PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "Most notable, though, was the court’s description of one of the prosecutors sitting in the witness chair and proceeding to mock Arnold during her closing arguments. The appellate opinion quotes trial transcripts of the episode, including this section of the prosecutor's mocking comments: Finally, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you heard testimony from the doctor, William E. Arnold. Just yesterday and today you heard testimony from this Dr. Arnold. It didn’t happen. That’s a lie. Absolutely not. Why? Because I’m Dr. William Edward Arnold, Jr. I’m educated, I hold Doctorate Degrees. In fact I have two. Oh yeah, and I also have a Master’s Degree. I work for the Board of Regents of Tennessee. My suit today is impeccable. I speak the King’s English. People trust me, they look up to me. Why wouldn’t they? I’m Dr. William Arnold, Jr. I’m a pillar of my community. I volunteer. I mentor young boys, although I gave my own son back. I sit on Boards, I run organizations. Why wouldn’t people believe me? After all, I’m Dr. William E. Arnold, Jr. I’m perfect, unbelievable. Where’s my water? I don’t even believe I have time for this. I have things to do. Why am I even here? The appellate court concluded that “the prosecutor’s comments and behavior were overwhelmingly inflammatory and were obviously made to appeal to improper prejudices of the jury.”
---------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The opinion goes on: “The video recording shows that when the prosecutor first sat down in the witness chair during her closing, the trial court expressed visible concern. Thereafter, the prosecutor, still sitting in the witness chair, proceeded to pretend that she was the Petitioner and mocked him, his accomplishments, and his work history, which had nothing to do with the evidence in the case, for the purpose of destroying him in the eyes of the jury. During the entirety of the prosecutor’s diatribe, the defense attorneys never objected and asked for a mistrial, despite the overwhelmingly inflammatory nature of the prosecutor’s behavior and comments.” The opinion cites a number of other comments by prosecutors that the court deemed “inflammatory” and “improper.” As a result, the court threw out Arnold’s conviction and granted him a new trial. The Tennessee Attorney General’s office has 60 days to appeal that decision. Last year, Funk asked a Nashville judge to vacate the death sentence of Nashville prisoner Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman citing prosecutorial misconduct, including racist discrimination in jury selection by longtime Nashville assistant District Attorney John Zimmermann. As recently as 2015, Zimmermann told young lawyers at a conference that they should use racial stereotypes in jury selection. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Appeals Court Throws Out Child-Rape Conviction Citing Prosecutorial Misconduct," by reporter Steven Hale, published by Nashville Scene on February 10, 2020.
SUB-HEADING: "William Arnold, who was convicted in Nashville in 2013, has always maintained his innocence."
GIST: "Tennessee’s Court of Criminal Appeals has ordered a new trial for a Nashville man convicted in 2013 of raping a child. The court cited misconduct by prosecutors, one of whom is now a sitting judge. It is yet another case that has included allegations of impropriety by former Nashville prosecutors. The case in question is that of William Arnold, a black man who is almost seven years into a 25-year sentence for raping a 10-year-old boy he was mentoring through the Boys and Girls Club’s Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Arnold has always maintained his innocence, insisting he was mistaken for the true perpetrator, who shares his first name. The only evidence against Arnold was the testimony of the young victim. The prosecutors in the case were Sharon Reddick, who left the DA’s office after Glenn Funk was elected in 2014, and Allegra Walker, who is now a General Sessions judge. Walker told NewsChannel 5 — who first reported the appellate court’s decision on Friday — that “because she is now a judge, she is not allowed to comment on open cases.” As recounted in the appellate court opinion released last week, the victim testified “in graphic detail as to several instances of sexual abuse by” Arnold, including forced sexual acts in Arnold’s basement.
From the opinion: The victim said he did not disclose the Petitioner’s abuse to his mother until November 2010, when he and his mother began arguing about a sexual conversation that the victim had been having with a boy from school on the internet. The victim said his mother gave him a “whupping” with a belt and later questioned him about whether different people had touched him inappropriately. He said his mother asked whether his three uncles, her friends, her boyfriends and ex-boyfriends, and her father touched the victim inappropriately. When his mother said “William’s name,” the victim “didn’t respond” and “looked down.” He said his mother asked him again, and he looked at her and nodded his head, and then he started to cry. He said his mother got a Bible, and he put his hand on the Bible and swore that “William” touched him, although he did not “go into detail about it.” Afterward, his mother called the police. Arnold testified on his own behalf at the trial, denying that he had ever sexually abused the young boy. His defense team argued that the “William” who’d actually been sexually active with the boy was the 17-year-old brother of his mother’s live-in boyfriend. The trial court, however, blocked Arnold’s lawyers from presenting evidence to that effect. In ordering a new trial in the case, the appellate court highlights misconduct by prosecutors during closing arguments. Arnold argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because they failed to object to improper statements and behavior by prosecutors. The appellate court agreed. Describing statements by prosecutors that vouched for the credibility of the victim, the court says the “comments were exceedingly improper.” Most notable, though, was the court’s description of one of the prosecutors sitting in the witness chair and proceeding to mock Arnold during her closing arguments. The appellate opinion quotes trial transcripts of the episode, including this section of the prosecutor's mocking comments: Finally, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you heard testimony from the doctor, William E. Arnold. Just yesterday and today you heard testimony from this Dr. Arnold. It didn’t happen. That’s a lie. Absolutely not. Why? Because I’m Dr. William Edward Arnold, Jr. I’m educated, I hold Doctorate Degrees. In fact I have two. Oh yeah, and I also have a Master’s Degree.
I work for the Board of Regents of Tennessee. My suit today is impeccable. I speak the King’s English. People trust me, they look up to me. Why wouldn’t they? I’m Dr. William Arnold, Jr. I’m a pillar of my community. I volunteer. I mentor young boys, although I gave my own son back. I sit on Boards, I run organizations. Why wouldn’t people believe me? After all, I’m Dr. William E. Arnold, Jr. I’m perfect, unbelievable. Where’s my water? I don’t even believe I have time for this. I have things to do. Why am I even here? The appellate court concluded that “the prosecutor’s comments and behavior were overwhelmingly inflammatory and were obviously made to appeal to improper prejudices of the jury.” The opinion goes on: “The video recording shows that when the prosecutor first sat down in the witness chair during her closing, the trial court expressed visible concern. Thereafter, the prosecutor, still sitting in the witness chair, proceeded to pretend that she was the Petitioner and mocked him, his accomplishments, and his work history, which had nothing to do with the evidence in the case, for the purpose of destroying him in the eyes of the jury. During the entirety of the prosecutor’s diatribe, the defense attorneys never objected and asked for a mistrial, despite the overwhelmingly inflammatory nature of the prosecutor’s behavior and comments.” The opinion cites a number of other comments by prosecutors that the court deemed “inflammatory” and “improper.”
As a result, the court threw out Arnold’s conviction and granted him a new trial. The Tennessee Attorney General’s office has 60 days to appeal that decision. Last year, Funk asked a Nashville judge to vacate the death sentence of Nashville prisoner Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman citing prosecutorial misconduct, including racist discrimination in jury selection by longtime Nashville assistant District Attorney John Zimmermann. As recently as 2015, Zimmermann told young lawyers at a conference that they should use racial stereotypes in jury selection. Nashville Criminal Court Judge Monte Watkins signed off on a deal resentencing Abdur’Rahman to life in prison. Attorney General Herbert Slatery is appealing the decision, and the Tennessee Supreme Court has called off Abudr’Rahman’s April 16 execution. Zimmerman worked for years under longtime Nashville DA Torry Johnson, who took office after the Abdur’Rahman trial and retired in 2014 after 26 years in office. Zimmerman has since gotten into more trouble in Rutherford County, where he was accused in a lawsuit of targeting Egyptian business owners, falsely claiming they were selling illegal “marijuana derivatives.” All charges related to the bogus busts — known as “Operation Candy Crush” — were later dropped. Another former Nashville assistant DA, who worked under Johnson and whose conduct was repeatedly called into question, is Brian Holmgren. He was fired by Funk in 2015 after reports that he sought sterilization for a woman involved in plea negotiations with the office. Holmgren denied that the case at the center of that controversy was the reason he was fired, although he defended the tactic generally. He was already a polarizing figure in the Nashville legal community, where some saw him not just as an aggressive prosecutor, but a reckless zealot. "
The story can be read at:
https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/pith-in-the-wind/article/21115082/appeals-court-throws-out-
child-rape-conviction-citing-prosecutorial-misconduct
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
