Judge orders man to admit lie to repo...

Judge orders man to admit lie to reporter

There are 95 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Sep 14, 2007, titled Judge orders man to admit lie to reporter. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

A judge ordered a man to admit to a newspaper that he lied to a reporter when he denied having sexual contact with a 15-year-old girl.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Huh

Carmel, IN

#1 Sep 14, 2007
Since when is it against the law to lie?
virgilsgirl

Chicago, IL

#2 Sep 14, 2007
Oh, isn't that just grand. Another sick predator is allowed to plea out of his time. Hold onto your children people, this guy will be loose and looking for another innocent child.
Billy Bob

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#4 Sep 14, 2007
What, a criminal casting our judicial system in a bad light ???? Can anyone saw Mike Nifong. Please, these sanctimonious lawyers and judges disgust me. They all think that they are above the law and hold all moral sway on anyone and everyone.
Rob C

Indianapolis, IN

#5 Sep 14, 2007
Huh wrote:
Since when is it against the law to lie?
It's only against the law to lie in court, or to defame someone's character. This man's statement to the reporter did neither.

What it did do, though, was call into question his testimony in court. And the judge was perfectly within his bounds to insist that the plea agreement not be accepted if the man continued to tell one story to the judge and another to the media.
Cool

United States

#6 Sep 14, 2007
Click on the link for Deputy Prosecuter Liz Hurley. She's HOT!
Mountain Run

Indianapolis, IN

#7 Sep 14, 2007
The man's statement to the paper, almost contemporaneous with his guilty plea, cast the guilty plea in doubt. That's why the prosecutor asked the court to reconsider approval of the plea - because the same day the guy lied to the paper telling them he didn't do it.

If you people don't uderstand these things, why are you commenting?

The best part of it was requesting the paper give the 2nd report the same prominence it gave the first. Corrections rarely undo the damage the error did because they appear on the bottom of page 38.
Jay in INdy

Marysville, OH

#8 Sep 14, 2007
HC Resident wrote:
<quoted text>
heard of perjury?
Perjury is a lie told under oath to a court or Grand Jury. A newspaper reporter does not count.(I am not defending the scumbag.)
what the who

United States

#9 Sep 14, 2007
Criminals are now required to admit guilt to a reporter? I don't like this deal with the child molester. It stinks. But there is something wrong with the judge and the SB Trib. Perps always claim innocence. The jails a chock-o-block with innocent people. He lied to the reporter. Big deal. If the SB Trib used this lie to attack the prosecutors office, it is not the fault of the perp. There is a problem with the Trib.
nonsequitor

Bloomington, IN

#10 Sep 14, 2007
"Sheneman initially was charged with sexual misconduct with a minor, a charge that involves sexual intercourse. Under the plea agreement, prosecutors agreed to lower the charges to felonies that involve fondling."

They couldn't prove he had sexual intercourse with the minor?
troyd

United States

#11 Sep 14, 2007
When you make a plea deal, the judge will ask you, under oath, if you actually did this thing. If you say no, and you just made a deal to avoid jail time, the judge can reject the deal and send you to trial.

Denying guilt in the paper can make the judge suspect he was lied to in court. If this guy wants a deal to avoid some jail time, he has to admit he did the crime, whether he did or not.

If he didn't do it, he needs to fight it in court, not in the press.
troyd

United States

#12 Sep 14, 2007
And to "what the who": no one is requiresd to admit guilt to a reporter, or talk to a reporter at all. But this idiot chose to talk to the press and conflicted his own court testimony.

The judge was very correct to make him clarify his testimony in order to get his plea deal.
MR THINKY GUY

AOL

#13 Sep 14, 2007
Huh wrote:
Since when is it against the law to lie?
Since Moses came down from Mt. Sinai. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Since then various statutes have been enacted by civilized societies all over the world. Specifically, here it's against the law to commit perjury (class D felony) and to falsely inform a law enforcement officer (class A misdemeanor).

Those kinds of lies are illegal. Is that what you were asking?
Nicolas Martin

Kankakee, IL

#14 Sep 14, 2007
Is this judge naive enough to think that perps usually tell the truth? It's not about the light in which the justice system is cast, but about whether the man committed a crime. I think Frese is trivializing a serious crime, and judges should stick to presiding over court proceedings.
Nicolas Martin

Kankakee, IL

#15 Sep 14, 2007
virgilsgirl wrote:
Oh, isn't that just grand. Another sick predator is allowed to plea out of his time. Hold onto your children people, this guy will be loose and looking for another innocent child.
What he did seems evil to me. What illness do you think the man has? You don't belive in good and evil?
ljheidel

New York, NY

#16 Sep 14, 2007
Is this guy 18 or 38? Not that it makes a difference (legally speaking), but I think that anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that those are two different levels of depravity.

More crack editing and reporting by the star.(Yes, I know it's an AP piece, but they have a choice as to whether to run it or not, etc.)
Mark

Reston, VA

#17 Sep 14, 2007
I have to agree with ljheidel. An 18-year-old kid canoodling with his 15-year-old girlfriend after the homecoming game is one thing. A 52-year-old man forcing himself on a frightened neighbor girl is another.
individual

Pleasanton, CA

#18 Sep 14, 2007
Maybe this judge has found a way to cull most of the politicians and bureaucrats from the taxpayers payroll. Subjecting each to a periodic sworn anwer to the question: "have you been proper steward of taxpayers monies" if answered factually, would eliminate a horde of incompetent dishonest folks in government. But then again most in government actually believe spending of taxpayers monies is proper if 'it rewards parasites and punishes success.'
No Duh

Cincinnati, OH

#19 Sep 14, 2007
HC Resident wrote:
<quoted text>
heard of perjury?
I doubt the young man was under oath when he spoke to the reporter.
Jeff

Indianapolis, IN

#20 Sep 14, 2007
nonsequitor wrote:
"Sheneman initially was charged with sexual misconduct with a minor, a charge that involves sexual intercourse. Under the plea agreement, prosecutors agreed to lower the charges to felonies that involve fondling."
They couldn't prove he had sexual intercourse with the minor?
OR they didn't want to make the child testify becuase of the emotional effect it would have on her.
TVS

Indianapolis, IN

#21 Sep 14, 2007
troyd wrote:
When you make a plea deal, the judge will ask you, under oath, if you actually did this thing. If you say no, and you just made a deal to avoid jail time, the judge can reject the deal and send you to trial.
Denying guilt in the paper can make the judge suspect he was lied to in court. If this guy wants a deal to avoid some jail time, he has to admit he did the crime, whether he did or not.
If he didn't do it, he needs to fight it in court, not in the press.
This points out a terrible problem with the criminal system, which only harms innocent people. If you are innocent, but don't trust the system (cops, judge, public defender, jury) to do their jobs honestly, competently, and without bias, you have no choice but to accept a plea agreement or face the systems wrath for taking the case to trial if you end up with an incorrect guilty verdict. But, the system won't allow you to deny the underlying acts that constitute the offense. So, to avoid a possibly draconian sentence, you have to lie to the court and say you did it. Otherwise, if the cops did a bad investigation, or the judge fails to conduct a fair trial, or the public defendent fails to provide a thorough defense, or the jury finds you guilty because they figure the cops wouldn't have arrested you if you didn't do it, you'll next be facing an angry judge who adds punishment for your failure to plead guilty.

For a wonderful video highlighting how an innocent person could end up being arrested by a lying SOB cop with a low IQ and a high opinion of his intelligence and right to be bowed down to subserviently, see:
If that kid didn't have a camera in his car, he would have been arrested and convicted based on the cop's lies, so he would have had to tell his own lie ("I'm guilty") in order to avoid a lengthy sentence.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

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.

Indianapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Can same-sex marriage make America healthier? 7 hr Mullahing It Over 41
Closing of the Marion County Children's Guardia... (Apr '09) 16 hr wanda allen 26
Pence is the biggest racist, sexist, and elitis... 19 hr tim 12
Who's hiring LPNs? Mon nurse1 1
Marcie Manuel Indianapolis homewrecker Mon Tessa 1
Marcie bad mom!! Ms Manuel Mon Leslie 2
News Police: Indy teen arrested for murder (Feb '08) Sun No name 15
BUYERS BEWARE - Junk John Deere Lawn tractors a... (Sep '11) Jun 30 kidderjeffrey 135
More from around the web

Indianapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Indianapolis Mortgages