Abortion doctor guilty verdict hardly a victory

The Kermitt Gosnell verdict is hardly a victory. Out of 6 charges of first degree murder to unborn babies, Gosnell was only found guilty of three. Of one charge of third degree murder to an abortion patient, Gosnell was found guilty of a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. A 42 percent (3/7) is a failing grade.

The Pennsylvania doctor’s West-Philadelphia practice was prominently located on a busy street corner, smack-dab in the middle of town. Even though he presumably ran an illegal operation for decades, it was not until February of 2010 that law enforcement finally discovered Gosnell's constantly-eroding crime scene.

The raid was not related to the investigation of murder, infanticide, or illegal abortions.

Nor was it related to an investigation of Gosnell’s patients’ dying of pain-killer overdoses prescribed by him after he performed an abortion.

The raid was not related to the 46 lawsuits that were filed against him by his victims, or to the numerous complaints that people had made to state officials for years. It not related to the spread of STD’s due to Gosnell’s use of contaminated instruments or that women.

No, the raid was actually related to a prescription drug dealing operation.

The grand jury transcript stated that hundreds of babies and fetuses were discovered frozen in bags, and that one of Gosnell’s employees assisted him in performing 13 of 31 charges.  But investigators were unable to determine if every single one of the frozen babies and fetuses were illegally aborted. And prosecutors did not have enough evidence to charge Gosnell with 31 counts of murder.

Instead, the prosecution only ended up with seven counts of first-degree murder in that he “regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy -- and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors.”

Then, during the jury trial, the judge dismissed 2 counts of first degree murder to unborn babies. The judge did not give his reason for the dismissals; however, it is most likely because the prosecution did not show enough evidence that the three babies were viable, born alive, and then killed by Gosnell and his staff.

Gosnell also charged with one count of third degree murder of Kamamaya who received an abortion at the clinic in 2009 and died shortly thereafter of a pain-killer overdose prescribed to her by the clinic.

The prosecution presented its case over a period of five weeks, calling former staff members to the stand, in addition to showing graphic photos of babies recovered during a search of Gosnell’s clinic. The staff members testified that they saw the babies move and/or breathe; however, Gosnell’s defense attorney argued that these observations, although disturbing and heart-wrenching, were not scientific proof that the babies were born alive. Additionally, Gosnell called no witnesses to testify in his defense.

In 1973, Roe v. Wade made abortion legal, primarily in response to back-alley abortions. Women were finally able to terminate a pregnancy though safe and sanitary procedures administered by a legitimate doctor. They no longer had to risk their lives by terminating a pregnancy in the bathroom with a coat hanger or visiting scam artists who used painful and risky techniques.

Pro-life or pro-choice, today women can legally obtain an abortion. Pro-life or pro-choice, today doctors can legally perform an abortion so long as it is within the state’s legal term limit.

The case against Gosnell is grotesque but the prosecution had a major hurdle because only the staff, non-medical experts, testified that they observed the late-term babies breathing and moving. The non-medical evidence and testimony was so weak that the judged dismissed three murder charges:

1. Baby B: Baby B’s remains were discovered with 46 other fetuses, frozen in bags inside of Gosnell’s office. The medical examiner concluded that the baby’s gestational age was at least 28 weeks and it was viable except for a “surgical defect at the base of its neck.”
2. Baby F: Gosnell’s non-licensed medical student Massof testified that he saw the aborted baby’s leg “jerk and move.” A medical expert also testified that babies 25, 26, 27 weeks old. But, unfortunately this expert did not specifically examine Baby F so Baby F’s exact length of gestation could not be determined with medical certainty.
3. Baby G: Massof also testified that after Gosnell performed the abortion of Baby G, the baby was breathing and Gosnell “snipped the cervical part of the vertebra.” The judge found that this evidence alone was not enough to support the murder charge. Certainly, this sounds like cold-blooded murder but our judicial system allows judges to dismiss charges if the prosecution does not present enough evidence to show that the charge must proceed.

So, out of all of the grotesquely disturbing information listed in the 241 page indictment, the jury was only asked to determine Gosnell (and his assistant’s) guilt on three murder charges to babies. Just three. (And this was after 10 days of deliberation that even included a period when the jury was deadlocked on two charges. He was found not guilty in the murder of Baby E.)

This case is definitely about the murder to the three unborn children murdered at the hands of Gosnell but it is just as importantly about the health and safety of women, and the public’s needed demand that regardless of one’s moral belief’s about abortion, the government does not continue to fail us by turning a blind eye to mass murders who operate in plain view.

Tamara Holder is an attorney and Fox News legal analyst. 

View the original article here

Former Fox News employee pleads guilty in 'mole' case

• 

  Former Fox News employee Joseph Muto (r.) and attorney Florian Meidel (l.) appear in court where Muto admitted his role in posting stolen video on a website. (Fox News)

A former Fox News Channel employee who stole and sold raw video clips and wrote a series of Internet postings detailing some of the internal workings of the network pleaded guilty Thursday to two misdemeanor charges and agreed to forfeit $5,000 he made for his work as the so-called “Fox Mole.”

Joseph Muto, 31, who worked on the top-rated “O'Reilly Factor” before he was unmasked and fired last year, appeared before Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Neil Ross and pleaded guilty to attempted unlawful duplication of computer related material and attempted criminal possession of computer-related material. Muto was initially charged with two felony counts, but negotiated a plea deal for a reduced sentence.

Muto’s work appeared in the online publication Gawker and detailed, among other things, his dissatisfaction with some of the men’s room facilities at Fox News’ Manhattan offices. Gawker also posted video of Mitt Romney speaking privately to Sean Hannity of his wife’s interest in the equine sport of dressage, and Newt Gingrich being primped off-stage by his wife, Calista.

After entering his plea, Muto, who was also fined $1,000 and sentenced to two types of community service - 10 days and an additional 200 hours  - to be served at court-approved non-profits, said he wished he’d never betrayed his former employer.

"I wouldn't have done it had I known I'd end up in this courtroom."

- Joseph Muto

"I wouldn't have done it had I known I'd end up in this courtroom," Muto, who also must forfeit an Apple laptop and a USB drive, told FoxNews.com. "To answer your question of 'was it worth it?' I wouldn't have done it."

Muto’s attorney, Florian Miedel, said Muto should not have been treated like a criminal, despite admitting he stole material from his employer.

"Making him accept a criminal conviction is unfortunate for conduct that is fairly commonplace in the industry," Miedel said.

Muto’s time as the “Fox Mole” was undone within a day, after Fox officials traced his company log-on information to unauthorized access to a pair of videos that had been leaked. He was arrested Thursday morning, hours before the court appearance.

A Fox News spokesperson said, “We are very grateful to the Manhattan District Attorney’s office for their dogged pursuit of this case and for obtaining justice in this matter.”

View the original article here

Prosecutors say they are not ready to agree to Holmes guilty plea in theater shooting

• 

  July 23, 2012 FILE: James E. Holmes appears in Arapahoe County District Court in Centennial, Colo.

DENVER –  Prosecutors in the Colorado theater shooting on Thursday rejected an offer from suspect James Holmes to plead guilty in exchange for avoiding the death penalty and accused defense lawyers of a serious breach of court rules by making the offer public.

In a scathing court document, prosecutors said the defense has repeatedly refused to give them the information they need to evaluate the plea offer, so the offer can't be considered genuine.

No plea agreement exists, prosecutors said, and one "is extremely unlikely based on the present information available to the prosecution."

They also said anyone reading news stories about the offer would inevitably conclude "the defendant knows that he is guilty, the defense attorneys know that he is guilty, and that both of them know that he was not criminally insane."

Neither the defense nor the prosecution immediately returned phone calls Thursday.

Holmes is charged with multiple counts of murder and attempted murder in the July 20 shootings in a packed theater in the Denver suburb of Aurora. Twelve people were killed and 70 were injured.

Holmes' attorneys disclosed in a court filing Wednesday that their client has offered to plead guilty, but only if he wouldn't be executed.

Prosecutors criticized defense attorneys for publicizing the offer, calling it a ploy meant to draw the public and the judge into what should be private plea negotiations.

Prosecutors did not say what information the defense refused to give them, but the two sides have argued in court previously about access to information about Holmes' mental health.

Karen Steinhauser, a former prosecutor who is now a law professor at the University of Denver, said prosecutors clearly do not want to agree to a plea deal without knowing whether Holmes' attorneys could mount a strong mental health defense.

"One of the issues the prosecution needs to look at is, is there a likelihood that doctors, and then a jury, could find that James Holmes was insane at the time of the crime?" she said.

Prosecutors also criticized comments to The Associated Press by Doug Wilson, who heads the state public defenders' office.

Wilson told the AP Wednesday that prosecutors had not responded to the offer and said he didn't know whether prosecutors had relayed the offer to any victims as required by state law.

Prosecutors said that violated the gag order.

They also said they have repeatedly contacted "every known victim and family member of a victim -- numbering over one thousand" about possible resolutions of the case, including the death penalty and life in prison without parole.

George Brauchler, the Arapahoe County district attorney, is scheduled to announce Monday whether he will seek the death penalty for Holmes. Brauchler hasn't publicly revealed his plans. He has refused repeatedly to comment on the case, citing the gag order.

Pierce O'Farrill, who was shot three times, said he would welcome an agreement that would imprison Holmes for life. The years of court struggles ahead would likely be an emotional ordeal for victims, he said.

"I don't see his death bringing me peace," O'Farrill said. "To me, my prayer for him was that he would spend the rest of his life in prison and hopefully, in all those years he has left, he could find God and ask for forgiveness himself."

A plea bargain would bring finality to the case fairly early so victims and their families can avoid the prolonged trauma of not knowing what will happen, said Dan Recht, a past president of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar.

"The defense, by making this public pleading, is reaching out to the victims' families," he said.

View the original article here

Ohio high school football players found guilty of raping 16-year-old girl

• 

Two Steubenville, Ohio, high school football players have been found guilty of raping a drunken 16-year-old girl after a party last August, a juvenile court judge ruled Sunday.

Judge Thomas Lipps said the teens, ages 17 and 16, attacked the girl at the alcohol-fueled party. They could be held in a juvenile jail until they turn 21.

Both teens broke down in tears after the verdict was read, and apologized to the victim and to the community. Both were emotional as they spoke, and the 16-year-old struggled at times to talk through his sobs.

The 17-year-old apologized for taking a photo of the girl that was posted online and fueled speculation over what happened that night.

The football players were charged with digitally penetrating the West Virginia girl, first in the backseat of a moving car after the alcohol-fueled party on Aug. 11, and then in the basement of a house. The 17-year-old was also found guilty on a charge of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material and was sentenced to an additional year in jail, to be served after his rape sentence is completed. The teens were also ordered to avoid contact with the victim until they're 21.

The case roiled the community amid allegations that more students should have been charged and led to questions about the influence of the local football team, a source of pride in a community of 18,000 that suffered massive job losses with the collapse of the steel industry. Their arms linked, protesters stood outside the courthouse Sunday morning awaiting the verdict, some wearing masks.

The trial opened last week as a contest between prosecutors determined to show the girl was so drunk she couldn't have been a willing participant that night, and defense attorneys soliciting testimony from witnesses that would indicate that the girl, though drunk, knew what she was doing.

The teenage girl testified Saturday that she could not recall what happened the night of the attack but remembered waking up naked in a strange house after drinking at a party. The girl said she recalled drinking, leaving the party holding hands with the 17-year-old and throwing up later. When she woke up, she said she discovered her phone, earrings, shoes, and underwear were missing, she testified.

"It was really scary," she said. "I honestly did not know what to think because I could not remember anything."

The girl said she believed she was assaulted when she later read text messages among friends and saw a photo of herself taken that night, along with a video that made fun of her and the alleged attack. She said she suspected she had been drugged because she couldn't explain being as intoxicated as defense witnesses have said she was.

"They treated her like a toy," said special prosecutor Marianne Hemmeter.

Evidence introduced at the trial included graphic text messages sent by numerous students after the night of the party, including by the accuser, containing provocative descriptions of sex acts and obscene language. Lawyers noted during the trial how texts have seemed to replace talking on the phone for contemporary teens. A computer forensic expert called by the state documented tens of thousands of texts found on 17 phones seized during the investigation.

The girl herself recalled being in a car later with the football players and asking them what happened.

"They kept telling me I was a hassle and they took care of me," she testified. "I thought I could trust him until I saw the pictures and video."

In questioning her account, defense attorneys went after her character and credibility. Two former friends of the girl testified that the accuser had a history of drinking heavily and was known to lie.

"The reality is, she drank, she has a reputation for telling lies," said lawyer Walter Madison, representing the 16-year-old.

The two girls testified they were angry at the accuser because she was drinking heavily at the party and rolling around on the floor. They said they tried unsuccessfully to get her to stop drinking.

The accuser said that she does not remember being photographed as she was carried by the football players, an image that stirred up outrage, first locally, then globally, as it spread online. Others have testified the photo was a joke and the girl was conscious when it was taken.

The photograph led to allegations that three other boys, two of them members of Steubenville High's celebrated Big Red team, saw something happening that night and didn't try to stop it but instead recorded it.

The three boys weren't charged, fueling months of online accusations of a cover-up to protect the team, which law enforcement authorities have vehemently denied.

Instead, the teens were granted immunity to testify, and their accounts helped incriminate the defendants. They said the girl was so drunk she didn't seem to know what was happening to her and confirmed she was digitally penetrated in a car and later on a basement floor.

Ohio's attorney general planned to announce later Sunday whether additional charges will be brought in the case, including against the three other boys.

The 17-year-old and 16-year-old were determined to be delinquent, the juvenile equivalent of guilty, Lipps ruled in the juvenile court trial without a jury.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Editors’ Note: The Associated Press named the minors charged due to the fact they have been identified in other news coverage and their names were used in open court. FoxNews.com will not name the defendants.

View the original article here