Events Calendar
In This Section
WILLARD: Latest plan would cut total funding to schools
Holiday festival has world beat
Tuesdays are special for 7 friends
Spicer housing finding tenants
Knight Center to take over historic Greystone building
Jackson's former publicist recalls 'innocent little man'
Patriots at risk of being forgotten
Most Read Stories
Blogs:
Pets:
Summit teams up with Rescue Waggin' to save dogs
The Heldenfiles:
Songs for an American Day
Patrick McManamon:
For your Saturday entertainment …
Akron Zips:
Opponent outlook: Northern Illinois
Browns Bulletin:
Single-game ticket sales begin July 11
Tribe Matters:
Laffey making it tough on self
Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth test showed marijuana
Kent State Sports:
Men's Basketball Scheduling update
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Updated: Free Agency: Another Gone - Apparently
All Da King's Men:
IPCC Already Wrong About Global Warming
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Wow….Sarah Palin Resigns Governorship
Akron Law Café:
Abraham Lincoln and the Fourth of July
Varsity Letters:
Highland senior receives honor
See Jane Style:
Picnic Wear
Car Chase:
Where do We Go from Here?
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Hate Crime in Fort Worth Texas: "That F***t had it Coming"
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Linda asks-where is the Ohio Chautauqua?
Sound Check:
Rundgren fans rejoice!: Second night of AWATS at The Civic added
HRLite House:
Morscruethal Behaviors or Just Lip Service?
Akron Gamer:
Hot link: Best of Nintendo at E3
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.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
