Archive for Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Suspect in 1981 rape, for which other man was exonerated, files motion to dismiss

July 13, 2010


The defense attorney for a 54-year-old New York man charged with committing the rape for which a Manhattan, Kan., man spent 10 years in prison has filed a motion to dismiss the charges.

According to Gavin Young, communications director for the Kansas Attorney General’s Office, the motion is based on the expiration of the statute of limitations for rape.

A February Journal-World article highlighted the story of former Fort Riley soldier Eddie Lowery, who was convicted in the April 1981 rape of an elderly Ogden woman. DNA evidence exonerated Lowery in 2003 of the rape, and he reached a $7.5 million settlement with Riley County officials earlier this year.

Shortly following the settlement, the Kansas Attorney General’s Office, which is handling the case, announced that authorities had arrested Daniel Lee Brewer in New York for the crime. He was extradited back to Riley County, where he has also been re-charged with another 1981 Ogden rape. Brewer had been tried for that rape in 1981, but it resulted in a hung jury and the charges were dropped.

The statute of limitations on rape cases in Kansas is five years, but a 2001 law extends that to one year after DNA testing has identified a suspect. However, the Attorney General’s Office would not comment on how it identified Brewer as a suspect.

The hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for Aug. 23, and the preliminary hearing is scheduled for Sept. 17, Young said.

Brewer remains in the Riley County Jail; his bond is set at $500,000.

The public defender representing Brewer could not be reached for comment.


Stuart Evans 7 years, 9 months ago

I found myself repeatedly saying wow throughout this entire article.

..10 years for a crime he didn't commit.. $7.5 million... the audacity of the new perp...5 year statute of limitations..(seriously; just five?...for rape?)

WHY 7 years, 9 months ago

Five years is a long time and memories and evidence to start to disappear.

Stuart Evans 7 years, 9 months ago

yet 10 years later, they were still able to exonerate the original suspect through DNA testing...

ebyrdstarr 7 years, 9 months ago

There's a big difference between physical evidence properly stored by a forensics lab for posterity (and, honestly, the exonerees are usually pretty lucky that the evidence hasn't been destroyed or stored so poorly that it's untestable) and the sorts of evidence a defendant would rely on to show he wasn't there. How on earth would this man be able to show that he had an alibi for the night in question? It's one thing if he wasn't in the state at all and could find someone to testify he lived elsewhere. But even then or if he did live in the area, what if he had gone to a movie with a friend that night? There is almost no possibility that the friend would be able to remember it was that specific night. Any ticket stubs or dinner receipts would be long since disposed of. Calendars from that year, too, are not available. And since this crime occurred in 1981, there certainly wouldn't be any computer records that could be uncovered to support an alibi.

How on earth is it audacious for a person accused of a crime to defend him or herself by invoking the law?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.