Doctor heads to court after online se...

Doctor heads to court after online sex sting

There are 17993 comments on the Contra Costa Times story from Oct 13, 2006, titled Doctor heads to court after online sex sting. In it, Contra Costa Times reports that:

A prominent Piedmont doctor is scheduled to appear in court Nov. 2 to answer to felony charges stemming from his arrest in late August in Petaluma in a sting operation involving online sex crimes with children.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Contra Costa Times.

Treadhead

Grass Valley, CA

#14807 Sep 5, 2011
Thanks, and good hearing from you again. As always, your expertise and insight are most welcome.

After reading what you wrote, I feel a bit better than before. Thanks again.
Born Again Lurker wrote:
Howdy all!
When I heard about Roisman, I had to come back to see how the thread-members were taking it.
Couple of things worth considering:
The judge cannot comment on the case – every code of judicial conduct I’ve ever heard of confines a judge’s commentary to the courtroom (or written decision). We’ve heard all we’re going to hear from Wick.
We do know, however, that Wick rejected the entrapment argument for Wolin and rejected PJ’s suspiciously dead hard drive as a basis for dismissal. Clearly, Judge Wick is hardly pro-defense (although I have no doubt that XVE is currently crafting an extensive, over-the-top criticism of Wick, just the same, like he did with Texas DA Roach).
Neither the prosecutor nor Roisman’s attorney’s comments are worth much consideration. They are advocates; like many attorneys, they believe it’s their job to slant everything in favor of their own positions.
But you know whose comments ARE worth note? An actual juror's:
Windsor bank teller Kathleen Kerckhoff said they obviously induced Roisman to act the way he did. She said she would have found him not guilty if the case had come to the jury.“I don't have any respect for Perverted Justice after this trial,” she said.“I think they do have quotas. They have an agenda. It was the right resolution.”
She’s only one of twelve jurors, it’s true, but if she held her ground, a mistrial would’ve resulted, not a conviction.
It’s really the jurors we should listen to; they actually hear the legal case without the bias that goes with just about any coverage. Example: Nancy Grace may have successfully turned Casey Anthony into public enemy number one, but Anthony was in fact acquitted by a Florida jury drawn from a citizenry known to be conservative, pro-prosecution and pro-death-penalty. If THEY heard the case and refused to convict, the actual, unbiased evidence must’ve been very shaky indeed.
Likewise, for a judge to actually take the case away from the jury in the Roisman case, the entrapment must’ve been extreme. We’ll likely never see the chatlog now, but Wick and Kerckhoff saw, and we know what they thought of it.
BTW, Roisman’s “sweeeet!” shirt-taking-off-ing is only damning if he had NOT been entrapped. Had the chatlog looked anything like Wolin’s TallCreepyChat, he’d have likely gone down hard and his shirtlessness would’ve helped him get there. But if the chatlog showed entrapment, the shirtlessness becomes irrelevant.
Born Again Lurker

Kaneohe, HI

#14808 Sep 5, 2011
I'm just glad to see the topix thread's still lively!

Oh, forgot to mention, not much chance any of us could ever get sued for comments on here. Just about everything we post is phrased as or otherwise clearly constitutes opinion, which is by definition non-actionable.

I will say that some of the factual statements made about Wolin by some of the regs COULD be libelous, but I doubt he has the financial means to sue any of us for any reason. Defamations suits are almost never taken on contingency.

So we should all feel free to opine away, is what I'm sayin'

This is America, after all. Well, America and Hanoi
menards

North York, Canada

#14809 Sep 6, 2011
Born Again Lurker wrote:
I will say that some of the factual statements made about Wolin by some of the regs COULD be libelous..
Factual statements are NEVER libelous!!!!! You can run your mouth all day long about someone with nothing to worry about as long as what your saying is true!!
That being said, Maurice Wolin, convicted felon, guilty of attempted lewd acts on a minor, is likely to offend again based on research conducted on convicted pedophiles.
Absolutely no slander there....
Bob

Anonymous Proxy

#14811 Sep 6, 2011
Born Again Lurker wrote:
We do know, however, that Wick rejected the entrapment argument for Wolin and rejected PJ’s suspiciously dead hard drive as a basis for dismissal.
There is a persistent misunderstanding here. There are two standards for entrapment and in California, both focus on the government and/or its agents. Berk attempted to get Wolin's case dismissed because there was entrapment as a matter of law (outrageously egregious), not as a matter of fact. Matters of law are a judicial question, not a factual question (evidence) for the jury. In other words, the government would not have the opportunity to present its case. Judge Wick denied that and either denied Roissman's same motion to dismiss or would have. But once the government had the opportunity to present its case, Wick decided that as a matter of evidence, the government's agents entrapped. The so-called rejection of of dismissal based on the hard drive was also left as a factual matter that could go to credibility at trial. These factual question are clearly distinct from issues that are matters of law (not requiring a jury). See for an example of entrapment as a matter of law:

United States v. Poehlman, No. 98-50631, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, 217 F.3d 692; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14628; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5157; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 6887, December 6, 1999, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California, June 27, 2000, Filed. Conviction reversed and remanded on finding as a matter of law that the government induced defendant to commit the criminal act and there was no indication that defendant was prone to engage in sexual relations with minors.

Once again, keep in mind that California does not concentrate on what one is "prone" to do but only focuses on law enforcement and what it did. There was flagrant entrapment in Wolin's case after he decided to remain law-abiding and not show for the first meeting. It was then that the entrapment started.
Carnac The Magnificent

Carrollton, VA

#14812 Sep 6, 2011
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a persistent misunderstanding here.... There was flagrant entrapment in Wolin's case after he decided to remain law-abiding and not show for the first meeting. It was then that the entrapment started.
Bobby,

The only ones misunderstanding (or hoping to misunderstand) this point are you and the Wolin sock puppets, pal.

Wolin committed a crime BEFORE he decided not to show up at his first meeting. It was the sexually charged chat HE INITIATED with a purported minor that did him in. Showing up later was the icing on the cake, but not the cake itself. In other words, Wolin's felonious behavior preceded the decoy's effort to have him show up at the sting house.

In fact, if you want to pinpoint the spot where Wolin initiates the sexually charged chat you can do so. As could law enforcement. As could the judge. As can Wolin's wife, daughters and their friends.

I once met a pedophile, although I did not know it at the time. Later he was caught and convicted. His father went around telling everyone that his son (the convict) was traveling in a remote part of China and could not be reached easily. I wonder what Wolin's daughters are telling their friends.

In any case, we are all VERY glad he showed up though, because if the cops simply had to go to his house and arrest him later without cameras it would not have been anywhere near the entertaining show MoWo has been.

The “entire grit-eating world”(quoting My Cousin Vinny) knows that Wolin, convicted felon, was NOT entrapped, that he is a pedophile, that he is a real and continuing threat to children, and that this world would be better without him in it.
LLDY

Vancouver, Canada

#14813 Sep 6, 2011
Wolin would harass anything that moved. It wasn't just restricted to children.
Suz

Tampa, FL

#14814 Sep 7, 2011
Carnac The Insignificant,

It is peachy that PeeJ accepts the mentally challenged but you don't even understand Wolin's charges or conviction.
LLDY

Vancouver, Canada

#14815 Sep 7, 2011
Suz wrote:
Carnac The Insignificant,
It is peachy that PeeJ accepts the mentally challenged but you don't even understand Wolin's charges or conviction.
Dear Fluzz. What's to understand? The pervert Wolin was convicted.
Carnac the Magnificent

Chesapeake, VA

#14816 Sep 7, 2011
Suz wrote:
Carnac The Insignificant,
It is peachy that PeeJ accepts the mentally challenged but you don't even understand Wolin's charges or conviction.
Hello, Suz. Welcome. I only hope you are not yet another sock puppet.

Wolin's charges, plea and conviction are very easy to understand.

For there to be a crime we need mens rea (a criminal mind set, if you would), and actus reus (a criminal act).

Wolin's mens rea is clear from his own words in the chat log. The actus reus starts about the spot where he says "I will kiss them."

Interstingly, Wolin never claims he lacked mens rea. On the other hand, he repeatedly claims he committed no actus reus, "i wasn't doing anything" and "nothing was going to happen."

Sadly for him, the actus reus had already taken place.

The rest of the story is the natural consequences of his actions.
Treadhead

Sacramento, CA

#14817 Sep 8, 2011
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a persistent misunderstanding here. There are two standards for entrapment and in California, both focus on the government and/or its agents. Berk attempted to get Wolin's case dismissed because there was entrapment as a matter of law (outrageously egregious), not as a matter of fact. Matters of law are a judicial question, not a factual question (evidence) for the jury. In other words, the government would not have the opportunity to present its case. Judge Wick denied that and either denied Roissman's same motion to dismiss or would have. But once the government had the opportunity to present its case, Wick decided that as a matter of evidence, the government's agents entrapped. The so-called rejection of of dismissal based on the hard drive was also left as a factual matter that could go to credibility at trial. These factual question are clearly distinct from issues that are matters of law (not requiring a jury). See for an example of entrapment as a matter of law:
Bob

You can do yourself and us a great favor by proofreading what you write. The above paragraph makes little or no sense at all.

For example: "Judge Wick denied that and either denied Roissman's same motion to dismiss or would have."

WTF does this mean?? If you want us to take you seriously, then take your writing seriously and put some thought into not only *what* you say, but *how* you say it. I can't agree/disagree with you if I have no clue as to what you are talking about.
LLDY

Vancouver, Canada

#14819 Sep 8, 2011
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a persistent misunderstanding here. There are two standards for entrapment and in California, both focus on the government and/or its agents. Berk attempted to get Wolin's case dismissed because there was entrapment as a matter of law (outrageously egregious), not as a matter of fact. Matters of law are a judicial question, not a factual question (evidence) for the jury. In other words, the government would not have the opportunity to present its case. Judge Wick denied that and either denied Roissman's same motion to dismiss or would have. But once the government had the opportunity to present its case, Wick decided that as a matter of evidence, the government's agents entrapped. The so-called rejection of of dismissal based on the hard drive was also left as a factual matter that could go to credibility at trial. These factual question are clearly distinct from issues that are matters of law (not requiring a jury). See for an example of entrapment as a matter of law:
United States v. Poehlman, No. 98-50631, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, 217 F.3d 692; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14628; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5157; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 6887, December 6, 1999, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California, June 27, 2000, Filed. Conviction reversed and remanded on finding as a matter of law that the government induced defendant to commit the criminal act and there was no indication that defendant was prone to engage in sexual relations with minors.
Once again, keep in mind that California does not concentrate on what one is "prone" to do but only focuses on law enforcement and what it did. There was flagrant entrapment in Wolin's case after he decided to remain law-abiding and not show for the first meeting. It was then that the entrapment started.
Bob, how was Wolin entrapped? Should he have shown up to have sex with a 14 and that would make it OK? Well you knowledge of the law beats me.
Bob

West Bend, WI

#14822 Sep 8, 2011
Threadhead, that sentence you quote refers to the previous sentence. In other words, Judge Wick would not dismiss the case without it going to trial. It refers to a section 995 motion to dismiss after the preliminary hearing. Wolin argued to dismiss, it was denied, and Berk appealed. If you check the court website you will see that the section 995 hearing transcripts were sent to the appellate court. It is a standard motion and Roissman undoubtedly made the same motion, and it was denied without appeal and the case went to trial in Roissman's case. In other words, the state had the opportunity to present its case to a jury in Roissman's case but not in Wolin's, and once it did so with Roissman, it was then that Judge Wick dismissed it without the defense being required to present its defense. Though the cases were not identical, this strongly suggests Judge Wick may have done the same in Wolin's case if Wolin did not cave and plead guilty. For a detailed discussion of outrageous police conduct and entrapment, see:

People v. Holloway (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1757 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 547]

The trial court denied Holloway's section 995 motion based on alleged outrageous government conduct. The trial court later denied a similar motion made at trial, stating: "I do not find what occurred here constituted outrageous police conduct. I agree with [Holloway] that we do have a theory and a vehicle for testing the due process treatment of a defendant, and the outrageous government conduct [claim] is a valid inquiry. I just don't believe it occurred in this case.[?] I disagree with [State v. Williams (Fla. 1993) 623 So.2d 462]. I can't believe that the fact that the police take confiscated powder cocaine and turn it into rock cocaine because that's what's sold in a particular location constitutes outrageous police conduct, nor the fact that the people who come to the police or who are willing to buy cocaine from the police try to throw it makes that conduct outrageous.

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/73...
LLDY

Vancouver, Canada

#14823 Sep 8, 2011
Bob wrote:
Threadhead, that sentence you quote refers to the previous sentence. In other words, Judge Wick would not dismiss the case without it going to trial. It refers to a section 995 motion to dismiss after the preliminary hearing. Wolin argued to dismiss, it was denied, and Berk appealed. If you check the court website you will see that the section 995 hearing transcripts were sent to the appellate court. It is a standard motion and Roissman undoubtedly made the same motion, and it was denied without appeal and the case went to trial in Roissman's case. In other words, the state had the opportunity to present its case to a jury in Roissman's case but not in Wolin's, and once it did so with Roissman, it was then that Judge Wick dismissed it without the defense being required to present its defense. Though the cases were not identical, this strongly suggests Judge Wick may have done the same in Wolin's case if Wolin did not cave and plead guilty. For a detailed discussion of outrageous police conduct and entrapment, see:
People v. Holloway (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1757 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 547]
The trial court denied Holloway's section 995 motion based on alleged outrageous government conduct. The trial court later denied a similar motion made at trial, stating: "I do not find what occurred here constituted outrageous police conduct. I agree with [Holloway] that we do have a theory and a vehicle for testing the due process treatment of a defendant, and the outrageous government conduct [claim] is a valid inquiry. I just don't believe it occurred in this case.[?] I disagree with [State v. Williams (Fla. 1993) 623 So.2d 462]. I can't believe that the fact that the police take confiscated powder cocaine and turn it into rock cocaine because that's what's sold in a particular location constitutes outrageous police conduct, nor the fact that the people who come to the police or who are willing to buy cocaine from the police try to throw it makes that conduct outrageous.
http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/73...
Nice try Wolin.
Treadhead

Grass Valley, CA

#14824 Sep 8, 2011
Bob, the Roissman case never went to trial. The judge threw out the case and aquitted Roissman without jury deliberation.
Bob wrote:
Threadhead, that sentence you quote refers to the previous sentence. In other words, Judge Wick would not dismiss the case without it going to trial. It refers to a section 995 motion to dismiss after the preliminary hearing. Wolin argued to dismiss, it was denied, and Berk appealed. If you check the court website you will see that the section 995 hearing transcripts were sent to the appellate court. It is a standard motion and Roissman undoubtedly made the same motion, and it was denied without appeal and the case went to trial in Roissman's case. In other words, the state had the opportunity to present its case to a jury in Roissman's case but not in Wolin's, and once it did so with Roissman, it was then that Judge Wick dismissed it without the defense being required to present its defense. Though the cases were not identical, this strongly suggests Judge Wick may have done the same in Wolin's case if Wolin did not cave and plead guilty. For a detailed discussion of outrageous police conduct and entrapment, see:
People v. Holloway (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1757 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 547]
The trial court denied Holloway's section 995 motion based on alleged outrageous government conduct. The trial court later denied a similar motion made at trial, stating: "I do not find what occurred here constituted outrageous police conduct. I agree with [Holloway] that we do have a theory and a vehicle for testing the due process treatment of a defendant, and the outrageous government conduct [claim] is a valid inquiry. I just don't believe it occurred in this case.[?] I disagree with [State v. Williams (Fla. 1993) 623 So.2d 462]. I can't believe that the fact that the police take confiscated powder cocaine and turn it into rock cocaine because that's what's sold in a particular location constitutes outrageous police conduct, nor the fact that the people who come to the police or who are willing to buy cocaine from the police try to throw it makes that conduct outrageous.
http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/73...
Carnac the Magnificent

Chesapeake, VA

#14825 Sep 9, 2011
Treadhead wrote:
Bob, the Roissman case never went to trial. The judge threw out the case and aquitted Roissman without jury deliberation.
<quoted text>
Tread,

With all due respect. That case did go to trial. The judge interrupted the trial before the defense had a need to present its case, and obviously before the jury had a crack at it.

The judge can, after the presecution presents its case, decide on his own whether the case as presented has sufficient merit or not. In this case it did not.

Without knowing what the evidence presented was it is only a matter of speculation to guess as to whether the judge's decision made common sense or not.

All other decisions we know about from this judge made sense, so I venture to say that this one was probably reasonable as well.
Carnac the Magnificent

Chesapeake, VA

#14826 Sep 9, 2011
Bob wrote:
... It is a standard motion and Roissman undoubtedly made the same motion, and it was denied without appeal and the case went to trial in Roissman's case. In other words, the state had the opportunity to present its case to a jury in Roissman's case but not in Wolin's, and once it did so with Roissman, it was then that Judge Wick dismissed it without the defense being required to present its defense. Though the cases were not identical, this strongly suggests Judge Wick may have done the same in Wolin's case if Wolin did not cave and plead guilty.
Bob, for the first time, I think maybe you are not MoWo.

Maurice, what a gay name by the way, did not plead guilty. He plead "no contest." Big difference, particularly in MoWo's feeble mind.

And if it were true that the judge would probably have done the same in Wolin's case as in this last one, the Wolin is a moron for buckling, or Berk gave bad advice (which I sincerely doubt).

More than likely the cases were sufficiently different to warrant different outcomes. As they did.
Treadhead

Grass Valley, CA

#14827 Sep 9, 2011
You're right. I meant the case never went before a jury. I still don't know what Bob is talking about. There probably was entrapment I the Roissman case, but not in Wolin's.
Wolin hung himself, PJ merely offered him the rope. Methinks Bob misses this point.
Carnac the Magnificent wrote:
<quoted text>
Tread,
With all due respect. That case did go to trial. The judge interrupted the trial before the defense had a need to present its case, and obviously before the jury had a crack at it.
The judge can, after the presecution presents its case, decide on his own whether the case as presented has sufficient merit or not. In this case it did not.
Without knowing what the evidence presented was it is only a matter of speculation to guess as to whether the judge's decision made common sense or not.
All other decisions we know about from this judge made sense, so I venture to say that this one was probably reasonable as well.
Carnac The Magnificent

Carrollton, VA

#14828 Sep 9, 2011
Treadhead wrote:
You're right. I meant the case never went before a jury. I still don't know what Bob is talking about. There probably was entrapment I the Roissman case, but not in Wolin's.
Wolin hung himself, PJ merely offered him the rope. Methinks Bob misses this point.
<quoted text>
Yep.
eddie

Netherlands

#14829 Sep 12, 2011
I've watched the program in which Maurice got caught in an online sting, and I would never condone what he did, but for christ sakes this man made a mistake, probably the only one of his life, no one got hurt, a moment of madness that will forever haunt him, isnt that enough punishment, why ban this man from being a prominent doctor? throwing away his undoubted talents, this man I believe has learned his lesson and will never reoffend again. Sure this man should be supervised, and he should never ever work with children, and he should seek continued therapy as well, but to totally ruin him for one mistake, is way way out of proportion for what he actually did, it would have been different if he had abused this child sexually, but he didn't.
Kathy

Providence, UT

#14830 Sep 12, 2011
In a Riverside County case, Judge Dallas Holmes commented on the merits of a Perverted-Justice-related case. Said Judge Holmes: "I don't like the smell of this case." Furthermore, he described the Perverted-Justice witness testifying in the case as "odd," "weird" and "repulsive". These comments were made after the jury deadlocked 10-2 in favor of acquittal.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alameda Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Critics say the media makes innocent blacks loo... 18 hr White CEO 6
Anxiety n p@in relief help Aug 10 Bowl bowl 1
Vote 4 Trunt NOW Aug 8 piroshki peteyoni... 1
News Berkeley police arrest 10, seize several makesh... Aug 6 nonsense 5
antifa Aug 6 kyman 1
Is Oakland the city in the Bayarea getting bett... Aug 5 A Thought 2
Lyle Stevik Jul 29 Meh 1

Alameda Jobs

Personal Finance

Alameda Mortgages