.html)
By MIKE DENNISON Missoulian State Bureau missoulian.com | Posted: Saturday, February 27, 2010 5:00 am
DEER LODGE - A Missoula man who has continued to proclaim his innocence in a 2002 jailhouse rape case was granted parole from prison Friday - after he completes a six-month drug treatment program at the State Prison.
The Board of Pardons and Parole voted unanimously to parole Cody Marble, 25, and encouraged him to move beyond his past drug-use problems and any beef with the criminal justice system.
"That's all now in the history books," said board chairman Mike McKee. "You're not a dumb guy; you're a pretty smart guy. You know right from wrong. ... It's time for you to take responsibility for your life."
"It's on your shoulders now," added board member John Ward of Helena. "You've got to carry the burden to be that law-abiding, taxpaying citizen that we all know you can be."
Marble, convicted by a jury of raping a 13-year-old fellow inmate at the Missoula County Youth Detention Facility in 2002, will be paroled from the State Prison once he completes a six-month treatment program for methamphetamine use.
Marble refused a plea bargain before his 2002 trial that would have kept him out of prison, saying he wouldn't plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit. He has maintained his innocence and fought unsuccessfully for several years to overturn the conviction.
In May 2008, the Missoulian State Bureau reported on questions raised about the trial and conviction, including statements from a detention facility guard and two Missoula sex-offender counselors who examined or treated Marble, and who said they felt he was innocent.
Prosecutors who worked on the case, however, have said they have no doubt that he's guilty.
The alleged 13-year-old victim and several other juvenile inmates testified at trial that Marble raped the boy in the jail-pod shower area. Marble says the witnesses made up the crime as retribution against him for perceived slights, or to attempt to curry favor with prosecutors.
Marble had been in the jail while waiting for placement in a new drug treatment program, after he had walked away from a residential youth treatment program in Marion.
*********
The rape conviction led to a 20-year prison sentence, with all but five years suspended. Several months after getting out of prison in 2007, Marble was arrested in Missoula for possessing and using methamphetamine.
The judge who presided over the rape trial sent Marble back to prison for another 10 years, for possessing methamphetamine and violating the terms of his probation.
Marble has been back in jail or prison since October 2007, and became eligible for parole after serving one-fourth of his 10-year sentence.
The board granted Marble's parole despite a prison case worker's recommendation that he be denied, because Marble refused to take a Level 2 sex-offender treatment in prison.
Marble said he refused the program because it would require him to admit to his crime, which he says he didn't commit. He said he would agree to treatment from a private Missoula counselor, who would accept him despite his denial of the crime.
Marble's father, Jerry Marble, said Cody would be living with him once he gets out on parole.
"I've noticed a real change in his demeanor," Jerry Marble told the Parole Board. "It's like he sees a light at the end of the tunnel. ... His anger has subsided, and he knows if he's going to win in life, he needs to address his drug problem."
Jerry Marble also said both he and Cody would continue to try to clear his name in the rape case.
Copyright 2011 missoulian.com.
-
A Letter to the Editor from Jerry Marble, Cody Marble's father, regarding a candidate for sheriff in a local election:
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Missoulian
Election: Giffin a poor choice for sheriff (http://http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_802ab8e8-5e97-11df-a26b-001cc4c002e0.html)
Posted: Thursday, May 13, 2010 7:56 am
In his candidacy for sheriff, Brad Giffin uses the words "compassion" and "proper investigations."
In a May 27, 2006, Missoulian story about tasers' lethal potential, Giffin is quoted as stating that "people in states of excited delirium and exhaustive mania are most likely to exhibit negative effects after being tased. People who exhibit those behaviors are well on their way to dying anyway." So much for "compassion."
The case of my son, Cody Marble, reported on in Lee Newspapers several times since Mother's Day of 2008, has raised serious questions about Cody's court-appointed defense as well as prosecution. Equally important was the role of the detectives because that's where prosecution starts.
Giffin was the primary investigator. He interviewed the juvenile inmate "witnesses" once and ignored their conflicting statements, even after the original reporter of the alleged "rape" in the Juvenile Detention Center, who wasn't the alleged "victim" and who was in jail for accountability to murder, later admitted that he had lied. The prosecution reduced his charges to misdemeanors, gave him time served and no probation.
Neither Giffin, nor anyone else, ever interviewed the guards who were on duty that night. None of them has ever indicated a belief that this "rape" happened. Giffin never viewed the jail videos which showed no rape. There was no DNA and Giffin did nothing to investigate a plot, nor did he attempt to uncover plentiful exculpatory evidence. Giffin knows how to steer investigations toward convictions. Sometimes that means no investigation.
So much for "proper investigations."
Please join me in not voting for Brad Giffin for sheriff.
Jerry Marble, Missoula
Copyright 2011 missoulian.com.
-
Missoulian
Missoula man seeks to have rape conviction overturned after alleged victim recants testimony (http://http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_51773d90-080c-11e0-b501-001cc4c002e0.html)
By MIKE DENNISON Missoulian State Bureau missoulian.com | Posted: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:26 pm
(http://http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/missoulian.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/38/4382adbe-07cb-11e0-98cd-001cc4c03286/4d07e52382463.preview-300.jpg)
Cody Marble stands outside the Missoula County Courthouse on Tuesday morning. Marble is filing a petition to overturn a 2002 rape conviction after the alleged victim recently recanted the accusation and testimony. "I just want my life back. I want my life back from parole, from sex offender registration, from this accusation," says Marble. Photo by LINDA THOMPSON/Missoulian
A Missoula man who has long proclaimed his innocence in a jailhouse rape case filed dramatic new evidence Tuesday with his latest petition to overturn his conviction: a signed statement from the alleged victim, saying the rape never happened.
Cody Marble, 26, convicted of rape eight years ago, said he hopes his latest challenge of that conviction will finally be the one that clears his name.
"I'm just glad it's finally happening," he said of the petition, which has been in the works for more than a year. "I just want my life back. I want my life back from parole, from sex-offender registration, from this accusation."
Marble was paroled from the Montana State Prison this summer and lives with his father in Missoula.
A District Court jury convicted Marble in November 2002 of raping a 13-year-old fellow prisoner at the Missoula County Juvenile Detention Facility earlier that year. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
In a statement filed Tuesday with Marble's petition, the alleged victim, now 22, says he was not raped by Marble and that he was told by other teenage prisoners in the detention center to make up the story to frame Marble for the crime.
"I testified falsely against Cody Marble at the trial," he said in his signed statement. "I thought by then that the story had gone too far and I could not go back. I never thought he would be found guilty or go to prison. ... My hope now is to set the record straight."
The 22-year-old man is an inmate at the Montana State Prison, serving a sentence for having sex with an underage girl. He could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Marble's petition, filed in state District Court at Missoula, asks the court to hold a hearing on the new evidence and either set aside Marble's conviction or schedule a new trial.
Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg, who had seen the petition only briefly Tuesday afternoon, said it's surprising to see a victim recanting testimony eight years later.
"It's just one more thing that Cody Marble is trying to do to avoid responsibility for his case," Van Valkenburg said. "We're just going to have to deal with it."
The statement by Marble's accuser was obtained in July with the help of the Montana Innocence Project, a Missoula-based nonprofit group that investigates cases of possible wrongful convictions.
Marble's case is the first one involving the Montana Innocence Project that has led to formal filing of court documents seeking to overturn a conviction.
"Our investigation yielded information that supports his innocence and raised more questions, and we turned that over (to Marble's attorney)," said Jessie McQuillan, executive director of the Montana Innocence Project. "The centerpiece of the petition is that the alleged victim has recanted. He says what many people suspected: That the rape never took place."
McQuillan said the Innocence Project got involved about 18 months ago, in the wake of questions raised about Marble's conviction by those familiar with the case and by news coverage of his efforts to overturn it.
***
The Missoulian published a lengthy story in May 2008 about Marble's case, including questions raised by witnesses and sex-offender counselors who had examined him and doubted his guilt.
Innocence Project staffers and lawyers learned that the alleged victim was ready to denounce his trial testimony, and visited him at the state prison in Deer Lodge 11 months ago, McQuillan said.
"He told us it was time to recant and we got the signed statement in July, at a subsequent visit with him," she said.
The petition filed Tuesday also contains other evidence and statements that Marble said supports his case for exoneration.
Missoula sex-offender counselors Michael Scolatti and Roger Dowty, who have examined or treated Marble since his conviction and earlier expressed doubts that he was guilty, said the recantation from the alleged victim rings true and strengthens their belief that Marble is likely innocent.
A prisoner at the Missoula County Juvenile Detention Facility when Marble and the alleged victim were there also filed a statement that said a "culture of set-ups" existed in the center in 2002, and that Marble had repeatedly been mentioned as a possible victim of a sexual-assault set-up.
Those concocting the set-up thought it would somehow endear them to prosecutors and help them get their own sentences or charges reduced, the prisoner said.
The prisoner, who's incarcerated somewhere else in the state now, was not identified in the petition, and asked that his full statement be sealed from public view and revealed only to the court and lawyers for the state.
Marble has filed at least a half-dozen petitions to appeal or overturn his conviction, but so far every one has been rejected by either state or federal courts.
Marble said Tuesday he's still outraged over what happened to him, and "not for one second" thought about giving up the fight to overturn his conviction.
Marble's father, Jerry Marble, also said he's spent "everything I had" on investigators, lawyers and other expenses to try to exonerate his son.
Cody Marble had been in and out of juvenile facilities on various drug charges as a teenager, but had never been convicted of a violent crime or felony before the rape charge in 2002.
He must register as a sex offender and says that's made it difficult to find a job. He works now as a lot attendant at a local boat and recreational vehicle company.
"When you have to write down that you're a registered sex offender, I think they just throw (your job application) in the trash," Marble said. "It's kind of like prison outside of prison. ...
"I didn't think this could happen in America. I feel like the system has failed me."
Missoulian State Bureau reporter Mike Dennison can be reached at 1-800-525-4920 or at [email protected].
Copyright 2011 missoulian.com.
-
Reading these comments really brings home the degree of cronyism and political corruption there appears to exist in Montana... Little surprise then, that this state is home to several programs.
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Comments (http://http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_51773d90-080c-11e0-b501-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=comments) left for the above article, "Missoula man seeks to have rape conviction overturned after alleged victim recants testimony (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=37665&p=403996#p403995)" (by Mike Dennison; Dec. 14, 2010; Missoulian):
accobra said on: December 15, 2010, 7:54 am
Just wondering how many times this has happened in the past where the county prosecuter gets a hard on for a conviction and doesn't look at the big picture. Then some kid gets his butt convicted for a false accusation because the accuser is a minor. Looks good on the prosecuters resume though...
And of course they try to back peddle and make it look like the person is just trying to get out of something. God forbid they admit the screwed the pooche. Even though the accuser is saying it didn't happen!!!!!
Buzz Feedback said on: December 15, 2010, 8:55 am
Big Fred is all about being a hard-a$$ with people where there's a question about the conviction? But if you run over somebody while you're loaded or rape your cousin for 10 years straight you get a plea bargain and a slap on the wrist. And this guy just got re-elected?
another voice said on: December 15, 2010, 9:43 am
I am just wondering how many times someone convicted of a crime claims their innocence? Not saying a person cannot be wrongfully convicted but in this case if I remember the facts correctly there were witnesses besides the victim. So it was not just one person's word against another which seems to be the case in most if not all of the wrongful conviction cases that are overturned. It seems like someone would have caved during the initial investigation and/or trial. They were all minors so not hardened enough to hang tough during interrogations. IMO. And I am not swayed by a recantation 8 years after the fact. The vic in the rape case is now in prison, who knows if there has been undue pressure put on him by this Marble guy when he was in or by some one on his behalf. I'd be interested to know if polygraphs were used before the original trial. They are not admissible during trial but the prosecutors do use them on both vics and perps to help them sort though the BS.
babblingin said on: December 15, 2010, 11:10 am
OMG!!!
*****Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg, who had seen the petition only briefly Tuesday afternoon, said it's surprising to see a victim recanting testimony eight years later.
"It's just one more thing that Cody Marble is trying to do to avoid responsibility for his case," Van Valkenburg said. "We're just going to have to deal with it." *******
Did he actually say that??? No surprize...it sounds exactly like words that would come out of his stupid mouth.....he really does need to take responsiblility for the innocent kidz lives that he has screwed up because they weren't U of M Frat boys or their parents weren't U of M alumuni....or no money or favors were offered to him in return for his support....or better yet, they weren't from a family of his U of M fellow students families who, to this day, he is still trying to get their respect and admiration from......I've dealt with his sleazy, indignant court conduct on a couple of occasions ~ the second resulting from the fact he knew he would be cross-examining me so LIED to have me removed as star witness....and now, this conduct (he briefly looked at the petition before opening his stupid mouth???) has just justified my disgust of him and the fact that I think he is a waste of the county's payroll.....wish I knew Cody on a level where I could be a witness for him...just to see if Fred would result (or continue on) to his lying ways...Buzz and Accobra....I'm so with u on this one!!
Smilely said on: December 15, 2010, 12:18 pm
It is very important to prosecute the guilty, but it is more important to exonerate the innocent. The bull crap that goes on in this county between the police including detectives, the prosecutors, the courts, a few high profile attorneys and the Missoulian needs to be exposed with more stories like this. I hope you the best Cory and I believe in your innocence 100%. I was in jail when all this bull went down and we have met and talked at length. You are a fine young man. Missoula is loaded with crooks employed in positions of authority - Judge John Odlin, County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg, Karen Orzech, (now) Judge Karen Townsend (one of the biggest incompetent liars to ever come down the pike), Detective Jamie Merifield (couldn't investigate her way out of a wet paper bag), Police Officer Stacy Lear, and Police Officer Travis Welsh only to name a few and those you wouldn’t think of having positions of authority but don't kid yourself for a moment - attorney John Smith (crooked as they come), the YWCA and the Crime Victim's Advocate again to name only a few. And now that Judy Wang is gone the streets of Missoula and particularly the families of Missoula are now that much safer. I can tell you from experience. I was falsely accused of a crime years ago in this town. One of the highest profile cases this town has ever seen. Although I was found not guilty at trial of a possible thirty years in prison, the police department and courts have never stopped harassing me. Since then I have had the SWAT team come to my house twice and once up town. In total I have been charged with seven felonies and twenty-seven misdemeanors without a single conviction. Only seven percent of all criminal case goes to trial - 4% are found guilty and 3% are found not guilty. I was not only one of the three percent found not guilty but turned around and successfully sued the alleged victim (and have retired quite well as a direct result from the suit - thank you very much!) and the Missoulian never reported it. I am telling you these people just make stories up, over charge people and when the jails have room, the bails are real high and the bails are low when things get crowded - not based on a person's constitutional rights of bail. Don't give up the good fight Cory but I need to warn you the battle will continue long after you are exonerated. For me it has been an incredible journey and I am still cleaning up the wreckage caused by so many of Missoula's self-serving individuals who unfortunately we pay to supposedly protect us. I am now a uniformed officer for a federal agency and although I have been permanently expelled form the University of Montana (unable to ever to attended classes there again for a crime that simply never happened) I occasionally lead large groups of UM students on community projects.
Snail said on: December 15, 2010, 12:19 pm
Van Valkenburg needs to shut his mouth, for sure. I was having a lunch at a thai restaurant this past year when he yelled, yes, yelled and snorted, at me, three tables away,for being on my phone. He embarassed himself in the restuarant as he seems to have done again and again in far far far more important situations. Bravo to this young man for working to free his name from a rape case. As for Valkenburg,he will never clear his name with me.
I babblingin said: "OMG!!!*****Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg, who had seen the petition only briefly Tuesday afternoon, said it's surprising to see a victim recanting testimony eight years later."It's just one more thing that Cody Marble is trying to do to avoid responsibility for his case," Van Valkenburg said. "We're just going to have to deal with it." *******Did he actually say that??? No surprize...it sounds exactly like words that would come out of his stupid mouth.....he really does need to take responsiblility for the innocent kidz lives that he has screwed up because they weren't U of M Frat boys or their parents weren't U of M alumuni....or no money or favors were offered to him in return for his support....or better yet, they weren't from a family of his U of M fellow students families who, to this day, he is still trying to get their respect and admiration from......I've dealt with his sleazy, indignant court conduct on a couple of occasions ~ the second resulting from the fact he knew he would be cross-examining me so LIED to have me removed as star witness....and now, this conduct (he briefly looked at the petition before opening his stupid mouth???) has just justified my disgust of him and the fact that I think he is a waste of the county's payroll.....wish I knew Cody on a level where I could be a witness for him...just to see if Fred would result (or continue on) to his lying ways...Buzz and Accobra....I'm so with u on this one!!"=========================================================================
steamed said on: December 15, 2010, 5:33 pm
I have never met Van Valkenburg but after reading his comment I hope I never have any dealings with a person like him. On a ballot if he's the only one running I'll write in Lenin.
M728 said on: December 15, 2010, 10:16 pm
Whether the conviction is overturned or not Marble will be remembered as a sex offender because he decided to make his case so public.
MslaRick said on: December 16, 2010, 1:26 pm
The only way this type of crap will get resolved is when the day comes that punishment for falsely accusing someone of such terrible crimes is met with the same punishment as the actual crime. To bad it never seems to work that way, but disgusting when truth is rejected in favor of saving face. If these quotes by our county attorney are accurate, I only hope the Missoulian continues to dig into this and the ethical questions it raises. This wouldn't be the first time (Downtown) has ran someone into the ground and destroyed their character in favor of truth. If you are innocent Cody, never give up and be an example of hope and justice. Despite the political pressure to keep quiet, speak up. If the county attorney doesn't want to be a symbol of truth and justice by taking the time to look at evidence before making a statement regarding your guilt or innocence let the community deal with him and don't be deterred.
Rob Tabish said on: December 16, 2010, 5:10 pm
i don't recall the original case, but there should have been forensic evidence collected at the time and that evidence should still be admissible in court. simply relying on the testimony of someone who was convicted, himself, for other sex crimes...on both the defense and prosecution side of the case, both in the original conviction and now, leads me to believe that somebody screwed up. i can see why Van Valkenburg is being defensive.
© Copyright 2011, missoulian.com, Missoula, MT
-
The above article (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=37665&p=404193#p403995) by Mike Dennison was also published the same day in the Billings Gazette under the title, "Victim recants testimony in jailhouse rape case in 2002 (http://http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_57375938-9344-570b-8380-b23355ebe42b.html)." Here are the comments (http://http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_57375938-9344-570b-8380-b23355ebe42b.html?mode=comments):
Scoob said on: December 14, 2010, 6:18 pm
don't they do rape kit tests????? I'm sure if there is one for female there is one for male.... and the WHOO HOOO is a bit smaller than the other whoooo hoooo....
You'd have hemorrhage/tearing etc.....
Maybe I got lost somewhere....
danedog said on: December 14, 2010, 6:28 pm
Sounds like the county attorney is moron.
theblondeone said on: December 14, 2010, 6:45 pm
I think things like this happen more often than we know. A jury would never believe that a victim has a motive to lie but will believe that the defendant is guilty just because they were accused.
straightshooter said on: December 14, 2010, 7:15 pm
Who pays for the injustice?? Some cases have hard core evidence on druggies, thieves, car crimes etc. and the judge gives probation yet this guy gets the book, don't understand this.
PitBull said on: December 14, 2010, 8:58 pm
I agree with Scoob.
Was a rape kit used, and was the boy examined?
They had rape kits (dna) in 2002 and years before that.
IF the boy who is now a young man IS telling the truth now trying to straighten up his life, then we basically have prosecutor's who don't want him to do what is right (recant)because it will make them look badly.
Lenard said on: December 14, 2010, 9:20 pm
The same mentality that leads to wrongful convictions is the same mentality as all the wingnut freaks on these blogs who jump to conclusions and rant about judges handing out lenient sentences when they dont know the full story
Native Montanan 1 said on: December 15, 2010, 6:17 am
I wonder if the two of them also planned to share in the lawsuit that you know will be coming!
Caitlin Copple said on: December 15, 2010, 9:35 am
I work for the Montana Innocence Project, and our investigation yielded the new evidence in this case. There was no rape kit because the "rape" was not reported right away. There was no physical evidence in the case, only the testimony of the complaining witness and the other boys who we believe were involved in the set-up of Cody Marble.
nofeathers said on: December 15, 2010, 10:26 am
The one who made up the story should be prosecuted, and make restitution to the real victim. All those that made up the story should be held accountable!
thinkaboutit said on: December 15, 2010, 10:36 am
I know what it's like to be on the falsely accused end of the deal. I feel for this guy and hope he gets things straightened out soon. Good luck Cody.
SlackJaw said on: December 15, 2010, 10:46 am
I believe I've seen quite a few comments on his stories over the years, calling for forced castration, even death.
How many will come back now to retract those statements, I wonder... my guess is none.
Situations like this are why 'permanent' forms of punishment are simply not wise to use.
jimmers said on: December 15, 2010, 10:58 am
Sounds to me like the Prosecuting Attorney doesn't want to admit they could be wrong and face the reprecussions that are sure to follow.
Fighting for the innocent said on: December 15, 2010, 11:28 am
Van Valkenburg needs to look at all of the evidence and forget about another trial. Why go to the expense of another trial when all of the evidence points unequivocally to Cody's innocence. Common Man!!!!
Infamous J said on: December 15, 2010, 11:43 am
Apparently Van Valkenburg is in the running for worst county attorney ever. Chances are, he'll be a neck and neck with Paxinos when the votes are all in...
© Copyright 2011, The Billings Gazette, Billings, MT
-
The above Mike Dennison article (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=37665&p=404193#p403995) was also published that day in the Montana Standard under the title, "Missoula man fights rape conviction (http://http://mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/article_78a5cbb2-0806-11e0-ac6e-001cc4c03286.html)." Here are the comments (http://http://mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/missoula-man-fights-rape-conviction/article_78a5cbb2-0806-11e0-ac6e-001cc4c03286.html?mode=comments):
jonnyonthespot said on: December 15, 2010, 12:50 am
The system definitely failed him. I'd say the state has a lot of reparations for the hell this guy went through. Good luck Marble.
mtdutch101 said on: December 15, 2010, 8:38 am
Probably not the State's fault if the "victim" testified falsely and the jury believed him. That's pretty much how the system works. What I find stunning is VanValkenberg, the prosecutor's statement. This doesn't seem to be Marble's doing, it sort of seems like the "victim" is coming clean. For the prosecutor to not even give that any credence, or admit that it raises at the very least some doubt is the very definition of vanity and egocentricity. What a tool.
© Copyright 2011, Mtstandard.com, 25 West Granite Street Butte, MT
-
And... the above article (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=37665&p=404193#p403995) was also published that day in the Ravalli Republic under the title, "Missoula: Alleged jailhouse rape victim recants story in letter (http://http://ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/article_0bfbbf38-0803-11e0-b2ab-001cc4c03286.html)." Here's a comment (http://http://ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/article_0bfbbf38-0803-11e0-b2ab-001cc4c03286.html?mode=comments) left for that article:
Christina said on: December 16, 2010, 12:32 am
This is just ridiculous. What I want to know is if the person who accused him and ruined his life for eight years is going to get in any trouble for this. I just don't understand how it could take eight years for this to come out. I hope they do drop this. I also don't understand what a seventeen year old and a thirteen year old would be doing around each other in jail. I know they are both minors but you think they would keep them apart anyway.
Copyright 2011 RavalliRepublic.com.
-
And... lastly, the above article (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=37665&p=404193#p403995) by Mike Dennison was also published the following day in the Helena Independent Record under the title, "Man fighting prison rape conviction produces new evidence (http://http://helenair.com/news/article_346d60f8-081b-11e0-8087-001cc4c03286.html)." There were no comments left for this article, or, perhaps, it has been too long and they are no longer accessible. But here's a pic that accompanied it:
(http://http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/helenair.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/2/30/0cc/2300ccec-081b-11e0-9a56-001cc4c03286-revisions/4d086b22dc9e3.preview-300.jpg)
Currently on parole, Cody Marble was sentenced to 20 years in prison after a fellow inmate at the Missoula County Juvenile Detention Facility accused him of rape. The alleged victim has now recanted the accusation. 'I didn’t think this could happen in America. I feel like the system has failed me,' says Marble. Linda Thompson/Missoulian
© Copyright 2011, helenair.com, 317 Cruse Ave. Helena, MT[/list]
-
As a result of all this coverage, Cody Marble's case begins to inspire some more attention. From John S. Adams' blog, primarily focused on Montana State politics:
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
THE LOWDOWN
NEWS AND NOTES FROM THE MONTANA STATE CAPITAL
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2010
Alleged rape victim recants; prosecutor seems disinterested (http://http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/2010/12/alleged-rape-victim-recants-prosecutor.html)
I was re-reading Mike Dennison's piece (http://http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_57375938-9344-570b-8380-b23355ebe42b.html) on the Missoula man who fought for eight years to overturn is rape conviction and I was absolutely stunned by the prosecutor's quote in the story.
First a little background...
Cody Marble, 26, was convicted in 2002 of raping a 13-year-old fellow inmate at the Missoula County Juvenile Detention Facility and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Marble adamantly denied the charges from the beginning and has insisted all along that he was set up by his fellow inmates.
Now, according to Dennison's article, the alleged victim said the rape never happened and that Marble was indeed framed by fellow inmates (emphasis are mine):
"In a statement filed Tuesday with Marble's petition, the alleged victim, now 22,
says he was not raped by Marble and that he was told by other teenagers held in the detention center to make up the story to frame Marble for the crime.
"I testified falsely against Cody Marble at the trial," he said in his statement. "I thought by then that the story had gone too far and I could not go back. I never thought he would be found guilty or go to prison. ... My hope now is to set the record straight."[/list]
That a HUGE twist in this case.
The alleged victim, and the only real witness other than Marble, says he wasn't raped and that he lied in court because he "though that the story had gone too far." It's pretty easy for me to imagine that a 13-year-old might be afraid to tell the truth after a lie had gone that far.
But here's the part of the story that left my jaw on the kitchen table (again, emphasis mine):
Marble's petition, filed in state District Court in Missoula, asks the court to hold a hearing on the new evidence and either set aside Marble's conviction or schedule a new trial.
Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg, who had seen the petition only briefly Tuesday afternoon, said it's surprising to see a victim recanting testimony eight years later.
"It's just one more thing that Cody Marble is trying to do to avoid responsibility for his case," Van Valkenburg said. "We're just going to have to deal with it."[/list]
Faced with a signed statement from the alleged victim saying the rape never actually occurred, and that Marble has indeed been telling the truth—that he was framed by fellow inmates—Van Valkenburg dismisses the new evidence and says Marble "is trying to avoid responsibility."
Responsibility for what? Being in jail at the wrong time with the wrong inmates? For being convicted of a rape that even the victim now says never happened?
I'm absolutely dumbfounded by VanValkenburg's statement.
The Montana Innocence Project (http://http://www.mtinnocenceproject.org/) obtained the victim's statement last summer. Jessie McQuillan (http://http://www.mtinnocenceproject.org/about.html), executive director of the Innocence Project, had this to say:
"Our investigation yielded information that supports his innocence and raised more questions, and we turned that over (to Marble's attorney)," said Jessie McQuillan, executive director of the Montana Innocence Project. "The centerpiece of the petition is that the alleged victim has recanted. He says what many people suspected: That the rape never took place."
---
Innocence Project staffers and lawyers learned that the alleged victim was ready to recant his trial testimony, and visited him at the state prison in Deer Lodge 11 months ago, McQuillan said.
"He told us it was time to recant and we got the signed statement in July, at a subsequent visit with him," she said.
Good job Mike Dennison for following this story and reporting on Cody Marble's case after many journalists—including yours truly—weren't able to put all the pieces together.
And hats off to my former Missoula Independent colleague Jessie McQuillan and the Montana Innocence Project for obtaining this startling admission from the alleged victim. For those who don't know, Jessie McQuillan is also the award-winning journalist who made Barry Beach (http://http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/the-wrong-man/Content?oid=1185691) a household name in Montana. You can read her excellent reporting on Beach's case, the article that lead to a 2-hour Dateline NBC special, here (http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23958961/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/).
Am I over reacting here? Please read the whole story (http://http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_57375938-9344-570b-8380-b23355ebe42b.html) and this stunning statement by an elected official and share your thoughts.
Posted by John S. Adams at 8:30 AM
Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz
Labels: Cody Marble, Fred Van Valkenburg, Mike Dennison, Montana Innocence Project
-
A comment (http://http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/2010/12/alleged-rape-victim-recants-prosecutor.html) left for the above blog entry, "Alleged rape victim recants; prosecutor seems disinterested (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=37665&p=404495#p404495)" (by John S. Adams; Dec. 17, 2010; The Lowdown):
elkamino said... December 17, 2010 8:46 AM
that was EXACTLY my response to vanvalkenburg's comment when i read this story yesterday. shouldn't our prosecutors focus on justice and not just blind victory? fred's statement pretty clearly shows a bias against even considering what looks to be credible evidence.
seriously. i don't claim to know any more than is reported in this story but goddamn fred's comments should be called out by whatever association or board montanans use to monitor prosecutorial bias.
and besides, what if fred someday finds himself wrongly accused?
# #
-
Missoula County Prosecutor Fred Van Valkenburg tries to downplay the importance of the recanted testimony:
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Missoulian
Prosecutor: Missoula man trying to overturn rape conviction has 'no evidence' (http://http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_31c64816-aa6d-11e0-947f-001cc4c002e0.html)
By MIKE DENNISON of the Missoulian · missoulian.com | Posted: Sunday, July 10, 2011 6:15 am
(http://http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/missoulian.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/38/4382adbe-07cb-11e0-98cd-001cc4c03286/4d07e52382463.preview-300.jpg)
Cody Marble stands outside the Missoula County Courthouse on Tuesday morning. Marble is filing a petition to overturn a 2002 rape conviction after the alleged victim recently recanted the accusation and testimony. "I just want my life back. I want my life back from parole, from sex offender registration, from this accusation," says Marble. Photo by LINDA THOMPSON/Missoulian
HELENA - A Missoula man trying to overturn his 2002 rape conviction "has no evidence," because the victim who recanted his original testimony is now refusing to have anything to do with the case, Missoula County prosecutors said court documents filed last week.
Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg said the request by 27-year-old Cody Marble to reopen his case should be dismissed, noting that the rape victim has "repeatedly refused" to sign a sworn statement recanting his testimony at the 2002 trial. The victim has signed a recantation, however, but not under oath.
Van Valkenburg also said recantations made by a sexual assault victim who's in prison, such as the victim in Marble's case, are notoriously unreliable and should not be used as the basis to grant Marble a new trial or overturn the conviction.
"Because any ‘new' evidence submitted by (Marble) would be either inadmissible or refuted, it is not likely that a new jury would come to the conclusion that (Marble) is not guilty," wrote Van Valkenburg and his chief deputy, Kirsten Pabst LaCroix.
Marble, who was paroled from Montana State Prison last summer and now lives in Missoula, has proclaimed his innocence from the beginning, saying fellow inmates at the Missoula County Juvenile Detention Facility fabricated the rape in March 2002 to frame him.
A Missoula jury that year convicted Marble of raping a 13-year-old fellow inmate, who testified at the trial that Marble raped him in the county jail. Other juvenile inmates testified against Marble as well.
Marble has filed several unsuccessful appeals of his sentence, but in 2009 the Montana Innocence Project began reviewing his case. The Innocence Project examines cases where inmates may have been wrongly convicted.
Innocence Project officials last year obtained a written statement from the victim that said he testified falsely against Marble at the trial and was told by other teenage prisoners at the Juvenile Detention Center to make up the story to frame Marble.
"My hope now is to set the record straight," wrote the victim, who is now 22 and an inmate at Montana State Prison. He is serving a sentence for having sex with an underage girl.
Based on the recantation and other evidence, Marble last December filed a petition asking to have his conviction overturned or have a new trial.
He also asked that the victim be granted immunity from being prosecuted for perjury, for lying at Marble's trial.
***
Van Valkenburg has opposed the victim's request for immunity, saying anyone who gave knowingly false testimony at a trial should not be shielded from prosecution.
"If prosecutorial immunity is given to those who perjure themselves, there is no guaranteeing the veracity of any future testimony," Van Valkenburg said in court papers filed last week.
Van Valkenburg also said whether the victim will offer new testimony is now in doubt, pointing to a June 20 letter from the victim's attorney, Brett Schandelson of Missoula.
Schandelson, in a letter to Van Valkenburg and Marble's attorney, Colin Stephens, said the victim "has no desire to participate in Mr. Marble's petition any further" and "will not answer questions put to him by either party."
"He desires to be left alone and continue the good progress he has made at (prison) Boot Camp," Schandelson wrote.
Stephens said Friday if the victim is given immunity, he'll certainly testify at any new hearing on Marble's request to overturn his conviction.
The question for the court is whether jurors would have convicted Marble if they knew the victim changed his testimony, Stephens said.
"He has made statements that he lied," Stephens said. "Had the jury known about that then, they would have acquitted (Cody Marble)."
Van Valkenburg, in his filings last week, said the recantation must be considered in its entire context and with other evidence. The victim, although signing the statement prepared by the Innocence Project last year, previously told prison personnel several times that he had been raped by Marble at the juvenile jail in 2002, Van Valkenburg said.
"(The victim's) recantation is the result of a non-objective, non-forensic, leading, goal-oriented 'investigation' by an organization whose mission it is to reverse jury convictions," he argued.
A spokeswoman for the Montana Innocence Project said Friday that Van Valkenburg's characterization of the group is incorrect, and that its mission is to "exonerate the innocent and prevent wrongful convictions."
"Our investigations are not conducted in a leading manner and we reject all cases where evidence concludes that a defendant was involved with the crime for which they have been convicted," said Jessie McQuillan, the group's executive director.
Missoulian State Bureau reporter Mike Dennison can be reached at 1-800-525-4920 or at [email protected].
Copyright 2011 missoulian.com.
-
Comments (http://http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_31c64816-aa6d-11e0-947f-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=comments) left for the above article, "Prosecutor: Missoula man trying to overturn rape conviction has 'no evidence' (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=37665&p=404810#p404630) " (by Mike Dennison; July 10, 2011; Missoulian):
CheeseMan said on: July 10, 2011, 12:42 pm
So they let a chomo who tried to pick up a 14 yr. old off with just probation, but this guy with a "recant" that has been signed cant get the case open again? Hell, overturn the conviction and we can pick him up later like all the others if he is guilty.
clearwater said on: July 10, 2011, 5:24 pm
Van Balkenburg seems to forget he is an officer of the court and not a judge.
This conviction truly does stink. Testimonies from other inmates? Really?
What is this man's prior history? Any violence or sexual assaault? Anything at all?
The attorney has no interest in justice here.......he wants the conviction to stick. He wants you to vote him in on the next election.
No....NO on van
startingover said on: July 10, 2011, 11:15 pm
Prosecutors don't care about the facts, or the evidence, unless it is in their favor. They care nothing for justice, only about conviction rates. Innocent, Guilty, doesn't matter, in their eyes everyone is guilty of something, and should be prosecuted with whatever they can get.
tinlizzie said on: July 11, 2011, 10:06 am
First off this kid refuses to accept a plea bargain because that would mean he was guilty, and takes his chances with the jury and gets convicted. Then again he refuses to take classes that would have deemed him a sexual offender and leads to a longer jail time yet, he does the extra time because he doesn't want the stigma of the sexual offender. Van Valkenburg needs to let his ego out of this and retry this case or rescind the conviction. He is innocent and the "proof" that he is guilty is from some juveniles and the main victim recanted??? Sounds alot like the Barry Beach trial and our esteemed ex-govenor, Marc Racoit.
Kandi said on: July 11, 2011, 4:03 pm
Seems to me that this young man (the "victim") has accomplished the goal of the penal system otherwise baptized the 'correctional system' because he wants to right that which is wrong, "My hope now is to set the record straight,"
Could it be he realized after finding himself in the same position he sentenced Cody too that he became enlightened just how harmful the "lie" can become.
Not only has this young man learned some lessons but he has gained the courage and principles he did not have at age 13. The courage comes from bucking the system that helped to corrupt the case and continues to do so by "blackmailing" this young man on the road to a possible better future having paid the price for his crime, by denying him a chance to "reconcile" himself with Cody and society in general.
Is that not the hope of the justice system that has espoused a premise of "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," that the one that commits crime be reformed to be in good standing back in the community as a productive citizen?
This young man has been courageous to come forward because one would be foolish to believe that a recantation like this would not be met with threats by the enemies of truth and justice either of a physical or legal nature. I say BRAVO! Young man.
Now as to the suggestion that because this young man has not signed a statement under oath is a joke. One needs to do very little research to reveal the large numbers of people 'under oath' being totally corrupt and total liars.
If you think an oath is so strong especially in government you need only to review the abuse case (both sexual and physical) by employees of PINE HILLS YOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY: THE STATE OF MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF CORECTIONS; etc. Case No. BDV-2002-512 ...2006...Helena in Judge Sherlock's court.
Not only was discovery withheld for 4-5 years and revealed the day before the last day of the trial but that same revealed evidence was almost secreted away by the request of the state's attorney by a torte claims officer of the state...right in front of the judge. No one paid the price for that crime by agents of government under oath because they have "some kind of special immunity from prosecution that lets them freely commit crimes"
Don't come back at me if you don't read the Pine Hills case!
"Van Valkenburg has opposed the victim's request for immunity, saying anyone who gave knowingly false testimony at a trial should not be shielded from prosecution.
"If prosecutorial immunity is given to those who perjure themselves, there is no guaranteeing the veracity of any future testimony," Van Valkenburg said in court papers filed last week."
This young man has learned a lesson many do not 'to get right, you need to make it right yourself'. They say confession is good for ones' soul.
He deserves immunity for making a big mistake at 13 YEARS of AGE and wants a better life. He is paying for his crimes.
"Stephens said Friday if the victim is given immunity, he'll certainly testify at any new hearing on Marble's request to overturn his conviction.
Stephens said Friday if the victim is given immunity, he'll certainly testify at any new hearing on Marble's request to overturn his conviction."
Justice done!
Let him come forward as a man who now understands compassion and true justice.
"The victim has signed a recantation, however, but not under oath.
Van Valkenburg also said recantations made by a sexual assault victim who's in prison, such as the victim in Marble's case, are notoriously unreliable and should not be used as the basis to grant Marble a new trial or overturn the conviction." Whose more unreliable a man that protects a lie or one who tells the truth?
"previously told prison personnel several times that he had been raped" and you expect us to believe prison guards like the ones with the 'cell phone' deal or the sexual harassment claims...really?
They say everyone has their price and jobs aren't easy to come by!
Apparently our county attorney doesn't believe the most important thing is that the TRUTH be told! It's not about truth to him, it is about convictions for job security, so much for being a public servant under sworn oath.
Kandi
© Copyright 2011, missoulian.com, Missoula, MT
-
Another piece from John S. Adams' blog The Lowdown:
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
THE LOWDOWN
NEWS AND NOTES FROM THE MONTANA STATE CAPITAL
MONDAY, JULY 18, 2011
Double standard for perjury in Missoula County? (http://http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/2011/07/double-standard-for-perjury-in-missoula.html)
Late last year I wrote (http://http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/2010/12/alleged-rape-victim-recants-prosecutor.html) here about a story that Lee's Mike Dennison has been following about a Missoula man has fought for nearly a decade to overturn is rape conviction.
Cody Marble, 27, was convicted in 2002 of raping a 13-year-old fellow inmate at the Missoula County Juvenile Detention Facility and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Marble adamantly denied the charges from the beginning and has insisted all along that he was set up by his fellow inmates.
Dennison reported last December (http://http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_57375938-9344-570b-8380-b23355ebe42b.html) that victim, now in his 20s, admitted to investigators for the Montana Innocence Project (http://http://www.mtinnocenceproject.org/) that he made up his testimony. From Dennison's piece:
In a statement filed Tuesday with Marble's petition, the alleged victim, now 22, says he was not raped by Marble and that he was told by other teenagers held in the detention center to make up the story to frame Marble for the crime.
"I testified falsely against Cody Marble at the trial," he said in his statement. "I thought by then that the story had gone too far and I could not go back. I never thought he would be found guilty or go to prison. ... My hope now is to set the record straight."
What was Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg's response (http://http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_57375938-9344-570b-8380-b23355ebe42b.html#ixzz1SD06AzZl) to seeing the victim's signed a statement recanting his 2002 testimony?
"It's just one more thing that Cody Marble is trying to do to avoid responsibility for his case," Van Valkenburg said. "We're just going to have to deal with it."
Dennison followed-up on the story last week (http://http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_31c64816-aa6d-11e0-947f-001cc4c002e0.html) reporting that Van Valkenburg filed court documents saying that Marble has "no evidence" that could overturn his rape conviction because the victim has "repeatedly refused" to sign a sworn statement recanting his 2002 court testimony. The victim, by the way, is serving a sentence in Deer Lodge for having sex with an underage girl, and is thus already under the thumb of the criminal justice system.
Now, according to the victim's lawyer, Brett Schandelson of Missoula, the victim "has no desire to participate in Mr. Marble's petition any further" and "will not answer questions put to him by either party."
"He desires to be left alone and continue the good progress he has made at (prison) Boot Camp," Schandelson wrote.
Could the reason his client doesn't want to go on the record and say he lied in 2002 have something to do with his fear of being prosecuted for perjury, a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine?
Marble has asked the court to grant the victim—who was 13 at the time of the alleged rape—immunity from perjury.
But according to Dennison's report, Van Valkenburg opposed that request, saying:
...anyone who gave knowingly false testimony at a trial should not be shielded from prosecution.
"If prosecutorial immunity is given to those who perjure themselves, there is no guaranteeing the veracity of any future testimony," Van Valkenburg said in court papers filed this week.
So if the victim comes forward and recants testimony he gave when he was 13 and says that the rape Cody Marble was convicted of never happened, he could face more prison time and a huge fine. But if he doesn't recant, he serves out his sentence in Deer Lodge and goes on with his life while Cody Marble continues to be labeled as a sex offender. That's the situation Van Valkenburg has set up by denying to give the victim prosecutorial immunity.
Van Valkenburg's position really blows me away. Here's why:
In February 2006 I covered the high-profile trial (http://http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/lacking-conviction/Content?oid=1137039) of a man accused of raping a woman at a now-defunct popular nightclub in Missoula. Wilbert Fish was charged with sexual intercourse without consent, a felony, after police alleged they saw Fish with his hand down the pants of an unconscious 21-year-old woman.
However, video surveillance tapes shown to jurors forced arresting Missoula Police officers Ryan Ludemann and Duncan Crawford to admit on the stand that they had falsified the arrest report and gave false testimony during the trial. It also came out during that trial that Officer Ludemann has history of lying while on the job. Ludemann once cited a woman for driving with a suspended license based on an accusation made by his own wife, despite the fact that he never actually saw the woman driving. Driving with a suspended licenses carries a minimum 48 hours in jail. Ludemann wrote in his official report that he saw the woman driving but that he "lost her in traffic." He then lied to his superiors to try to cover-up his lies. He admitted to all of that during the Fish trial.
After hearing that testimony and after watching video surveillance tapes that proved that Ludemann and Crawford were lying, it took the jury of four women and eight men less than two hours to find Fish not guilty of rape.
So does giving false testimony equal perjury?
According to Montana Code 45-7-201:
A person commits the offense of perjury
if in any official proceeding he knowingly makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation or swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when the statement is material.[/list]
To my knowledge, neither officer Ludemann nor Crawford were ever charged with perjury for their testimony in the Fish trial, despite the fact that they both admitted to giving false statements under oath. I don't know if they were officially reprimanded.
Which brings me to my point. Van Valkenburg was willing to turn a blind eye to perjury when his own law enforcement officials are committing it in the name of securing a conviction. But if a man in his 20s wants to officially "set the record straight" about a lie he says he told when he was 13-years-old—and in the process clear the name of a man who may have been falsely convicted of rape—he should face 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine?
Colin Stephens, Marble's attorney, told Dennison that if the victim is given immunity, "he'll certainly testify at any new hearing on Marble's request to overturn his conviction."
As Stephens points out in the article, "the question for the court is whether the jury would have convicted Marble if they knew the victim changed his testimony."
Van Valkenburg dismissed the recantation obtained by the Innocence Project as: "the result of a non-objective, non-forensic, leading, goal-oriented 'investigation' by an organization whose mission it is to reverse jury convictions," he argued.
It appears from his statements and actions that Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg places a higher value on preserving convictions than serving justice.
Posted by John S. Adams at 12:21 PM
Labels: Cody Marble, double standard, Duncan Crawford, Fred Van Valkenburg, perjury, Ryan Ludemann, Wilbert Fish
-
A comment (http://http://mtlowdown.blogspot.com/2011/07/double-standard-for-perjury-in-missoula.html#comments) left for the above piece, "Double standard for perjury in Missoula County? (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=37665&p=405340#p404847)" (by John S. Adams; July 18, 2011; The Lowdown):
MTblogger1 said... July 18, 2011 3:48 PM
Below is an interesting article about the recent actions of Gov. Schweitzer:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion ... c6ba2.html (http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/guest/article_56c98a40-bb54-556c-a459-cb88329c6ba2.html)[/list]
# #
-
It was at this point that the link in the OP (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=37665#p403563) was posted. Here's that article:
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Missoulian
Victim who recanted testimony granted immunity for rape convict's hearing (http://http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_9cec5bd4-c882-11e0-814b-001cc4c03286.html)
By MIKE DENNISON · Missoulian State Bureau · missoulian.com | Posted: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:15 am
HELENA - In the latest development in a long-running case of a Missoula man trying to overturn his 2002 jailhouse rape conviction, a state judge says the victim who recently recanted his trial testimony can testify at an upcoming hearing without the fear of being prosecuted for perjury.
Retired District Judge Doug Harkin, who's presiding over the case, last week ordered the hearing on whether to grant a new trial for 27-year-old Cody Marble.
Marble, convicted by a Missoula County jury in November 2002 of raping a 13-year-old boy while both were in the county's juvenile jail, has asked for a new trial, based largely on the victim's signing of a statement last year that said the rape never occurred.
The statement was obtained with the help of the Montana Innocence Project, which examines selected cases involving inmates who say they were wrongly convicted.
Last week, Harkin, who presided over Marble's 2002 trial, granted Marble's request to grant the victim immunity from perjury prosecution - but only for statements the victim may make at the hearing on whether to give Marble a new trial.
"The court needs to hear directly from the recanting witness," Harkin wrote in his order. "Immunity for the witness, limited to what is said at the hearing, will afford the court an opportunity to value credibility (of the witness)."
Marble's attorney, Colin Stephens, said Tuesday that Harkin's order "gives the kid the opportunity to tell the truth without having to get charged with perjury."
The "kid" is now a 22-year-old man in the Montana State Prison, serving out a sentence for having sex with an underage girl.
What he would say at the yet-to-be-scheduled hearing remains to be seen.
A June 20 letter from the man's attorney said he "has no desire to participate in Mr. Marble's petition any further" and "will not answer questions put to him by either party."
"He desires to be left alone and continue the good progress he has made at (prison) Boot Camp," wrote his attorney, Brett Schandelson of Missoula.
Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg, who opposed granting immunity to the man, had no comment Tuesday on Harkin's order, and said his office will prepare for the hearing on Marble's petition for a new trial.
Van Valkenburg has argued that Marble's petition should be dismissed, saying the victim's recantation is not credible.
In court documents earlier this year, Van Valkenburg said the rape victim has told several prison personnel that he had been raped while in the juvenile jail. Van Valkenburg also noted that the man "repeatedly refused" to sign a sworn statement recanting his testimony at the 2002 trial, instead signing an unsworn statement prepared by the Innocence Project.
Van Valkenburg said recantations made by a sexual assault victim in prison, such as the victim in Marble's case, are notoriously unreliable and should not be used as the basis to grant Marble a new trial or overturn the conviction.
Marble, who was paroled from Montana State Prison last summer and lives now in Missoula, has proclaimed his innocence from the beginning, saying fellow inmates at the Missoula County Juvenile Detention Facility fabricated the rape in March 2002 to frame him.
Marble was 17 at the time. The victim testified at the trial that Marble raped him in the county jail. Other juvenile inmates testified against Marble as well.
Marble has filed several unsuccessful appeals of his sentence, but in 2009, the Montana Innocence Project began working on his case.
Copyright 2011 missoulian.com.