Video: Freed accused child rapist does in fact speak English; Update: Prosecutors will appeal Update: Prosecutor video added
posted at 10:51 am on July 23, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
On The Big Story Sunday, Julie Banderas and James Rosen discussed the case of accused child rapist Mahamu Kanneh, released because the court couldn’t find a translator to interpret for him in his obscure language. Never mind that Liberia was founded by Americans and English is the official language of that country. Never mind the man completed high school and college in the US, in English.
A Fox producer reached Mr. Kanneh by phone and surprise! he does in fact speak English.
Link: sevenload.com
Exit quesion: Do we merely have an incompetent judge in this case, or a broken legal system.
Update (AP): The prosecutor is holding a press conference now to say that they’ll appeal. Carried live on Fox!
Update (Bryan): Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy announced the appeal a little while ago. Takeaways: There was a translator available for the trial, the burden of providing a translator is on the court, and the prosecutors did not stipulate that the defendant even needed a translator.
Link: sevenload.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Why not both…how about a trifecta…no accountability.
right2bright on July 23, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Look, kudos to Fox and Julie Banderas, but she said, we are “efforting” to get the judge to come on?
With English like that, I’d need an interpretor too.
For the record, stoning for the judge wouldn’t be out of order.
JiangxiDad on July 23, 2007 at 10:57 AM
I would say this news article left me speechless, But I can find the words.
TheSitRep on July 23, 2007 at 11:00 AM
They should provide translators to explain legalese.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on July 23, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Shame shame double shame. What does it take for some of these court personnel? Court appointed psychobabble. Judges who continually let these uncontrollable people off, a woman judge no less, shows a wanton lack of direction and common sense, morals, integrity and so on…so on…so on.
mjkazee on July 23, 2007 at 11:05 AM
We have both.
Pablo on July 23, 2007 at 11:06 AM
How did the court not know? How was he told he was being charged? How was he told he had to go to court? How did he live his everyday life? Did he have no family? How was he told the case was being dropped? Remember, they said they couldn’t find anyone who spoke his language.
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Theresa Chernosky-lawyer who came up with the strategy to allow a child rapist to go free. I bet she would claim she was protecting the civil rights of everyone in America.
Loretta E. Knight-Clerk of the Court responsible for finding the translator. He was arrested 3 years ago. A walking illustration of the efficiency of government.
Katherine D. Savage-judge who dismissed “Savage attributed no blame for the delay. She called the prosecutor’s efforts to help locate an interpreter “Herculean” and said the court system had learned from the case. “Time has become the enemy,” the judge said.” The guy was out on bail, what was the hurry? And what is the enemy? Time or a child rapist walking among us?
How do we get these names in front of the nation?
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Teach him English then prosecute him.
csdeven on July 23, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Righteous anger. Julie is ready to rip that judge a new one.
infidel4life on July 23, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Furthermore, how did he fill out immigration documents?
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:13 AM
The problem here was the original assessment that he must be spoken to in Vai. That’s not the judge’s fault nor is it the prosecutor’s fault. That’s the fault of the psychiatrist.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 11:16 AM
What he said.
Nothing at all will happen to this judge for making such an incredibly stupid ruling, save for bad publicity.
thirteen28 on July 23, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Yes it would. Another comment in that vein is a banning, while we’re at it.
If the judge had ignored the psychiatrist’s assessment it would have been grounds for a postverdict appeal alleging violation of due process because he couldn’t understand the proceedings. You can knock the shrink for incompetence and the clerk for incompetence, but the judge has the cleanest hands of anyone here, whatever the merits of her legal reasoning.
Allahpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Liberian?
They use dollars for cying out loud. They have Southern American accents.
The court can’t tell when someone is lying? They couldn’t have held him an eensy-weensy bit longer to check out his claims before letting him out – especially given the severity of the crimes?
He no good-O. Bust his bottom-O.
naliaka on July 23, 2007 at 11:23 AM
I’m sorry, is there a language barrier to rape? Granted, what he did may be perfectly acceptable in Liberia. I don’t know.
For all I pay in taxes here in Mont. County, I always expect better, but am routinely failed by the County Council and all it oversees.
Note to self: If ever arrested in Monkey County, play dumb. Even though you were raised and educated here, don’t let on that you speak English. Ignorance (their’s) = Get Out Of Jail Free Card
ej_pez on July 23, 2007 at 11:24 AM
What the judge lacked, is common sense. If noone in the country spoke his language, and he couldn’t speak to them, how did get here? How did he live here? How did he get through high school and college? How did he have a job? All the while, not being able to speak to anyone here.
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:25 AM
noone= no one
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:26 AM
I agree with AP’s comment above — to an extent. The Dr.’s recommendation isn’t/wasn’t binding on the judge, especially if the judge had been aware of the english proficiency of the defendant. Furthermore, to dismiss with prejudice when the defendant was out on bond and hadn’t been incarcerated is bewildering.
Laddy on July 23, 2007 at 11:26 AM
They know he spoke some English. The WaPo article says that he spoke to the cops in English. The question is whether he understood English well enough to assist his lawyer in cross-examining witnesses, following the trial proceedings, etc. The psychiatrist said he didn’t. The judge ignores that diagnosis at her peril.
Allahpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Ding-ding-ding!! We have a winner!!!
Common sense would dictate this (allegedly) violent criminal be detained further until the appropriate people could be made available, but judges hate to be overturned on appeal. So this outcome was almost predictable given the ‘finger-in-the-wind’ mallability of this current money driven system in the hands of a high dollar, high powered,
parasiteshired gunslawyers.Besides – what’s the judge’s name & what can we, the people, do about it?? Nothing. And they know it. Their rep and standing on the bench comes first and the public safety be damned!
locomotivebreath1901 on July 23, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Well then what I don’t get is how is it that the court appointed shrink has enough authority to sway the court and thus the entire case? Who is the shrink accountable to? This is just one person. Shouldn’t the judge have the authority to decide if the shrinks recommendation is wrong, or at least get a second opinion?
infidel4life on July 23, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Wow. That’s a pretty high bar, since no one with an IQ under 90 is really able to assist his lawyer in cross-examining (beyond basic elements), following trial proceedings, etc.
We try kids who viciously murder as adults, and rightfully so. I doubt any of them understood much of the particulars of their proceedings.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 11:32 AM
He knew enough to graduate high school and attend college courses.
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:32 AM
That’s why she is the judge. She doesn’t have to accept their explanations blindly. She had the guys history and the cops testimony to show he spoke english. The judge’s hand are not even close to clean.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Several points:
1. This case is in The Peoples Republic of Montgomery County where liberal democrats reign supreme.
2. Related to point #1, I have extensive experience of the psychiatric community in this region, and they are all, yes ALL, whining liberal wienies. And they have a great deal of power.
3. The judicial system here is broken due to the large criminal and immigrant community and the lobby which represents them.
This case is getting a lot of press due to the nature of the case involving the rape of a minor, but I would be willing to bet that similar outcomes are happening on a regular basis in less egrigious circumstances…in civil, traffic and family court.
cat on July 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Have they revoked his bail yet? Because they should really fast, or he might find the little girl he was raping and molesting and try to intimidate her in some fashion.
mram on July 23, 2007 at 11:36 AM
I think he can’t be tried again. He was cleared of the charges. Wouldn’t it be “Double Jeopardy”? Or, considering these developments, can they try again?
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:38 AM
He hasn’t been tried, so there is no double jeopardy.
Pablo on July 23, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Good.
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Besides appealing the dismissmal, there is always the possibility of federal civil rights violations against the girl. That’s the way double jeopardy is usually gotten around.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 11:40 AM
How is the judge better qualified than the shrink to tell? You want her to just keep bringing in new shrinks until she gets the answer she wants?
Allahpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Judges are allowed to ignore all sorts of recommendations.
I don’t think we need a shrink to find out if someone understands English, or not.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 11:44 AM
If there’s any doubt, she should keep bringing in interpreters until one sticks. I’d say she also have subpoenaed his college records. If he did reasonably well, in English, she’d be on firm ground deciding him competent enough to go to trial.
Pablo on July 23, 2007 at 11:44 AM
I think the consultation of more than one, say two, would do just fine. See if they reach the same conclusion.
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:46 AM
A 7 year old child is raped and terrorised repeatedly.
The monster was caught.
The system protects the monster.
How do say ‘we are doomed’ in Vai?
Tru2my2 on July 23, 2007 at 11:47 AM
The solution to the shrink’s ruling was simply to provide an interpreter, which they did — three times, and each time it broke down on them. There’s an old legal saying that hard cases make bad law, i.e., don’t set public policy or make court rules based on one fluke occurrence. Set it based on what happens in most cases. In most cases an interpreter would have worked out just fine here. It may yet work out here if the decision gets reversed on appeal, which it very well might given the public outcry.
Allahpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:50 AM
JUDGE;
1. a public officer authorized to hear and decide cases in a court of law; a magistrate charged with the administration of justice.
2. a person appointed to decide in any competition, contest, or matter at issue; authorized arbiter
3. a person qualified to pass a critical judgment
Sounds like Judge Savage abdicated all of her responsibilities. This predator walking free is on her hands and if another child is attacked she will have that on her hands, also.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 11:50 AM
The system has to protect him constitutionally. This is why I’m so exasperated about this case: it lends itself to all sorts of easy demagogic nonsense. The judge made a judgment call about the right to a speedy trial. Disagree with her judgment if you like but recognize at least that the right is supposed to protect him.
Allahpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Why didn’t the court know he graduated high school and attended college? That requires a very good understanding of the English language. If he could do that, why did he need an interpreter?
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Here’s a question: just how good does a person’s English have to be to be tried? Does a high school diploma and an associate’s degree earned in the US not qualify as good enough?
The judge should have gotten a second shrink or a linguist to examine the patient-without the patient knowing he was being examined. I’ll guarantee he played dumb when the psych examined him. Gotta hand it to the defense lawyer to find an innovative way to get his client off the hook (which is his job, however much we may hate it).
Regardless, I read elsewhere on this that three available Vai interpreters were found in half an hour. If that is true, the head prosecutor owes someone in his office a pink slip in the most publicly humiliating way he can deliver it.
Let us not forget that we don’t actually know the if the guy is guilty or not. We do not (or at least I don’t) know the details of the case, and after Duke we should know better than to automatically jump on the bandwagon and assume that an accusation is automatically true.
Lancer on July 23, 2007 at 11:55 AM
I’m sure they did know. Like I say, the fact that the shrink found his English insufficient put the judge in a position of either providing an interpreter to be on the safe side or else going ahead with the trial and risking having the verdict tossed out on appeal based on the fact that a court-appointed expert had found the defendant didn’t understand the proceedings. She did the prudent thing. They just had bad luck with interpreters and it got to the point where she felt his right to a speedy trial had been violated.
Allahpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:56 AM
If the guy speaks English and his lawyer knows, then why isn’t the lawyer being brought up on ethics charges. A laywer is not allowed to lie to the court, which seems to be pretty clear in this case.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Who protects the child? Who protects the potential future victims?
How many times will this guy get a pass?
Tru2my2 on July 23, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Does the system have to ignore facts, in order to protect him? Fact is, he spoke English well enough to graduate high school and take college courses. You can’t do that by speaking “some” English.
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 11:59 AM
An overworked, overwhelmed or flat out lazy judge dropped the ball. Oh yea, or maybe the dismissal fit the judges idological beliefs. No matter the reason, a good judge would have balanced the weight of the perpetrators school and work history and the testimony of the policemen aginst the testimony of the psychiatrist. If the judge decided to trust the psychiatrist, she would have told the clerk and prosecutor to go find a translator and don’t come back until they do. A good judge would not have let a potential predator out on the street on a technicality. The guy was arrested 3 years ago! The judge let it go that long. This happened because of either the incompetence or intention of the judge, no other reason.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Within reason. This case shows accomodations that were well outside of reasonable.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 12:00 PM
On the brighter side, this case shows the need to establish ones proficiency in English before being granted immigration status – we cannot be allowing untriable people to become citizens.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 12:04 PM
I would argue that the “average” rapist on trial doesn’t understand all the ‘proceedings’ in any case. Legalease is a language all it’s own.
Do criminals need a masters degree (or law degree) now to prove that they are fully understanding of the proceedings of a trial?
Tru2my2 on July 23, 2007 at 12:05 PM
I don’t know why the shrink diagnosed the guy the way he did. Maybe he was fooling him? It may be that the guy speaks basic English but the shrink thought he might have difficulty with the more complicated legal terms that would arise. You’re presuming a lot here to presume that they deliberately ignored facts. If you suspect some sort of malfeasance, explain the motive. Why would the court go out of its way and ignore evidence to spring a child rapist?
Allahpundit on July 23, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Lancer on July 23, 2007 at 11:55 AM – You are assuming the 3 that WaPo found could serve in a trial. WaPo doesn’t make that claim, in fact, it leaves it to the reader to assume that fact. So let’s not jump to conclusions about the availability of a Vai translator for the duration fo teh trial.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 11:59 AM – tell me you are not serious with this statement:
I don’t agree with child predators being out on bail, so lets not misconstrue. However, our whole system is based on the presumption of innocent, and that you have the right to a speedy trial of your peers should you be accused. It’s more than a speedy trial to get you out of jail (and surely you don’t think 3 years in jail waiting for a trial should be SOP), it’s also a speedy trial to clear your name, etc. It is set up to prevent false accusations. If they couldn’t find a translator that could serve for the duration of the trial (that’s an IF) then she would have to let him go.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 12:08 PM
As distasteful as it is, I agree. He’s right.
Or at least he’s right at this point. The Defendant’s 6th Amendment rights have clearly been violated. At this point, the judge didn’t have many choices. If I were her, I might have considered the cowardly choice – ignore the Constitution, and let a conviction be overturned later on appeal.
Or maybe that wasn’t the coward’s way out … maybe the trial should have proceeded, based on the fact that at least the scumbag wasn’t incarcerated for all that time … and let the appellate courts deal with it later.
But I at least understand the legality behind the current decision. My question for the judge isn’t why she did what she did now. My question is WHERE WAS SHE FOR THREE YEARS? Or if she wasn’t the trial court judge – where was he/she?
They created a catch-22 here: the Defendant’s trial was delayed long enough to trigger the 6th Amendment … but it was the Court’s own incompetence that created the delay.
Where was the urgency? WHERE WAS THE PROSECUTOR? Why wasn’t the prosecutor hammering on this daily? Why didn’t the prosecutor go find a damn translator – even if on their own time? And here’s a fun one: WHERE WAS THE MEDIA? If the media is so proud of themselves that they can easily find a translator – where were they when that might have been helpful?
It’s unfathomably sad that the media decides to be outraged NOW. Why weren’t they outraged two years ago, when the case was being dragged out … but something still could have been done? Why? I’ll tell you why: because that wouldn’t have made a good story. That wouldn’t have given O’Reilly something to yell at. It’s much more fun for the pundits now, isn’t it? If they’d actually FIXED the problem, well, that’s not news.
There’s a lot of blame to go around. The judge’s recent decision is the very least of it.
My last question: if a relative finds and kills the victimizer … how does the state prosecute? How would any juror vote to convict? The whole reason vigilante justice is outlawed is because its taking the government’s role in meting out justice.
If the government fails in that role … how do we condemn vigilantism with a straight face?
A final, final question: if and when the molester hurts or kills someone else – who do we hold responsible?
What a bizarre, Kafkaesque-in-reverse sort of nightmare.
The fact that the guy spoke English all along is just the icing on this cake of crap.
Professor Blather on July 23, 2007 at 12:09 PM
You must not have children. Dukakis wouldn’t defend his wife. Didn’t work then, won’t work now. Ban away.
JiangxiDad on July 23, 2007 at 12:10 PM
I think that most people here are referring to stupidity in the court, rather than intentional malfeasance – though that is possible, too.
I think that the judge probably doesn’t understand English well enough to know how she should have ruled.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 12:11 PM
I understand he needs to be protected constitutionally. I understand this may be a fluke. But was the prosecution able to cross examine the shrink and did they bring up the high school/college education?
Also, what was the court’s criteria for an interpreter? The three found by Fox, I assume, were here for the past three years. Were they called and somehow deemed unable to perform the required duties?
If it turns out this need for an interpreter was a fabrication to get him off the hook, can he be bagged for perjury? And the shrink?
This is really tragic.
looking4statesmen on July 23, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Wasn’t there a case recently where someone claimed to only understand Klingon and demanded a Klingon interpreter?
CrazyFool on July 23, 2007 at 12:14 PM
So, he understood English, but not enough to understand the legal terms. Ooh, ooh. You know who could explain them to him? His attorney. You know, the same guy who would explain them to me? So, if I’m accused of a crime, and I go in and say, “I don’t understand all of the legal terminology”, they’ll dismiss my charges, right?
Why couldn’t the clerk find an interpreter over three years, and working with the Liberian Embassy, yet the WaPo could find 3 in the immediate area in the last few days?
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 12:17 PM
I guess I must be released from any being bound to any contracts I have signed, since I’m not a lawyer and don’t understand the legalese of the contracts.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 12:20 PM
The real question is since he’s a legal immigrant and non-latino…will Geraldo stick up for this scumbag?
Paul the American on July 23, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Yes, and you can not be convicted either, because you don’t understand the legal terms.
Better yet, make up your own language of grunting sounds, and then demand an interpreter who can explain the legal terms for you in that language, despite the fact you speak English.
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 12:23 PM
What I’m saying is, the lawyer might not have been able to communicate well enough with the guy to explain the legal terms, let alone the medical terms that would inevitably be floated in a rape case. We simply don’t know how good his English is. Neither does the judge, which is why she erred on the side of caution.
Allahpundit on July 23, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Yeah, and by the same token, that Cooey guy should have gotten off because they couldn’t find anyone who speaks retard.
I
Tru2my2 on July 23, 2007 at 12:24 PM
I mean, my lawyer explained to me what the contracts said, essentially, but when I asked him to write the contract up using the same words he used to explain them to me, he said that he couldn’t do that, since there are aspects of the legalese that could not be stated in lay English.
Therefore, by this judge’s (and others’) reasoning, I am now free from any obligations I might have signed up for in legalese … that I don’t “understand”.
Brilliant.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 12:25 PM
When jeopardy attaches is not necessarily precisely answerable; it generally depends on how far the proceedings have progressed. In a criminal trial, once the jury is seated jeopardy attaches – at that point, even if the trial is halted before the first witness testifies, 5th Amendment double jeopardy protections apply.
http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/double-jeopardy
In this case, though, I think the point is moot. If a charge is dismissed on 6th Amendment speedy trial grounds … I’m not sure a Defendant could ever be retried. The reason is obvious: how could the right to a speedy trial ever be protected if, once the charges were dismissed, the government could just retry you? It would render the protection meaningless.
That doesn’t mean he can’t be charged with other offenses though – federal civil rights violations? – assuming the statute of limitations hasn’t expired.
There’s one area the useless media could actually do some good at this point: with enough pressure, the authorities – local or federal – will find something else with which to charge him.
Assuming the girl’s relatives don’t get him first.
Professor Blather on July 23, 2007 at 12:26 PM
With all due respect, where does it say that they found translators that could serve for the duration of this trial? I might could find 3 people that speak Japanese in the next half hour, but it does me little good if they can’t serve the need.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Yes. This is starting to sound pretty good! Very freeing, at least. I always hated all those silly laws, written in legalese that I couldn’t understand, anyway.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM
And who’s fault is that? Given the charges, I’m surprised the judge didn’t ream whoever was responsible for ensuring a qualified translator be made available.
If it’s the district attorney’s fault, our outrage should be directed at them. If it was the responsibility of the defense, why didn’t the judge order the defense to get a translator or be held in contempt?
I’m with you AP. The Constitution is there to protect all of us, and it worked. Someone charged with dotting the “i’s” let us down here.
BacaDog on July 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Good enough to graduate high school and attend college, yet he can’t understand a simple explanation from an attorney?
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM
I know. Like that one thing…The Constitution. That’s it! I demand it be written in simpler terms. I also demand the Bill of Rights is too.
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Maybe the judge was trying to make a statement about our educational system :)
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 12:31 PM
There probably aren’t any Vai speakers in the Liberian Embassy.
James on July 23, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Exactly. Which will invariably happen unfortunately, as to err is human.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 12:34 PM
This is the problem with the legal system in America. It’s more concerned with process than justice. It’s makes arguments about “correctness” without any concern of whether justice was served, which is the only question that truly matters.
For justice, the Judge and Prosecutor should be looking for ways to hold the trial, not reasons to free him. Heck, we hold trials and execute the mentally handicapped who could never hope to understand complex legal arguments under any circumstances yet this guy walks free?
Why would the Courts go light on Child rapists? That question is best put to O’Reilly since he seems to find a least one case of it a month which is why he’s such an advocate for Jessica’s law.
At time it seems we do a better job of protecting dogs than we do children.
TheBigOldDog on July 23, 2007 at 12:37 PM
We’ve seen this all play out before:
1. The public won’t be outraged at the rapist getting away because they are brainwashed into thinking that rape is and criminal behavior is just a psychological disorder or due to environment, and we all have problems.
2. The public won’t be outraged at the judge because the judge just “made a mistake” or her hands were tied or she did her best, etc…plus it is a female judge and it would not be PC.
3. The public won’t be looking into the laws to see what what wrong here, because it is an immigrant and that is not PC, nor it is PC to be making more strick laws on criminal behavior (which of course is just a psychological disorder anyway….right?)
4. Also, as soon as you go into people needing to speak English to live in the US, and it is their responsibility to find a @#$ translator, then you are again not being PC and probably racist also.
I’m just about ready to stop listening to the news and following politics. Intelligence and reason are just too outnumbered.
nottakingsides on July 23, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Ok, here’s a question for everyone. Who ordered the shrink; The judge or the prosecutor? They needed B. D. Wong on the case.
- The Cat
MirCat on July 23, 2007 at 12:39 PM
So, if Mr. Kanneh, who, allegedly, lacks the English language dexterity necessary to express his views adequately in planning his own defense, was interviewed, by the shrink, in English, how was said shrink able to glean enough information to form a sufficient profile of Mr. Kanneh’s mental state, feelings about his role in preparing his defense, etc.?
Shouldn’t the court have required that the shrink pose those questions in vai, too?
tad on July 23, 2007 at 12:39 PM
To be fair, lately, there haven’t been a whole lot of cases of dogs being raped.
James on July 23, 2007 at 12:40 PM
My take was the prosecution was still building its case and was dragging out the interpreter thing until the judge had no choice
Three years to be accused of a heinous crime is a long time without a person’s right to confront their accuser which, if I might interject, is one of the founding principle of our country
EricPWJohnson on July 23, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Oh ya? Then what were those “rape stands” at Vick’s house for? (LOL!)
TheBigOldDog on July 23, 2007 at 12:42 PM
All this legalistic PC hair-splitting has turned our legal system into a pathetic joke. A compelling reason to bring back vigilante justice.
infidel4life on July 23, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Easy. Kanneh just had to keep repeating “I do not understand”. Ergo, he doesn’t understand.
BacaDog on July 23, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I’m disgusted with Maryland’s current status as is……
This story just makes me wanna puke more……..
Razgriez on July 23, 2007 at 12:46 PM
The guy only spent one night in jail and his attorney had waived the right to a speedy trial. His rights were never even close to being in jeopardy. Never.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 12:47 PM
By letting an alleged serial child rapist go free? Ever looked at the recidivism for that particularly vile sort of criminal?
She may have erred “on the side of caution” with regards to her own derriere and fear of being overturned at some later point in time (oh the HORROR! Almost as bad as being systematically and repeatedly raped by a family member), but potential future victims of this alleged animal might beg to differ.
Standard inept CYA judge, coupled with criminally inept staff. Nothing to see here, move along.
Misha I on July 23, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Not our innocent until guilty system.
Why is everyone attacking Allah on this one? He’s right.
Our system protects defendants. That’s just a fact of life here.
And it’s a good idea that defendants get a chance to defend themselves, something they can’t do if they can’t understand the charges against them or what’s being said against them.
With that law as the given here, the entire trial can be thrown out if the judge decides to go against the shrink. Which is worse, having it thrown out on a technicality because the judge didn’t do her job which would thus leave no legal way to get the guy later on, or this?
We don’t execute the mentally handicapped, not legally anyway.
Esthier on July 23, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Actually, that was the Oregon State Department of Mental Health.
When I studied Abnormal Psychology we filed “refusing to communicate in any way except in an invented language” under the heading “word salad” (can’t remember the Latin term, at the moment), i.e. a mental disorder manifesting in the use of inappropriate or imagined (”made-up”) words to substitute for the patient’s native tongue. (The old Monty Python routine about the fellow whose name was spelled “Worthington Luxury Yacht” who insisted that it was in fact pronounced “Throatwarbler Mangrove” was a humorous riff on this.)
While this is a bit unusual, it is by no means entirely unknown when dealing with mentally challenged individuals. In one classic case, a psychiatrist found himself dealing with a patient who had constructed an elaborate science-fictional world worthy of Edgar Rice Burroughs entirely in his imagination, who insisted it was more real than real life to him (the patient). It, too, had a very detailed and internally consistent language, which the psychiatrist determined was only distantly related to any known Earth language. Known as the “Kirk Allen” case, the details may be found in the book The Fifty-Minute Hour; A Collection Of True Psychoanalytic Tales(1958) by Dr. Robert Lindner, the psychiatrist who treated the patient in question. (The pseudonym “Allen” was used both for confidentiality reasons and because the patient in question was at the time engaged in classified research for the old Atomic Energy Commission.)
The story on the Oregon DMH search for a Klingon interpreter is here;
Klingon Interpreter Needed
IMHO, someone who required this level of interpretive assistance would be unlikely to be considered competent to stand trial if accused of a crime.
cheers
eon
eon on July 23, 2007 at 12:52 PM
There were 4 in the area, though.
From the Townhall article:
amerpundit on July 23, 2007 at 12:54 PM
He is one of her relatives.
Esthier on July 23, 2007 at 12:56 PM
How does English comprehension, trump forensic evidence?
captivated_dem on July 23, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Oh we don’t?
TheBigOldDog on July 23, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Maybe they should have requested the judge who wouldn’t allow the words “rape”, “sexual assault”, … to be spoken in a rape trial, because of their prejudicial connotation. That judge would have solved the problem by simply disallowing any English words that the defendant didn’t understand.
What a great system we have! Judges who don’t understand English well enough to be able to discern the intent of rules and regulations, nor the importance of being reasonable in application.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 1:05 PM
And, for all those screaming about “innocent until proven guilty”, don’t forget that many accused are held over without bail until trial. “Innocent until proven guilty” is meant to be evaluated with some sense reason. Don’t get too carried away with slogans that people like to apply well outside of their contexts.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 1:13 PM
says the gentlemen who also claims that the system does not always have a constitutional obligation
Response:
I’m not screaming, and I applaud the prosecutor’s appeal, but I would not care to sit in jail for 3 years waiting for a trial. And the Constitution must govern all, there is no justification for rule of law without it; with or without reason.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Allah, do you live in the United States?
Isn’t that what this blog is all about? How all of us are watching our country be destroyed with without reason or logic? Isn’t the understanding of that what most of us who read this have in common? That guy got off because of either the incompetence or the intention of the judge. She knew she had a case in front of her reguarding a child rapist and she let time slip away.
The more I think about it the more the prosecutor should be held responsible also. If the state attorney and the judge are elected officials there in Maryland, recall should be in order.
isn’t this the state that rejected Michael Steele?
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 1:23 PM
He spent one nite in jail in 2004 and was freed the next day on a $10,000 bond,
darwin on July 23, 2007 at 1:24 PM
So first they didn’t want a speedy trial and then they did.
Since seemingly the predator and the translator were the only ones speaking Vai, who told the judge the interpretors work was faulty?
Sorry, this is not how our system of justice is supposed to work, this is what it has degenerated into. The bottom line is that an immigrant got special treatment which allowed him to walk free.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »