Sex Crimes

Oral Argument Dates Approaching In Carr, Comstock

SCOTUSblog reports that the Supreme Court has released its schedule for oral arguments this session. You may read the schedule here. Two important sex crimes cases are also coming up on the Court's calendar. United States v. Comstock will be heard on Tuesday, January 12, 2010. Meanwhile, Carr v. United States will be heard on Wednesday, February 24, 2010.

Polanski Wins Bail Request

Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski has been granted bail while he awaits a ruling on his extradition request by U.S. authorities for rape charges in California. Above the Law and WSJ.com Law Blog have more. From the Wall Street Journal:

A Swiss court agreed Wednesday to release Roman Polanksi on bail of 4.5 million Swiss francs ($4.5 million), persuaded that the large sum was enough to keep the Oscar-winning film director from fleeing the country while he awaits a ruling on whether he would be extradited to the U.S.

In granting Mr. Polanski's request, the Swiss Federal Criminal Court reversed a decision last month by the Swiss Justice Ministry to reject his offer to put up his ski chalet in the tony resort of Gstaad as a guarantee. At the time, the ministry said the lack of a cash guarantee might not keep Mr. Polanski from attempting to flee the country. The ministry now has 10 days to appeal the court's decision, but a spokesman said it would make a decision much sooner.

Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said she saw "no reason" to appeal Mr. Polanski's release, the Associated Press and Swiss TV reported. The ministry had no further comment on the court's ruling. Mr. Polanski's lawyer in France had no immediate comment.

Mr. Polanski has been in a Swiss jail since police arrested him Sept. 25 upon his arrival in Zurich, where he was slated to receive an award at a film festival. He was arrested on a U.S. warrant issued in 1978 when he fled California after pleading guilty to having had sex with an underage girl. In late October, U.S. authorities filed a formal request for him to be extradited. The Swiss Justice Ministry is still processing that request, but is expected to make its decision within about a month, according a person familiar with the situation.

Nursing Homes And Sex Offenders

The Chicago Tribune has an interesting article about Illinois sex offenders in nursing homes. According to the article, most sex offenders who live in nursing homes are not listed on the registry. From the article:

Under Illinois law, families researching nursing homes are directed to search a state police Web site for critical information about sex offenders living in the facilities.

But only 59 of the 192 sex offenders in Illinois nursing homes -- or less than one in three -- were listed on that online state registry, a Tribune investigation found.

The shortfall is especially acute in Chicago, where fewer than one in five sex offenders in nursing homes were posted on the state police Web site, the Tribune found.

Part of the problem is a gap in the law: Although some sex offenders can remain dangerous for decades if unmonitored and untreated, many are no longer required to register with police if their convictions or final parole dates occurred more than 10 years ago.

In addition, state investigators have documented more than a dozen instances since 2007 in which nursing homes failed to notify local law enforcement that they housed a convicted sex offender, as required by law, or failed to implement care plans to monitor and treat sex offenders inside the facilities, the Tribune found.

In some cases those offenders allegedly went on to molest vulnerable residents and even staff, according to state public health reports.

NJ Parole Board Finds Sex Offender Polygraph Testing Effective

The New Jersey Star-Ledger is reporting that the state parole board has released an internal study claiming that the use of polygraphs on paroled sex offenders has been effective in detecting and preventing parole violations. According to the article, almost all of the state’s 5,600 supervised sex offenders must submit to at least one polygraph test every year. You may read the actual report here. From the article:

The parole board started using the examinations two years ago, and an internal study being released today says they’ve been effective in detecting and preventing parole violations even though budget restrictions have prevented the tests from being widely implemented.

Out of 236 paroled sex offenders who took polygraph tests, 86 had their supervision plans changed afterward. That includes 34 offenders who received more stringent supervision, such as out-of-state traveling restrictions or electronic monitoring.

Only 400 tests have been conducted so far, parole board spokesman Neal Buccino said. The state has five polygraph machines, and 11 officers have completed nine weeks of training in Philadelphia. The training and equipment was funded by a $50,000 federal grant and $16,667 in state money.

During polygraph tests, the sex offender sits alone in a room with the officer. Sensors on the chair and straps across the chest and stomach detect fidgeting, and fingertip sensors monitor sweat. A band around the subject’s upper arm tracks blood pressure.

Group Seeks To Ban MA Sex Offenders From Homeless Shelters

The Boston Globe has an interesting article discussing a new push to ban sex offenders from homeless shelters. From the article:

As the state’s steep budget cuts have forced organizations that help the homeless to cut beds, staff, and programs, the advocates for the needy say banning sex offenders would allow shelters to save money on security, open up space for others, and make shelters safer.

The Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance, which represents 90 organizations that provide services to the homeless, has urged state lawmakers to add shelters to an increasingly long list of residential bans for many sex offenders. They are already barred in some communities from living near schools, day-care centers, parks, playgrounds, libraries, or nursing homes.

While those who study sex offender recidivism rates say such residential restrictions are counterproductive, state lawmakers who support the proposed legislation argue that it also would fix a loophole in the law, which for five years has required the most dangerous sex offenders to post their names, addresses, and photos on a public website. They say too many sex offenders bypass the law by listing a homeless shelter as their address when they live elsewhere.

In a review yesterday of 162 Level 3 sex offenders - those with a high risk of committing sex crimes again - who list addresses in Boston on the state’s online registry, the Globe found that at least 74 percent reported they were living at homeless shelters.

It seems odd to fix a "loophole" that sex offenders are lying about their address by barring offenders from homeless shelters. It seems like the way to fix that problem is to verify offender addresses. Pushing homeless offenders out into the streets does nothing to prevent future sexual violence.

Female High School Teacher Gets 12 Years For Sex With 17 Year Old Aide

A female high school teacher in Tennessee was recently convicted of having sex with a 17 year old male teacher's aide and received a 12 year sentence. Volokh and Above the Law have more. From the Tennessean:

District Attorney Ray Whitley said Sandy Binkley "got what she had coming to her."

David Ridings, Binkley's attorney, said it was the most egregious abuse of justice in sentencing that he has ever seen. "We hoped that (the judge) would follow the law. He failed miserably at that," Ridings said.

Binkley's attorney had hoped the former teacher would be sentenced to no more than three years. He plans to appeal.

Binkley, 37, the former teacher, was convicted Sept. 29 in Sumner County on two counts of statutory rape by an authority figure.

The convictions stemmed from a sexual encounter that occurred on March 20, 2008, between Binkley and a 17-year-old boy in a locker room office at Portland High School.

Binkley claimed she was raped.

Almost a Sex Crime: Lawyers and Clients

Above the Law has a post about whether attorneys should be allowed to have sex with their clients. The post mentions that California and Texas are considering banning sex with clients in most situations. The proposed language is very similar to Rule 1.8(j) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a "lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced." The Illinois Supreme Court has adopted this rule effective January 1, 2010. From Above the Law:

The California State Bar Association is considering a change to the professional rules of conduct to “prohibit sex with clients unless they are spouses or the relations preceded the lawyer-client relationship,” according to The Recorder. The Texas Supreme Court is suggesting the same type of thing in the Lone Star state, according to the Texas Lawyer.

The American Bar Association generally frowns on lawyers getting into their clients’ briefs. The argument against taking discovery to the bedroom is that sexy time undermines an attorney’s ability to give objective advice and to keep his or her interest from limiting that of the client.

On the other hand, regulating bed behavior potentially violates a lawyer’s privacy and the right to freedom of association.

ATL readers, we turn the debate over to you. Is it okay for lawyers to be their clients’ master debaters and masturbators? Moving beyond the theoretical, how many of you have actually had to grapple with this? Take our polls and hear some stories, after the jump.

When we write about lawyer-client sex here at ATL, it’s usually of the problematic variety. See the story of Stanford grad James Tipler, who made his clients pay their legal fees with sexual favors. Or the story of 72-year-old personal injury attorney Allen Isaac who wanted a blow job as part of his retention fee. Or the story of Washington state divorce lawyer Lowell Halverson who was disciplined by the Washington Supreme Court for repeatedly having affairs with his emotionally distraught clients.

Is Carrie Prejean A Sex Offender?

Carrie Prejean has generated a lot of news lately. Recently, the Former Miss California sued Miss California producer K2 Productions for religious discrimination allegedly for firing her after she made public comments opposing same-sex marriage. It is now rumored that Prejean dropped the suit after K2 Productions found a private sex tape, allegedly filmed when she was 17. While the gossip sites are discussing how Prejean's one sex tape is actually eight sextapes, the law blogs are discussing the various legal questions, including whether Mr. Prejean could be prosecuted for child pornography offenses. Prof. Berman has three great posts on the topic. From Mom Logic: 

It appears that Carrie Prejean is the latest to fall from the almighty Conservative/Christian throne. With the year this young lady has had, why is she still in front of cameras? Well, she went from Miss California to "In my country, in my family, I think I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman ..."

As indicated by Professor Douglas A. Berman, Carrie "could be technically subject to the five-year minimum [sentence] under 18 USC 2252(a)(2) for distributing material involving the sexual exploitation of minors," as a result of producing and distributing "child porn."

While authorities and legislators have shown that they are willing to possibly be a little more lenient with sexting (texting nude pictures), as the federal child porn statute currently stands, possession of and transmitting child porn is against the law, regardless of who is responsible.

This sex tape that Carrie Prejean made is comparable to cases that have already resulted in convictions of minors who have produced and manufactured child porn for boyfriends/girlfriends; and those convicted have become registered sex offenders.

In America, sadly, this will probably only help her book sales. There is no doubt that her conduct, if it is as alleged, meets the statutory elements. However, as with the various sexting cases, the story of Prejean illustrates how reliant we have become on prosecutorial discretion in such matters.

"Putting a Stop to Congressional Overreach"

Reason Magazine has an interesting article supporting the Respondent in the upcoming United States v. Comstock case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The article also mentions the Cato Institute's amicus brief, which we previously blogged about and which is available here. From the article:

Later this term, the U.S. Supreme Court will have a great opportunity to remind Clyburn and his colleagues of those limits when it hears oral arguments in the case of U.S. v. Comstock. At issue is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which empowers federal officials to order the indefinite civil commitment of "sexually dangerous" persons who have finished serving a federal sentence, or who are currently in the custody of the attorney general because they were found mentally incompetent to stand trial. In other words, the government isn’t willing to let these people back on the streets.

In its brief to the Supreme Court, the government argues that Congress possesses this authority under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause, which grants Congress the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States."

Yet as the text itself clearly specifies, any law passed under the Necessary and Proper Clause must also be tied to a specifically enumerated constitutional power, either one of the "foregoing powers" listed in Article I, Sec. 8, or one of the "other powers vested by this Constitution." As James Madison told the Virginia ratifying convention, the Necessary and Proper Clause "only extended to the enumerated powers. Should Congress attempt to extend it to any power not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause."

So where among the "foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution" did Congress happen to find an explicitly enumerated power to indefinitely detain "sexually dangerous" prisoners?

The answer is: Nowhere. The Constitution provides no such authority. Indeed, as a superb friend of the court brief filed in the case by Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett makes clear, "However well intentioned Congress may have been, it had no power to legislate for the purpose of protecting the public from dangerous persons.... The Necessary and Proper Clause is not an independent source of Congressional power."

MI Court: Man Doesn't Belong on Sex Offender List for Youthful Romance

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that a man convicted for a so-called "Romeo and Juliet" relationship does not belong on the state's sex offender list. You may read the decision here. From the Associated Press:

Robert Dipiazza had a consensual relationship when he was 18 with a nearly 15-year-old in 2004. A teacher contacted authorities because the age of consent is 16 in Michigan.

A third-degree attempted criminal sexual conduct charge was eventually erased from his record, but he still had to register as a sex offender. He says he had trouble finding jobs and became depressed.

The state appeals court on ordered a Muskegon County judge to strike his name from the registry, calling it cruel punishment. Dipiazza and his girlfriend were married in April and had a baby during the summer.