THE PUBLIC MIND: MAN ACQUITTED OF CHARGE SHOULD NOW HAVE CHANCE TO SEE HIS NAME IS CLEARED

To the Editor:

I read with dismay the comments published in "Speak Out" on April 25, 1993, from the alleged rape victim involved in a May 8, 1992, incident occurring in Towers at Southeast Missouri State University. Your newspaper covered the trial and reported on it accurately. However, I am concerned by the newspaper's policy of allowing this sort of malicious, slanderous statement to be published in "Speak Out" after the accused was aquitted by a jury of 12 persons on all charges. Moreover, you permitted the woman to sign as "Rape Victim," thereby giving some credibility to an otherwise incredible complainant.

The charges were meritless and should never have been filed. The charges were filed on the mere statement of the complainant. Her allegations were all that was required to set in motion a legal nightmare for the accused. The county prosecutor and police believed her statement, standing alone, and three felony charges followed. The accused was arrested and had to post a substantial cash bond before he was released pending trial.

The alleged victim stated in "Speak Out" that: "Unfortunately, it seems that the defendant has more rights than the victim." Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. Upon felony charges being filed, there was automatically set in motion a lengthy, exhaustive, and expensive criminal legal process which ended with the jury's decision of acquittal on all three counts last week. No one was a winner in this process, most certainly not the accused.

The legal process which had to be endured put intense, round-the-clock pressure on the accused, a young university student with a good character and reputation, and required him to try and re-establish his good name which had been ruined by the mere accusation of rape. Although technically "innocent until proven guilty", he had to withdraw from school, agree to stay off campus until this case was over, keep a part-time job to help support himself while the case was pending, had to find relatives to fund his defense, and was caused to spend a lot of his time assisting in the preparation of his defense all of which took nearly a year to accomplish.

Meanwhile, the alleged victim returned to school, completed two more semesters of college, got the state of Missouri to pick up and pay for the prosecution of her alleged attacker, obtained the services of a rape victim advocate to repeatedly counsel with her, hold her hand throughout the proceedings, and to prepare her testimony for her day in court. In short, she was allowed to carry on her life as usual.

At trial, many witnesses came forward and testified on behalf of the accused's good character and behavior. The jury obviously believed the accused and disbelieved the alleged victim, in whole or in part. The accused elicited facts to the jury which were straightforward, consistent, and believable. The story told by the alleged victim was discrepant, inconsistent, varying, and contrary to human experience. The prosecution was unable to carry its burden of proof and the acccused was rightfully acquitted of all wrongdoing.

The accused was fortunate to have a good judge and an honest, trustworthy, and fair-minded jury bound and determined to adhere to and administer the fundamental principles of justice guaranteed by our forefathers. The alleged victim may not agree from her perspective that justice was done last week when the verdict was announced but just about everybody else in that courtroom felt so.

It is regrettable that a mere accusation of criminal wrongdoing could subject one of us to such rigors of defense, yet this is just what happened in this case by virtue of the state's persecution of this individual. Now, however, that the accused has been cleared in court by a jury, is it not right that each of us try to clear his name in the community?

Kenneth C. McManaman

Defense Attorney

Cape Girardeau