DA to 6-Year-Old: Because I Can

In one of the most absurd fact patterns, Grant County, Wisconsin, District Attorney Lisa Riniker decided it would be a really good idea to prosecute a little boy, playing doctor and touching a 5 year old girl on her buttocks, for first degree sexual assault.  Riniker sent the summons to the 6-year-old, informing the child that he can be jailed for his failure to appear.

Riniker's rationale was that “the Legislature could have put an age restriction in the statute … the legislature did no such thing.” As Radley Balko aptly notes, so much for relying on prosecutorial discretion to keep the lid on taking half-baked legislation to its logical extreme.

So attorneys for the boy have filed a §1983 action.
Attorneys for the parents of the 6-year-old, who is being referred to as "D," said that Riniker has gone too far by bringing a felony sex charge against a first-grader for touching a 5-year-old girl inappropriately while playing doctor last fall.

"That behavior by a prosecutor is outrageous," said Christopher Cooper, an attorney for the boy's parents.

Cooper and attorney David Sigale filed the federal suit last week, alleging that Riniker wants D to sign a consent decree admitting some level of guilt.

 "We're certainly hoping to vindicate D in the eyes of the law," Sigale said.

The action seeks damages and injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to cause the Defendant Riniker to cease and desist from abridging the Parents (Plaintiffs) First Amendment rights by her pressuring the parents of "D" to force "D" to admit guilt when the boy says he did not do the act and, additionally, that the DA is demanding and pressuring the parents to sign a consent decree.

To make matters worse, the complaint alleges that the pursuit of this child is politically motivated.

[T]he girl is "the daughter of a well-known political figure in Grant County," and her brother, who is the same age, also was involved in playing doctor but was not charged. In addition to Riniker, the lawsuit names as defendants retired Grant County Sheriff's Sgt. James Kopp and Jan Moravits, an investigator with Grant County Social Services "whose regional supervisor...is the political figure's wife's sister-in-law"—i.e., the aunt of the alleged victim.

As the boy is too young to be the subject of a juvenile complaint, he falls into the netherworld of "protection" for children:
The boy — who under Wisconsin law is too young to be charged with a crime or in a juvenile delinquency petition, the equivalent of a criminal complaint for adults — was accused of first-degree sexual assault in a petition seeking protection or services for the boy. Such petitions are typically used by parents or authorities to identify children younger than 10 who need services to change inappropriate behavior.

The idea of suing in federal court to stop a prosecutor from "coercing" parents into acquiescing to a consent degree that would label a 6-year-old a sex offender doesn't seem nearly as peculiar when the considered in light of the background of this situation.  There is nothing about this that isn't utterly bizarre at every turn.

There are two choke points that can't be ignored, however. First is Riniker, the prosecutor, who thought it was a good idea to send a summons to a child threatening jailing. This move rockets Riniker right to the top of the list of stupidest prosecutorial moves of the year.  Whether she's incompetent or a political tool isn't clear.

The other is the judge, who apparently saw no basis to throw Riniker out of his courtroom, but decided the better move was to shut down the child's parents.

The boy's parents had planned to speak with WISC-TV on Monday to discuss the emotional toll the prosecution has taken on their son. But the prosecutor, Grant County District Attorney Lisa Riniker, on Monday morning asked a judge for a gag order in the case and was granted it. The gag order prohibits the boy's parents from talking about the case.

In light of the clear appearance that their cheeseheads are a few sizes too small, seeking relief from federal court hardly seems out of line.  If neither the local prosecutor nor judge demonstrate any capacity to exercise sound discretion, untainted by political influence, then where else is there to turn?

The law tends to deal poorly with truly absurd situations, as all the platitudes presume some degree of normalcy and reasonableness by the people in whose hands power is placed. When that falls short, it requires someone to go outside the box and fix the mess. Hopefully, the federal judge will show the fortitude to clean up this insanity, though it will require some unpleasant things to be said about this conspiracy of dunces engaged in a vendetta against little kid who did no more than pretty much every other child, and certainly did nothing for sexual gratification.  

Clearly, somebody here needs a damn good spanking, and it's not the 6-year-old.  I hope the federal judge who lands this case has the will to deliver the punishment.

H/T Walter Olson

Posted by SHG at 11/25/2011 7:46 AM
Categories: uncategorized
 
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this post
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

  • 11/25/2011 2:17 PM Jordan wrote:
    Pragmatically, do you really think the prosecution's case would pass the giggle test before a jury?

    If I was sitting as a juror, I would be furious at the prosecutor...
    Reply to this
    1. 11/25/2011 2:27 PM SHG wrote:
      There won't be a jury, Jordan. This is toddler justice.
      Reply to this
      1. 11/25/2011 2:35 PM Jordan wrote:
        I just read your article a little bit closer. Holy crap! This is some of the worst abuse I've ever read about. I'm at a loss for words on this one. Just... wow.

        This is another reason why prosecutorial immunity is so stupid. Prosecutors are supposed to use good judgment, but when they don't, there's usually no remedy. Everyone else is subject to malpractice and bar complaints.
        Reply to this
        1. 11/27/2011 1:04 PM Frank wrote:
          Even Niifong didn't get anywhere near what he deserved. Absolute immunity needs to go, and qualified immunity needs to be severely curtailed. It is clear that the danger from those drunk on power greatly exceeds the danger from criminals.

          Sadly, I don't see this happening. Which means the sole avenue to change will involve outraged citizens awarding hemp neckties, extra navels, and third eyes to the government munchkins.
          Reply to this
  • 11/30/2011 1:58 AM R. Pointer wrote:
    Best system that ever was. But it still leaves the taste of dung in my mouth… I wonder why?
    Reply to this
  • 12/2/2011 2:33 AM Guy wrote:
    Yeah, I thought the whole point of prosecutorial discretion was the ability to not bring charges in cases like this where, even if the behavior is out of line, the full force of the DA's office isn't the appropriate way to remedy the situation....

    But then, what do I know? I'm not a DA that has to worry about voters, etc.
    Reply to this
    1. 12/2/2011 7:58 AM SHG wrote:
      And that's why it's wise not to rely on prosecutorial discretion to "fix" bad law.
      Reply to this
Leave a comment

All comments are subject to editing or deletion if I deem them inappropriate for any reason or no reason. Hyperlinks are not permitted in comments and will be deleted. References to Nazis/Hitler will not be tolerated. I allow anonymous comments, but will not tolerate attacks unless you use your real name. If you use ALL CAPS for emphasis, I will assume you wear a tin foil hat and treat you accordingly. I expect civility from you, but that does not mean I will respond in kind. This is my home and I make the rules. If you don't like my rules, then don't comment. Spam is absolutely prohibited, and you will be permanently banned.

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.