Mo. man was wrongly jailed for 8 months

In Marble Hill, a teenage girl -- pregnant at age 13 -- accused a 20-year-old man of being her baby's father, the Southeast Missourian reports. The man was arrested and jailed for eight months, until DNA tests showed the baby wasn't his. (He had steadfastly denied even touching the girl, much less getting her pregnant.) Now? A 41-year-old man has been charged after DNA tests show there's a 99.999 percent chance that he's the dad, the paper reports.

The prosecutor agreed to releasing the man, but sticks by how the case was handled, too. From the Missourian:

The case against Johnson wasn't handled any differently than other cases, Gray said. The girl's accusation was specific, she stuck by her story, gave an accurate description of Johnson and Johnson admitted the girl was at the party, Gray said.

Hat Tip: Many thanks, cripjak!

Comments

[Kevin]

Its obvious that the Prosecutor doesn't watch Maury..one girl on there claimed to know the father of her baby even after testing 10 guys who turned out to not the father. Why would a 13 year old be that crediable to lock a guy away for 8 months. The sad thing is that this happens more often than you think.

Here in Kansas City, the Star did an article on a young kid accused of rape. He was just walking down the street to visit his granmother for her birthday when a victim pointed him out to police. He was heard in the jail for a year, lost his job, his girlfriend, and apartment, not to mention the death of his grandmother, all to find out that DNA didnt match him.

[Anarchanon]

Yep. That's a court of law for you.

[Jellybean]

Something has gone awry with the presumption of innocence - especially when there's any sexual aspect at all.

[Nemesis]

8 months to do a DNA test is ludicrous. DNA testing should be done upfront in these sexual abuse cases to establish who the real perpetrator is.

[D-man]

Gave accurate description of Johnson. You almost lost me on that one, I went to the story to make sure the guy's name was Johnson.

[KC Cicero]

Sadly, the prosecutor is right about one thing: This is EXACTLY how any other case would be treated. Badly. With a guy held in jail on no evidence beyond an accusation, in blatant violation of the law - which requires ROR bonds unless there are specific reasons not to ROR ( a law regularly ignored by judges).

In a way, the guy is lucky. This is one of the few cases where DNA is usable. Absent DNA -- well, you know, everybody in the Pen claims to be innocent. And some are.

[Stifled Freedom]

That's the rape shield law working wonders in MO again.

[Stifled Freedom]

jellybean, you got that right. Whenever its anything sex, rationale goes right out the window and hysterics take over.

[Man in a Mission]

Nemesis -

The reason it took 8 months to do the DNA tests was because a test couldn't be done prior to the birth of the baby.

From the article:

Initial DNA testing conducted after the birth of the child led to charges being dismissed Oct. 5 against Brandon E. Johnson, 20, who had admitted knowing the victim but denied having sex with her.

Primer will have his first court appearance at 9 a.m. Thursday in Marble Hill.

Johnson was released from jail Aug. 11, about two weeks after the DNA testing confirmed he was not the father. Gray joined with Jason Tilley, Johnson's attorney, in asking at that time that Johnson be released.

[Kevin]

Although it is understandable that DNA could not be performed until the baby was born, the same could be said for not charging the man until the baby was born. Unless guy is an escape risk, and it sounds like he wanted to prove his innocence, he shoud have been released pending further investigation. PERIOD.

[Nemesis]

"The reason it took 8 months to do the DNA tests was because a test couldn't be done prior to the birth of the baby."

I call BS. DNA testing can be done
in utero, they WOULDN'T do it because it was a minor.

[KC Cicero]

He said/she said -- so it's OK to lock him up for 8 months until it is convenient to do a DNA test.

That is the logic of a police state, not a free society.

[Jane]

So we now have to prove innocent and the state doesn’t have to prove guilt to be locked up. YAY AMERICA WE WIN!

[Man in a Mission]

I'm not defending locking the guy up, or even charging him. I was only trying to explain why, according to the article, it took so long to do the DNA tests.

[I Know]

This is not an example of the over-used make me want to gag term "police state".

Its an example of the justice system trying to work for a 13 year old victim, who appears credible, to keep what would appear to be a child predator off the streets.

The "victim" should be held solely responsible for this young man's freedom being ripped from him.

Its wrong. There were several ways to avoid this. But it all falls on the little tramp 13 year old.

If he were actually guilty and he was to be allowed to remain free and then violate again, the same people would be demanding that heads roll for nobody doing anything.

Its far from a perfect world.

[ls]

I know someone who spent 14 hours in KC jail for putting a sticker on a stop sign.

[Figaro]

And your point is ?????

[kevin]

I Know-

I hardly doubt that a twenty year old getting a 13 year old pregnant is as big of a problem as a 41 year old doing it. So your logic is flawed because while the police protected us from an innocent 20 year old, a 41 year old was roaming the street having sex with children for eight months.

[keraj]

How many years is this idiot little slut going to get for making up such a story?

[Drasil]

Was she protecting the 41 year old?

[I Know]

Kev n:

My logic is flawed?

You say its ok for one adult to get a child pregnant but not another while you remain numb to the fact the reason why the wrong person was in jail while the perv stayed on the street was because of the 13 yo hooker's allegations.

My logic is flawed, right.

[JLB]

lock her up for 8 months!

[Barney Frank in Uranus]

See, teaching sex education really works you stupid butt sucking libs. Now we will pay for her and her kid to do the same thing. The parents should be prosecuted for child neglect, the girl should have the kid taken away and she should be locked up in juvi until she is 18.

And yes, I Know, your logic is flawed. Must be that public education.

[KtotheG]

Wow, JLB. "butt sucking libs?" REALLY?

Odds are she went to a school where kids "discover" sex for themselves because they have ultra conservative parents who ignore the elephant (pun totally intended) in the room and count on over worked and under appreciated teachers to educate their child on the finer points...as long as it doesn't get too fine, right?

And of course we wouldn't want birth control to be accessible. That would be a rediculous notion.

You have to acknowledge the circle to end it.

Love,

A Public Educated Liberal.