Bill Montgomery May 29, 2012Page Three
nor the incident described by the victim. He does have a vague recollection of getting ready forbed, running around with no clothes on, and “trying to play the game” but provides no furtherdetail.Two recorded confrontations by the victim with Mitchell were accomplished. In eachinstance, the suspect was confronted with statements recounting sexual acts between the two.Mitchell’s statements on these recorded conversations acknowledge some involvement and arevery general, i.e., they were both young, they were exploring, they were experimenting, that hehad never had sex before that age and did not really know what he was doing, they were friendsand played together, that he never meant to hurt her and he was sorry she felt the way she did.Subsequently and through his attorney, Mitchell has denied that he ever sexually orinappropriately touched the victim in any way.In addition to the above inconsistencies, the motive of the victim in reporting would bechallenged. The victim states she was prompted to report to authorities the events occurring in1983 during an unrelated investigation involving sexual abuse of the victim’s minor child. Theinvestigation of the abuse of the minor child began in May of 2011; although she was involvedwith the authorities in the investigation of her minor child from almost the beginning, the victimdid not make her report of the abuse from 1983 until February of 2012, almost ten months afterthe unrelated investigation began, prompting this investigation. While there are explanations forthe delay in reporting, the victim states the abuse by Mr. Mitchell had been eating at her foryears.
Legal Barriers to Prosecution
In addition to the factual issues outlined above, there are significant legal issues that wehave considered. The charging decision in this case is not whether a 39 year-old man should becharged with sexual offenses with a 10 year-old victim. The determination is whether to chargean adult, thirty years later, for sexual acts committed when he was a 13 or 14 year-old juvenilewith a ten year-old victim. In making this determination, the State must apply the criminalstatutes in effect in and around 1983; those statutes raise significant legal obstacles toprosecution. Specifically, the State notes the following:In 1983, the criminal code contained the following provision relating to the
of juvenile offenders:13-501 ImmaturityA person less than fourteen years old at the time of the conduct charged is notcriminally responsible in the absence of clear proof that at the time of committingthe conduct charged the person knew it was wrong.