Judge: Lies OK to catch child abuse suspect

Full story: Daily Democrat

Two motions issued by the defense for an alleged child abuser were denied in Yolo County Superior Court Monday, leaving charges and evidence intact for the District Attorney's Office to proceed to trial in January.
Comments
1 - 20 of 31 Comments Last updated Nov 10, 2011
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
you are right

Colfax, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 29, 2009
 
You are right Jake Wallace. Lying is not ok to entrap an innocent person. The paper does not even have the facts straight. There were extensive examiniations on the baby and only one Nurse makes claims of sexual abuse. The doctor, in fact chief examiner states that there was no sexual abuse to this child. The facts will come out in trial. There is no evidence against Richard. Therefore, Imus had to lie to try to get a confession. He made claims of having DNA etc and asked Richard to explain it. That is just wrong. Coersing a statement by someone like that is unacceptable.
agree

Rancho Cordova, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 29, 2009
 
I think it's o.k. to lie to a liar, he had no code of ethics, so how do people communicate with a liar. BY LYING TOO!! so what, if it keeps a monster off the streets, THEN SO BE IT!
Former Woodland Resident

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 29, 2009
 
So if law enforcement can lie, it's ok to lie to law enforcement to stay out of prison. Now I don't have to worry about being honest with law enforcement. I'll remember that if I happen to be interviewed by law enforcement some day.

Since: Aug 09

Woodland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 29, 2009
 
lee wrote:
What a load of crap this is. Judge says it OK to lie so long as it is law enforcement doing the lying. If a detective will lie to try and get a so called confession out of someone then that means he will even lie in court. It also means that he would be willing to violate a person's civil rights during an interview of an individual so he can get what he wants or should I say get what the DA wants. We all know that the DA is corrupt. Hell, he has a civil case against him right now. He has also been accused of with-holding evidence in cases. The DA in woodland doesn't have any ethics. It is just plain wrong what is being done to this young man just because the DA has an ego problem and wants convictions at any cost even if that means to send an innocent your man to prison, thats crap.
I do not agree with your statements for these reasons;

First, the detective chose not to tell the person that they had already made the decision to arrest him...I have no issue with that...This adult came in on his own and according to the reports never asked to leave or asked for an attorney...if he was not in custody he was simply providing a consensual contact with the cops.

Secondly, the detective started asking questions about specific acts and told this adult they had his dna to illicit a response...again, no problem for me...This adult should have either stopped the interview right there and left, asked for an attorney, or simpy told the truth, if he was in fact innocent.

Lastly, your assertion that this detective would lie on the stand is a fantasy...lying to a person of interest during an interview to illicit a response is night and day from perjury.

In my opinion, this detective did a great job getting information from this adult. One quote from the story stands out to me..."If it will help keep me out of prison you can call it curiosity." Think about that for a minute...this guy is being accused of sexually assaulting A 7 MONTH OLD INFANT. If you were being accused of this horrific act would you be taking the bait about staying out of prison or would you be yelling from the rooftops that you were innocent?
RNs10-97

Woodland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 29, 2009
 
Ditto Double Bogey....The last thing I would EVER do is let ANYONE put words in my mouth just to keep me out of prison if I were truly innocent. I would have thrown a fit of rage the minute that detective said he had my DNA knowing he didn't. If I were innocent, I would have called him on it right then and there and walked out at that point.
no name

Kingman, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 29, 2009
 
you are right wrote:
You are right Jake Wallace. Lying is not ok to entrap an innocent person. The paper does not even have the facts straight. There were extensive examiniations on the baby and only one Nurse makes claims of sexual abuse. The doctor, in fact chief examiner states that there was no sexual abuse to this child. The facts will come out in trial. There is no evidence against Richard. Therefore, Imus had to lie to try to get a confession. He made claims of having DNA etc and asked Richard to explain it. That is just wrong. Coersing a statement by someone like that is unacceptable.
someone should be charged for entrapment
lee

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 29, 2009
 
agree wrote:
I think it's o.k. to lie to a liar, he had no code of ethics, so how do people communicate with a liar. BY LYING TOO!! so what, if it keeps a monster off the streets, THEN SO BE IT!
There is no justifying what that detective did while he was doing his so called interview and to omit to lying in open court and judges says its ok, thats crap. I was told as a child that two wrongs doesn't make a right. No one knows if this young man even tried to lie to the detective so if the young man was answering the questions that was asked of him, who are you to say he is a liar.

Since: Aug 09

Woodland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 29, 2009
 
no name wrote:
<quoted text>someone should be charged for entrapment
Look up the definition for entrapment...you will see that it does not even come close to fitting.
Old School

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Sep 29, 2009
 
i wonder if this man was white? boy did he have alot of freedom at the police department, knowing that he might have assaulted a child i hope this is not the case, but if it is the case i feel sorry for the child because this white man might only spend six months in jail, it's great be white in woodland.
My Cousin Vinnie

Colfax, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Sep 29, 2009
 
Sheriff: At what point did you shoot the clerk?
Billy: I shot the clerk?

Transcripts//
Your honor he said he shot the clerk.
aunt

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 29, 2009
 
Double Bogey wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not agree with your statements for these reasons;
First, the detective chose not to tell the person that they had already made the decision to arrest him...I have no issue with that...This adult came in on his own and according to the reports never asked to leave or asked for an attorney...if he was not in custody he was simply providing a consensual contact with the cops.
Secondly, the detective started asking questions about specific acts and told this adult they had his dna to illicit a response...again, no problem for me...This adult should have either stopped the interview right there and left, asked for an attorney, or simpy told the truth, if he was in fact innocent.
Lastly, your assertion that this detective would lie on the stand is a fantasy...lying to a person of interest during an interview to illicit a response is night and day from perjury.
In my opinion, this detective did a great job getting information from this adult. One quote from the story stands out to me..."If it will help keep me out of prison you can call it curiosity." Think about that for a minute...this guy is being accused of sexually assaulting A 7 MONTH OLD INFANT. If you were being accused of this horrific act would you be taking the bait about staying out of prison or would you be yelling from the rooftops that you were innocent?
I will try to answer some things for you. First off this young man who is my nephew was only 18 years old at the time. He was very naive on how law enforcement works and he didn't know his civil rights. Second he received a phone call from the detective requesting his presents, that is not on your own accorded, that is doing what is asked of you. Third, Richard had never been interrogated before so he didn't know that he could leave or ask for a lawyer to there with him. I know for a fact that my nephew didn't molest that child and here is why, I have had Richard babysit my two granddaughters many times in the past and he never acted inapropriate with them and wouldn't think about acting in that matter with no child. The truth of Richard's innocents will come out in court and you sir will eat your words. Not everyone who is accused of these kind of crimes are guilty and Richard is in fact innocent.
hey DD what about this

Colfax, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Sep 29, 2009
 
http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx...
Yolo Sheriffs shoot a Davis woman. Where's the story on this?

Since: Aug 09

Woodland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 29, 2009
 
aunt wrote:
<quoted text>
I will try to answer some things for you. First off this young man who is my nephew was only 18 years old at the time. He was very naive on how law enforcement works and he didn't know his civil rights. Second he received a phone call from the detective requesting his presents, that is not on your own accorded, that is doing what is asked of you. Third, Richard had never been interrogated before so he didn't know that he could leave or ask for a lawyer to there with him. I know for a fact that my nephew didn't molest that child and here is why, I have had Richard babysit my two granddaughters many times in the past and he never acted inapropriate with them and wouldn't think about acting in that matter with no child. The truth of Richard's innocents will come out in court and you sir will eat your words. Not everyone who is accused of these kind of crimes are guilty and Richard is in fact innocent.
First, let's clear up one thing...I never said your nephew was guilty or innocent. That is for a court to decide. What I said was it was my opinion that the police/detective did nothing illegal/wrong nor did they violate his civil rights.

That being said, it is not the police department's fault that your nephew does not his rights under the law. The fact that your nephew went to the police department on his own means he consented to the contact. Regardless of if the police called him or not it was consentual because they only "asked" him to come in to talk...just like when a cop asks you if they can search your car when they pull you over. If you say yes, you have consented to the search. By comming to the police your nephew consented to talk to them.

The reason the police let him have so much freedom...cell phone, unescorted, etc. is so they could show that he was not in custody.

Bottom line is the judge ruled, correctly in my opinion, that the statements your nephew made are admissible in court. That does not mean I think he is guilty...I will reserve my opinion on that matter until after the case is ajudicated.
aunt

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Sep 29, 2009
 
Double Bogey wrote:
<quoted text>
First, let's clear up one thing...I never said your nephew was guilty or innocent. That is for a court to decide. What I said was it was my opinion that the police/detective did nothing illegal/wrong nor did they violate his civil rights.
That being said, it is not the police department's fault that your nephew does not his rights under the law. The fact that your nephew went to the police department on his own means he consented to the contact. Regardless of if the police called him or not it was consentual because they only "asked" him to come in to talk...just like when a cop asks you if they can search your car when they pull you over. If you say yes, you have consented to the search. By comming to the police your nephew consented to talk to them.
The reason the police let him have so much freedom...cell phone, unescorted, etc. is so they could show that he was not in custody.
Bottom line is the judge ruled, correctly in my opinion, that the statements your nephew made are admissible in court. That does not mean I think he is guilty...I will reserve my opinion on that matter until after the case is ajudicated.
I beg the difference with you. I believe this is when the detective violated his rights. This is a quote right out of the democrat "During questioning Monday, Imus said a warrant for Schirnhofer's arrest had already been issued prior to his arrival at the police department on Jan. 15." So because of the detective's knowledge of said warrant, Richard should have been arrested at the time of him showing up at the police station. But if the detective did that then he would not have been able to intimate him into a confession.

Since: Aug 09

Woodland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Sep 29, 2009
 
I dont think your therory that a consentual contact can not take place simply because a warrant exists and the officer knows of the warrant is correct.

The officer has discretion. If the officer feels that he can achieve more out of a consentual contact than one deriving from custody than why not?

It is my opinon that for your nephews civil rights to be violated the police would have had to have refused to let him leave, refused a request for an attorney or questioned him IN CUSTODY without Miranda. If none of these things happened than the police acted and the court ruled correctly.
aunt

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Sep 29, 2009
 
Double Bogey wrote:
I dont think your therory that a consentual contact can not take place simply because a warrant exists and the officer knows of the warrant is correct.
The officer has discretion. If the officer feels that he can achieve more out of a consentual contact than one deriving from custody than why not?
It is my opinon that for your nephews civil rights to be violated the police would have had to have refused to let him leave, refused a request for an attorney or questioned him IN CUSTODY without Miranda. If none of these things happened than the police acted and the court ruled correctly.
It really doesn't matter what you think. You can glorify that detective all you want and try to justify his actions and behavior towards Richard. Bottom line is this, he took advanage of a young man's lack of knowledge of his civil rights. I am not going let you bait me into an arguement or debate on this subject because Richard is my family.
The far left is funny

Rancho Cordova, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Sep 29, 2009
 
aunt wrote:
<quoted text>
I beg the difference with you. I believe this is when the detective violated his rights.
It's pretty clear that you are wrong. The judge said so.

A bunch of people supporting Richard, this situations sounds familiar. Everone defended Pedroia and look what happened.
Alphonso

West Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Sep 29, 2009
 
Of course it is ok to lie in Yolo County. The real question - are there any honest people in Yolo County?
Poor Auntie

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Sep 29, 2009
 
aunt wrote:
<quoted text>
I will try to answer some things for you. First off this young man who is my nephew was only 18 years old at the time. He was very naive on how law enforcement works and he didn't know his civil rights. Second he received a phone call from the detective requesting his presents, that is not on your own accorded, that is doing what is asked of you. Third, Richard had never been interrogated before so he didn't know that he could leave or ask for a lawyer to there with him. I know for a fact that my nephew didn't molest that child and here is why, I have had Richard babysit my two granddaughters many times in the past and he never acted inapropriate with them and wouldn't think about acting in that matter with no child. The truth of Richard's innocents will come out in court and you sir will eat your words. Not everyone who is accused of these kind of crimes are guilty and Richard is in fact innocent.
you get presents at Christmas his presence was requested at the police dept and no one said he had to go, no one said he had to talk to the police, no one said he was under arrest and he did not have to be advised of his right to a lawyer because he was not under arrest. you deny the sexual abuse but not the physical. Someone broke that baby's bones
Poor Auntie

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Sep 30, 2009
 
aunt wrote:
<quoted text>
I beg the difference with you. I believe this is when the detective violated his rights. This is a quote right out of the democrat "During questioning Monday, Imus said a warrant for Schirnhofer's arrest had already been issued prior to his arrival at the police department on Jan. 15." So because of the detective's knowledge of said warrant, Richard should have been arrested at the time of him showing up at the police station. But if the detective did that then he would not have been able to intimate him into a confession.
The law is clear, it doesn't matter what the officer knows or is going to do, it is what the "suspect" believes. If the susepct thinks he/she is under arrest then they are. If the "suspect" thinks they are free to leave then they are not arrested. Your nephew knew he was free to come and go, do what he wanted in his mind he was not under arrest - perfectly legal. Police Officers can lie and/or use deception in an attempt to get the truth, just because I tell you I found your fingerprints at a crime scene does not mean you did it, any innocent person would say bull, I was never there. A guilty person would say, well... maybe I was there at some point and leaned against the window, leaving my print. No one is saying your Nephew meant to hurt that child, but sounds like he and she did in fact do it, maybe unintentionaly.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
Davis Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Davis Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Davis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Davis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Davis
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••