The Kansas Supreme Court has said it would not review the case of two men convicted in the 2003 statutory rape of an intoxicated 13-year-old girl - a decision that sets the stage for the men to be sentenced again.
The Kansas Court of Appeals ruled this summer that it was an abuse of discretion for District Court Judge Paula B. Martin to give Brian K. Ussery and William N. Haney probation after they were convicted of rape. The court ordered Martin to sentence the men again, but defense attorneys put that on hold, asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case and review the appeals court's decision.
Last week, the court announced it would not review the case, which means the two men likely will be brought back before Martin in coming weeks for new sentences.
Haney, of Lawrence, and Ussery, of Tonganoxie, both received 60 days in jail, probation and community service after being convicted of rape, which normally carries a penalty of at least 13 years in prison. The sentences led to an unsuccessful effort to vote Judge Martin off the bench in last year's retention election.
Martin sent Haney to prison earlier this year after several probation violations.
A third co-defendant, Michael J. Rayton - who entered a plea to the lesser charge of aggravated indecent liberties with a child - also is accused of violating probation, but Martin has not yet decided whether to send him to prison.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
sweatpeagj (anonymous) says…
It is about time that theses men get some real jail time. I don't care if she was willing or not. This was a child of 13. Not a 16 or 17 year old that could make a better decision. Get Martin out of here and vote for someone that really would care about the effects of their decisions.
smitty (anonymous) says…
Here is the published list of Judge Martin's supporters. Recognize any names? Woman's advocates(sic), Gov Seblieus upper staff, social welfare professionals, attorneys, ex-WTCS staff, ex-assist DA, politicians.
These are the members of the steering committee for the "Retain Judge Martin" effort:
Mike and Tana Ahlen; Michael Auchard*; Jim and Amy Bartle; Charlie and Katie Becker; David Beebe*; Dennis J. Brown; David Carttar and Claudia Olea; Ed and Anita Collister; Kent Cramer*; Jack Davidson; Ray and Kathy Davis; Ron Eiler*; Tom and Karen Erb; Max and Isobel Falkenstien; Paula Flannery; Anne Fowler; Lynne Green; Kathy Greenlee; Pat Grzenda; Samuel Gunther*; Larry Hatfield; Nancy Hiebert; Jack Hill*; Hugh Hines*; Kay Huff; Joy Krietemeyer*; Ross Lane*; Brian and Joni Lawrence; Alice Lieberman; Melissa Loewenstein*; Carol Marshall; Rhonda Moore*; Duane and Judy Morris; Jeffrey Morrison*; Jerry and SanDee Nossaman; Joe Oberzan; Ricardo and Lucila Olea; Patricia Oslund*; Mary Prewitt; Sharon Reynolds*; Monte and Sharon Rose; Pat and Mary Ross; Bob and Laura Schulte; Mary Margaret Simpson; Mark and Kathy Swanson; James Thorp*; Dan and Phyllis Watkins; Ray and Marian Wilbur; Mark Wilkinson*; David and Claudine Wroten.
* Denotes juror in statutory rape cases
sic sic sic
The way this story has gone, the DD man, Rayton, may be the only one who is adequately supervised by the legal system.
Solti (anonymous) says…
Doesn't everyone admit that the girl was at fault as well?! Give me a break...
ksmattfish (anonymous) says…
You can make as many derogatory statements about the girl as you want, and many may well be true, but she's still a child. We hope children make the right decisions, but when they don't we don't hold them to as strict a standard as we hold adults.
The adult men involved in this case are dangerous, sexual predators. They were able to somehow rationalize that it was okay to get a child drunk, and rape her. For most of human history they would have been rounded up, and beaten to death. I think they are pretty lucky to only get prison time.
topflight (anonymous) says…
Does that say Max Falkenstein? hahahahah. Old fart needs to retire anyway.
chic (anonymous) says…
Not in any way condoning the acts of the males involved, but what about the girl's parents? Why does no one seem to assign any fault to them? This girl apparently had NO supervision whatsoever. She was allowed to (or not prevented from) participating in "adult" behaviors when she should have been at home. "Little" girls who go out with the intention of getting drunk, going to places where much older males (and/or females) of questionable reputations (at best), and particularly at hours during which most responsible persons know that someone of their ages should NOT be out alone, have placed themselves in very dangerous situations. If this girl had been standing out in traffic in the middle of the night and been hit by a car, people would have been saying, "what was she thinking?" and/or "why did her parents not know where she was?" They would NOT be blaming the person driving the car. AND, I DO know that the analogy is NOT perfect. In the case at hand, the defendants DO also bear responsibility. But, the parents and the girl did little or nothing to prevent something very bad from happening to her. Who else knew that this child was behaving so innappropriately and did nothing about it?
Everyone should look around at their kids, their kids' friends and acquaintances and see what they can do to keep it from happening to another "little girl" OR "little boy"...
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
Look, a trial was held, evidence proved that adults knowingly had sex with a minor. Automatic conviction of statutory rape. A sentencing process was held, evidence of not only willingness by the minor to participate but pre-planning the event, as well as some dimished capacity (in more ways than one) in the perpetrators. The sentence was reached using a questionable set of rules and sat at the low end of the range set by the State.
DA appeals to Appellate Court (which is what they're there for) and Court says wrong set of rules, do the sentencing again. Sentencing will now occur again using the same determinations made at the orginal trial, although with the added determination that some of perpetrators have already demonstrated that they are unworthy of leniency (Haney especially, who is already in prison) and will now, with the questionable rule used by Martin the first time, be sentenced to a stiffer punishment.
No doubt, some will complain after that its still not enough. While an adult knowingly having sex with a minor has no legal defense (with the exception of the Romeo & Juliet law - now expanded to Romeo & Julio), sentencing does open itself up to mitigating circumstances. This is particularly true because statutory rape covers such a wide range of circumstances. One doesn't need the least bit of imagination to anticipate scenarios far worse than this case - but still falling under the same statutory rape law. Diminished mental capacity is one. The relative lack of prior criminal history is another. The relative youthfulness of the offenders might be yet another. And yes, the degree of the victim's own willingness, planning, and resulting harm (call it derogatory is you want - the jury called it a fact). These perpetrators will find themselves somewhere in mid-range on re-sentencing, which is where they should have been all along.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
The fact that Judge Martin was re-elected after the circumstances of this case were widely discussed causes me to questioned the intelligence of the majority of Lawrence voters. Judge Martin and her supporters, who were largely committed to liberal feminists causes, argued that the sentence was reasonable because the 13 old girl was essentially "asking for it." If a conservative male jurist had attempted to use this reasoning in sentencing a rapist of an adult to 60 days in jail, that judge would have been savaged by the very same folks who so feveriously supported Judge Martin.
Those people who actively supported Judge Martin are idealogical hypocrits willing to deny justice to a 13 year old rape victim for political expediancy. I can only hope that the next time Judge Martin abuses her discretion the Kansas Supreme Court doesn't look at the citizens of Lawrence and say "hey, you asked for it."
OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) says…
Solti:
In a word: No. I heard somewhere that it takes a village to raise a child, and those MEN were part of the village that should have been looking out for the CHILD. Instead, they were looking to get a little action from the child. That is why we put ALL of the guilt on them.
DGL (anonymous) says…
It's not a complicated issue. A 13 year old cannot consent to sex. End of story.