D.A. in falsely-accused dad case issues press release

Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2012-04-10 00:28

As a follow-up to this item, I received the following in reply to my letter to the D.A.:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 6th, 2012

KELSO, WA - Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur will not be filing perjury charges against Cassandra Kennedy. Ms. Kennedy recently claimed she lied in 2001 as an eleven-year-old victim when she testified against her father, Thomas Kennedy in a jury trial. The jury convicted Mr. Kennedy of three counts of Rape of a Child in the First Degree. Her recantation was found to be enough to warrant an order for a new trial, but was not determined to be the truth.
There is a misconception that Mr. Kennedy would not have been released unless he was found innocent. This is untrue. He has never been found innocent of the crimes of Rape of a Child.

In 2001, Mr. Kennedy was convicted of Rape of a Child in the First Degree based on Ms. Kennedy’s testimony, medical evidence, and the testimony of other witnesses. In March 2012, Superior Court Judge Stephen Warning overturned the conviction of Mr. Kennedy based only on Ms. Kennedy now claiming that she lied at the first trial. The judge did not make a finding that Ms. Kennedy was telling the truth then or now, but ruled that Mr. Kennedy was entitled to a new trial because of this new information. After reviewing what evidence is left to prove the original charges, including Ms. Kennedy’s new claim, Prosecutor Baur determined that eleven years later the Rape of a Child charge could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a second trial.

“We will not be filing charges against Ms. Kennedy for the same reason we will not be re-filing charges against Mr. Kennedy. I understand and share the frustration people have with Ms. Kennedy. I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt if she is lying now or if she lied in 2001. If a prosecutor is not firmly convinced of the truth of a charge beyond a reasonable doubt, they have an ethical duty not to file that charge.

For more information, please contact Sue Baur at baurs@co.cowlitz.wa.us.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

"If a prosecutor is not firmly convinced of the truth of a charge beyond a reasonable doubt, they have an ethical duty not to file that charge." What a total crock- this is NOT the standard that prosecutors or CPS prosecutors follow when charging men with sex crimes. They err very far on the side of prosecution. Basically, they follow this standard only when it suits their anti-male agendas.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by citizend on Tue, 2012-04-10 23:09

If you're not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then you're innocent. Our modern legal systems allow for these gray areas where they lock up innocent men and then refuse to examine their own wrongdoing when it turns out they made a mistake.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by dungone on Tue, 2012-04-10 15:31

where the innocence projects had trouble at times getting permission from d.a.'s to test old evidence for signs of d.n.a. makes them look bad when their convictions get overturned.

in truth, there is no telling how many innocent men have spent decades, lifetimes behind bars, or even executed, because the courts refuse to prosecute false accusations and perjury with any consistency. no enforcement of the law allows for terrible outcomes, as it always has. that is the reason i no longer believe in the death penalty. i sure wouldn't trust this bunch of judicial clowns with anyone's life. besides, they say, because of all the appeals (lawyers getting fat), it costs more to execute someone than support them for life in prison.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Tue, 2012-04-10 23:55