Bernard Baran was 19 when he was accused of abusing children at a day care center — one of a spasm of such prosecutions in the 1980s. Baran was convicted on the testimony of the children despite the fact that videotapes showed children denying that he touched them and other referring to “prizes” promised for their confirming abuse.
In his trial, the prosecutor used an edited version of the tapes that cut out the statements of children denying that Baran, now 42, touched them. In overturning the conviction, the court cited the ineffective counsel of the defense counsel and the new evidence. There is no mention of the prosecutor who used heavily edited tapes. On the tapes, children repeated deny the allegations but are asked over and over again until they change their statements. One child demands the promised prize for saying that Baran touched him. Presumably, the prosecutor saw these tapes but proceeded to introduce highly misleading and edited versions. There should be an immediate inquiry to determine the facts of what the prosecutor and police knew in this case.
It is rare for courts or the media to confront prosecutors or police who win at any cost in cases later overturned. Baran does not know if he will sue, but he should.
For the full story, click here.
Texas Monthly wrote about it in April 2009 and is continuing to do so.
Texas Legislature Online:
81(R) HB 4090 – Introduced version – Bill Text
Author: Farrar
Caption: Relating to electronically recording certain interrogations and the admissibility of certain statements made by a juvenile or a criminal defendant.
Excerpt: SECTION 5. Section 51.095, Family Code, is amended by amending Subsections (a), (c), and (f) and adding Subsections (g), (h), and (i) to read as follows: (a) Notwithstanding Section 51.09, the statement of a child is admissible in evidence in any future proceeding concerning the matter about which the statement was given if: (1) the statement is made in writing under a circumstance described by Subsection (d) and: (A) the statement shows that the child has at some time before the making of …
81(R) SB 116 – Introduced version – Bill Text
Author: Ellis
Caption: Relating to electronically recording certain interrogations and the admissibility of certain statements made by a juvenile or a criminal defendant.
Excerpt: SECTION 5. Section 51.095, Family Code, is amended by amending Subsections (a), (c), and (f) and adding Subsections (g), (h), and (i) to read as follows: (a) Notwithstanding Section 51.09, the statement of a child is admissible in evidence in any future proceeding concerning the matter about which the statement was given if: (1) the statement is made in writing under a circumstance described by Subsection (d) and: (A) the statement shows that the child has at some time before the making of …
Pardon Me?
http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?s=10829113
Here is the link and I may know the DA Matt. But not in that regards. But then again something I have never tried in life.
Read about the on-going Mineola, Tx. swingers club case.
Thanks Buddah, I appreciate it when someone enjoys my high octane sarcasm.
CM,
Don’t sweat the editing. Nice job.
In my previous post ignore the last incomplete sentence. I forgot to delete the words “It is sad that this” after inserting several paragraphs before these words that I had forgotten that I had typed.
“It is better that a hundred guilty go free rather than one innocent be punished”.
I have heard or read statements equivalent to the above so many times that I have lost count, but I seriously doubt that society as a whole really believes them. A better expression of the sentiments of a society such as that of the US where moral panic is a prime motivator is “It is better that a hundred innocent be convicted rather than one guilty go unpunished.” This latter sentiment is especially strong in the case of withcraft crimes.
From the late middle ages and up to the seventeenth century Christendom was threatened by an appalling epidemic of witchcraft and heresy. The danger was that Hell would open up and swallow the Earth and that the forces of Evil would tear down the walls of heaven butcher all the saints and angels and finally torture God to death. Obvious the accidental legal killing of a few hundred people mistakenly thought to be witches or heretics was preferable to letting one witch escape to trigger the Apocalypse. In this situation it was important that the mechanism for catching and punishing witches was as efficient as possible and the way to do this was to ensure that denunciation led inevitably to conviction and execution. But such a system inevitably convicts the mistakenly accused, this is a cost that has to be borne. Even if an accused person really is not a witch acquittal sends a bad message as there will always be those who believe that the acquitted person really was a witch and acquittals have a demoralizing effect on these good people.
Sadly concern with witchcraft and heresy is no longer fashionable, but luckily there are other “witchcraft issues”, namely illegal mind altering drugs, child sexual abuse and terrorism. In cases of accusations of any of these crimes the same requirement for efficient movement from accusation to conviction applies and such nonsense as the presumption of innocence must be dispensed with.
It is right that the defense lawyer did an appalling job, to make a serious effort to defend a witch is something no decent lawyer does, it is also right that the prosecution edited out of the video of the children’s interrogation anything that might let any non right-thinking members of society who had managed to get on the jury justify reasonable doubt.
In addition to the community interest in convictions that I have discussed above individual actors in the legal system, prosecutors, police and child psychologists have personal interests that legitimately push them to do (merely technically) improper things. These people have to go out of their way to make sure they do nothing that might give rise to the thoughts in the minds of others that they may have a sneaking sympathy with witches or paedophiles which honoring requirements for fairness or due process would do. Making sure that their manner of prosecuting the case makes a statement of implacable hatred of child molesters is the way to do this.
It is sad that this
“Child abuse is a real problem, but the use of coercive tactics with children in order to get a conviction and a ‘win’ is a shame on the prosecutors and law enforcement.”
Mojo,
I’ve learned that we can never underestimate the ability of self righteous people to rationalize their own misbehavior. Most of us are disgusted by child abuse, many times even the abusers, so when confronted with the possibility the thirst for revenge and punishment reigns. Add to that our system for choosing prosecutors politically and the political benefits to an ambitious prosecutor of winning a notorious case. You get a mixture of self righteous anger and a drive to prove the case at any cost.
This all came together in the mid to late 80’s in a perfect storm, abetted by the media and by the so-called experts who got themselves and the names of their non-profits in the news. The public freaked and suspicion was cast everywhere. They didn’t set out to “coerce” the children into making statements, the problem was the age of the children made their own statements subject to questioning and suggestion.
In child abuse investigation the best evidence is physical evidence, when dealing with a child under age 6.
Understand too, that although I have been a lifetime ACLU supporter, when it comes to child abuse my punishment views are draconian. That reflects though the need for a beyond a reasonable doubt certainty of guilt. In many cases like this the standard wasn’t met due to the media driven public uproar.
As for Sean Penn’s documentary “Witch Hunt,” I personally probably wouldn’t watch it. I have seen too many things in my life in my different areas of work, that average people would call horrors. They are imprinted in my mind and so I avoid re-tellings either in documentary or fictional form. The years I worked in child abuse coincided with those I was raising young daughters and my work affected my relationship with them, which I regret. I was a very good father, but not one who was big with hugging, directly due to my training in sexual abuse. It made my showing affection less spontaneous with my girls, than it need have been. Now they are both adults and the time is passed. Thankfully, my other parental qualities and those of my wife have blessed us with our great children.
However, to illustrate the effect of that work I still clearly remember sitting at my desk and reading the murder report of a four year old boy by his father, written up by my best worker. The tragedy was such that something broke in me and I lay my head down on my desk and began to weep loudly, with wracking sobs. The many workers around came over to me
concerned and it took me a few minutes to compose myself, before I could explain to them what was going on. I’ll spare you the details of that case from 25 years ago, but the facts are still etched in my mind, out of literally hundreds of cases I have worked on.
It is sad for the children who were implanted false memories also, because it can affect them psychologically, if the false belief stays with them.
Men have all but exited the child care field entirely, and who can blame them? It is far safer to not be near children at all, lest you wind up like Mr. Baran.
I’m not sure if a retrial is in the cards, but very recently the Boston Globe discussed the question: “Would you leave your child with a male caregiver?” It does not look good for the defendant based on the viewpoints of the potential Massachusetts jury pool.
The responses show that most women feel that men who would voluntarily want to work in the field must have ulterior motives:
http://www.boston.com/community/moms/blogs/child_caring/2009/06/would_you_leave_your_child_with_a_male_caregiver.html
A typical comment: One bad apple? No, it’s not one bad apple that gave us these feelings. It’s an orchard of bad apples throughout the even just the past five years that give us our “gut feeling” that men should not be caregivers to children. Fathers yes, at home, not in a daycare. I would pull my kids in a heartbeat
Mike S. –
Being aware of your experience in this area, there is a documentary (I haven’t yet seen it) produced and narrated by Sean Penn called ‘Witch Hunt’ about a small town prosecution wrongly accusing and convicting dozens of people for this same type of crime. Child abuse is a real problem, but the use of coercive tactics with children in order to get a conviction and a ‘win’ is a shame on the prosecutors and law enforcement.
I’m not sure I could watch it because it sounds like something that would anger me so much.
What a nightmare for those accused …
Yea, what BIL said.
—-
BIL: “Mr. Baran should sue them until he owns the fillings in their teeth.”
—-
Didn’t you mean to add ‘unto the seventh generation’? Just askin’ cause it seems fair to me.
Well said, Mike S.
Back in the 80’s there was a whole rash of bogus child abuse cases that wrecked many lives unjustly and led parents to believe their children were in constant danger. This coincided with the years I worked in Child Welfare and these cases kept my blood pressure boiling and my letters to editors coming as I saw the techniques used to question the children. I’ve been trained to question small children and am quite good at it, but the problem is that most children up at least until the age of six are overly suggestible and involved in “magical thinking.”
Great subjects to be manipulated by publicity hungry prosecutors and police, who let their own imaginations run away with them.
What happens to the corrupt prosecutors?
They become judges and congressman.
And we wonder why our country is in such sad shape.
What a damn shame that this doesn’t surprise me. With liberty and justice for all my ass.
Commonwealth v. Baran:
http://www.freebaran.org/Appeals%20Court%20Decision.pdf
Boston Globe, May 16, 2009:
“Videotaped interviews of the children used by a prosecutor to get an indictment had been edited to remove statements supporting Baran’s innocence, the appeals court said.
“And the prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Daniel A. Ford, now a superior court judge, whipped up the jury’s passions in his closing argument when he likened Baran working at the day-care center to a “chocoholic in a candy store.”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/16/decision_stands_in_day_care_case/
“In overturning the conviction, the court cited the ineffective counsel of the defense counsel and the new evidence. There is no mention of the prosecutor who used heavily edited tapes.”
********************
Excuse me, but how was the heavily edited tape ineffective assistance of counsel? What new evidence is proffered? It was there all of the time. The Prosecutor and edit(or), should be sued in a Tort called Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm, False Imprisonment, Perjury, Criminal Assault and/or Battery etc.
Quite simply, if the prosecutor and/or the police knew of the evidence, they should spend the next 21 years in prison.
That’s equity.
That’s fair.
That’s justice.
Remember folks, an eye for an eye ISN’T about revenge.
It’s about parity.
Parity is a requirement for justice. The flip side of “do unto others”. And parity is in short supply in the America right now.
21 years a piece is a fair sentence if they knowingly sent an innocent man to prison for 21 years. And it is no more cruel or unusual or disproportionate than what the bad systemic actors did to this man.
Mr. Baran should sue them until he owns the fillings in their teeth.