Afterreading the case study which involved three individuals who allegedly raped a14 year old girl. Police investigators obtaining a statement from Ms. Bland whichrevealed that there had been three seperate assaults and rapes againts juvenilesover a three day period. The prosecution filed charges againts the threesuspects who were identified as Mr. Jones, Mr.
Walsh, and Mr. Bert. Shortlyafter the charges were filed, Ms. Bland contacted the prosecutor’s office andprovided a statement that revealed Mr.
Walsh was not present during any of therapes. After hiring a defense attorney, Mr. Bert further explained that he didnot commit any of the rapes and was present only one time with Jones and hitone of the girls. Mr. Bert further stated he has an alibi in which he reveals thathe was with an individual name Mr. Mook during the alleged times that the rapeswere committed.
Mr. Mook was currently out of country on a personal mountainclimbing trip and won’t return for about two months from the time the incidentwas reported and investigated.Mr.Bert requested through his defense attorney to have a motion of severancepertaining to his involvement on the allaged crimes. A motion of severance is usuallyrequested by the state or the defendant in order to ask the court to haveseparate jury trials on the different charges brought againts that individual (FederalRules of Criminal Procedures, § Title IV et seq).
Most of the times it isthe defendant who asks for severance, so that the jury won’t hear all theevidence about all the charges in the same trial. Usually, if the chargesoccurred at the same time, or in a course of continuing events, or or otherwiserelated to each other, the State will argue to have the charges all triedtogether, so that the jury gets to hear the full story of what happened and sothat witnesses don’t have to be subpoenaed for multiple trials (Giannelli, P.C.
2006). The laws of most states hold that when two or more defendants arejointly charged with the same offense, they must be tried jointly unless thejudge feels that in the best interest of justice separate trials should begranted (Roberson, C., & Wallace, H. 2016). Judges tend to prefer hearingrelated charges all at once in a single trial because it saves time andjudicial resources.
There are many issues which can decide whether to serve orconsolidate charges for jury trial. Even if the charges are related andhappened at the same time, sometimes there is some evidence related to one ofthe charges which might be so prejudicial in the juries eyes that it wouldinfluence their judgment concerning the other charges. I believe that the judgeshould not grant Mr. Brent a motion of severance due to the facts that he waspresent with Jones when he hit a girl but denied that he raped or sexuallyassaulted the girl. Eventhough Mr. Brent alleges he did not play part of the rapeor sexual assault of the girl he was present, which can indicate that therecould of been a fear and intimidation factor to the girl and thus felt helplessif she was raped or sexually assaulted by Jones.Nowwhen it comes to the additional statement that Bland provided to theprosecutors office in which it states that Walsh was not present during any ofthe rapes should still be considered wether to colaborate or rebuttle the factthat Walsh was or not was present during any of the rapes.
Eventhough the statementstates that Walsh did not committ a crime, it does not mean that Walsh did ordid not play any part of the other alleges sexual assaults or rapes. Theinvestigation should continue to develope more evidence to either colaborate orrebuttle Walsh did infact play a role in the rapes or facilitating the rapes inany way, shape or form. I think the prosecutors should actively persuit Mr.Monk and interview him in order to confirm Mr. Berts alibi.
