◼ Closing argument delivered in Orcutt trial 06/05/2009
◼ Jury begins deliberations in Orcutt trial 06/06/2009
◼ Jury reaches verdict in Orcutt trial
...Orcutt faces eight total charges, including lewd conduct with a child 14 years of age, false imprisonment, burglary, committing a criminal threat and producing force likely to produce great bodily injury.
The girl testified she was awakened in the early morning on Nov. 21 to find a blanket had been placed over the television in her room, blocking the light, and her leg had been tied to her bedpost. As she looked around the room, she told police she saw a dark figure wearing only boxer shorts, with a T-shirt wrapped around his head.
When she screamed, the girl told police the person jumped on her, held her down and choked her. As the struggle continued, the girl testified the attacker took the shirt off his head and attempted to place it over her head, before he allegedly bound her arms and gagged her with a sock.
The girl reportedly told police, “I was shocked when I found out it was (Orcutt).”
Orcutt is alleged to have held a knife against the girl's stomach, threatening to kill her. She told police that she asked him to untie her and allow her to turn on the lights. After she turned on the lights, she told police Orcutt began gathering up objects off the floor of the room and stuffed them into a bag...
Prosecutor Arnold Klein... Defense Attorney Marek Reavis
Here's the interesting part:
Some of the statements the girl made during an initial interview with investigators differed from facts she gave during her testimony, and Reavis pointed at those discrepancies during his closing argument.
”Does that (story) sound reasonable? Does that sound logical, or does that sound fantastical? Does that sound imaginary? Does it sound like the imagination of a 14-year-old?” Reavis asked the jury.
When asked on the stand, the girl told Reavis she did not believe Orcutt's actions were sexual in nature during the incident.
That was disputed by prosecuting Deputy District Attorney Arnold Klein.
UPDATE:
After deliberating for nearly three hours, a panel of jurors returned Tuesday morning with a verdict in the case of Lawrence Orcutt, finding the defendant guilty of first-degree burglary and acquitting him of seven other felony charges.
Orcutt, who faced eight felony charges, now awaits sentencing July 7 for first degree burglary, and three assault and battery misdemeanors.
”I'm disappointed in terms of that one count, but I'm very happy he beat the other counts,” said Orcutt's attorney Marek Reavis.
“It was a he-said, she-said story. In this case, almost all the circumstantial evidence fell toward Mr. Orcutt.”
...According to Reavis, the jurors found Orcutt guilty of burglary for stealing the clothing off the bedroom floor. That fact, he said, was perhaps the only issue not disputed during the trial.
The jury hung on felony counts of false imprisonment and issuing a criminal threat, Reavis said.
According to Reavis, the jurors had difficulty believing testimony given by the girl due to false or inaccurate statements she made during the investigation and trial. Reavis said the jurors acquitted Orcutt of charges related to child molestation, but agreed he was guilty of three assault and battery misdemeanors -- lesser included charges that were offered in lieu of the felony charges.
”I'm pleased that he was found guilty of felony criminal wrongdoing,” said Deputy District Attorney Arnold Klein, who prosecuted the case. “We're very pleased he was convicted -- he's still going to state prison.”...
What? What in the hell?
ReplyDelete"When asked on the stand, the girl told Reavis she did not believe Orcutt's actions were sexual in nature during the incident, but the DA argued to disregard that?
I am just getting the story out of the paper, and relying on the charges, but history has told me this stupid and unethical DA will charge anything.
If the victim says the defendant had no sexual intent, that doesn't
mean it's true? Where no sex act was committed and the defendant did not admit sex?
I can hear the closing statement now...Ladies and gentlemen, just because there's no evidence, doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.
As a lay person that isn't it unethical to charge it, unless of course your office has a policy of trying to intimidate defendants?
Gunderson/Seal, party of two? May I recommend the three-strikes chef special, with a side of victim intimidation?
There is something more than really wrong here. Really, really wrong.