Container Top
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Search

Events Calendar

EVENT SEARCH:

In This Section


Most Read Stories


Blogs:


Pets:
Cat-loving chihuahua suckles seven abandoned kittens

The Heldenfiles:
Friday Night Notebook

Patrick McManamon:
For your Saturday entertainment …

Akron Zips:
Hitchens leads Zips in second-half comeback

Tribe Matters:
Seven players added to Tribe’s 40-man roster

Cleveland Browns:
Holmgren expresses interest in Browns position

Kent State Sports:
Kent State blown out in second half, loses to Temple 47-13

Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs vs. Philadelphia 76ers

Buckeye Blogging:
OSU – Michigan college football rivals meet in Baghdad

Varsity Letters:
Four area football teams play tonight

All Da King's Men:
Headed For Disaster

Blog of Mass Destruction:
Will Health Care Reform Pass?

Akron Law Café:
Health Care Financing Reform: (68) Democrats Secure 60 Votes for Cloture

See Jane Style:
Vintage Chic

Car Chase:
TIME TO GET YOUR COLLECTOR CARS WINTERIZED

Let's Talk Real Estate:
Silverdome Potentially SOLD!

Ohio Travels with Betty:
George is looking for a Thanksgiving buffet in Akron.

Sound Check:
Steely Dan Plays "The Royal Scam" at E.J. Thomas Hall

HRLite House:
Colloquium at University of Akron

Akron Gamer:
Nintendo's Mario endures even as games come and go

Rape case has legal import

Summit trial to use late accuser's statements, a constitutional issue

By Ed Meyer Beacon Journal staff writer

Published on Saturday, Nov 03, 2007

A Summit County rape case is scheduled to go to trial Monday on the strength of statements by the accuser — but not the accuser herself.

Ann Mazurek, 30, died from a seizure in February 2004 before the man accused of raping her could stand trial, but in a 4-3 decision last November, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Mazurek's statements to police and hospital personnel were admissible in court.

The case is fraught with a constitutional issue of such magnitude, defense lawyer Brian M. Pierce said, that it could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court if the government prevails at the county level.

Defendant James G. Stahl, 43, had his case put on hold in August 2004 — six months after Mazurek's death — when a judge ruled that Stahl's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser would be violated by allowing prosecutors to substitute the statements Mazurek gave to a nurse during a hospital exam in December 2003 on the day after the alleged rape.

Without those statements, prosecutors said in court filings at the time, ''any reasonable possibility of prosecution has been destroyed.''

However, county prosecutors challenged the decision in the 9th District Court of Appeals in Akron, and Common Pleas Judge Marvin A. Shapiro's ruling was reversed and the case sent back to his court in March 2005.

Pierce appealed the 9th District's reversal to the Ohio Supreme Court, and the 4-3 majority decision, written by Justice Terrence O'Donnell, allowed the trial to go forward.

Stahl, who is from Wadsworth, is charged with kidnapping, rape and gross sexual imposition.


''It's a fascinating case on a lot of levels,'' Pierce said. ''It's my belief that James Stahl is completely innocent of this and should be acquitted, but if he's not (acquitted), this case should be reviewed, in my opinion, by the U.S. Supreme Court.''

Stahl, Pierce contended in Summit County court filings, is being deprived of the right to confront and cross-examine his accuser.

Prosecutors, citing the pending trial, declined to comment.

In the Ohio Supreme Court decision allowing Mazurek's statements to stand, the majority of the justices agreed with the argument of assistant county prosecutor Phillip D. Bogdanoff that the statements were made while Mazurek was seeking medical treatment in the rape unit of St. Thomas Hospital and, therefore, were permissible as hearsay testimony.

Concurring with the majority were Justices Maureen O'Connor, a former head of the Summit County Prosecutor's Office; Evelyn Lundberg Stratton; and Alice Robie Resnick, who has since retired.

In the minority were Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Paul E. Pfeifer and Judith Ann Lanzinger.

Lanzinger, who wrote the dissenting opinion, stated that it ''does not appear that a doctor treated, or even saw, Mazurek'' in the St. Thomas rape unit.

Lanzinger stressed that a police officer took Mazurek to St. Thomas and ''remained in the room'' throughout the nurse's interview.

Mazurek ''knew her information would be used to prosecute'' the case, Lanzinger wrote, and therefore, her statements were testimonial in nature and, as such, must be subject to cross-examination by a defendant.

Both Lanzinger and Pierce, Stahl's defense lawyer, also noted that Mazurek signed a consent form authorizing release of her information to police for the purpose of prosecution.

In another development, Shapiro ruled Friday that allegations of sexual misconduct from another woman in connection with the Stahl case cannot be used in his rape trial.

Prosecutors originally indicted Stahl on charges of kidnapping and gross sexual imposition in connection with an incident in February 2004, but he was acquitted of those charges in a jury trial eight months later.

The rape and kidnapping charges in connection with Mazurek's statements were filed against Stahl as a supplemental indictment on April 13, 2004.

Ed Meyer can be reached at 330-996-3784 or emeyer@thebeaconjournal.com.

A Summit County rape case is scheduled to go to trial Monday on the strength of statements by the accuser — but not the accuser herself.

Get the full article here.


Story tools

Email  Email   Print  Print   Save  Save   Reprint  Reprint   Popular  Most Popular   Reprint  Subscribe

Share this story

AddThis Social Bookmark Button















Most Commented Stories