I previously wrote a column about the ongoing controversy over statutory rape prosecutions, the subject of prior blogs. Now, Grant County District Attorney Lisa Riniker appears intent on outdoing other prosecutors by charging a 6-year-old boy with first-degree sexual assault for what the family says was playing doctor with a 5-year-old girl.
The toddler is charged with a Class B felony and Riniker rejects criticism that she failed to apply not just discretion but reason. Instead she says “the legislature could have put an age restriction in the statute if it wanted to. The legislature did no such thing.” That apparently is license for Riniker to charge anyone who has progressed beyond the fetus stage (and earlier in those states giving fetuses the status of person — and potential rapists).
Notably, the girl (and her brother who was involved in the game) are the children of a powerful political figure in the county and was not charged.
The boy will be forced to register as a sex offender wen he is 18 and spend the rest of his life under the restrictions imposed on rapists and child molesters. What is astonishing is that Riniker appears to have maintained a willful blindness to the fact that she was prosecuting a toddler. The complaint below states:
Until last week, the District Attorney (DA), Defendant Riniker, was (or caused the) addressing and sending mail to 6 year- old D, rather than to the parents, and that the DA refers to the 6 year-old not by his first name but as “Mr._____” (last name redacted because of the child’s age). Furthermore, she sends or causes to be sent to the 6 year-old paperwork that tells him that he could go to jail if he does not show-up for court.
The boy suffers from ADHD, but neither his disability or his age appears to have relevance to Riniker.
Also named in the lawsuit below are Jan Moravits, a social worker with Grant County Social Services, and Sgt. James Kopp, who recently retired from the Grant County Sheriff’s Department.
The lawsuit alleges 1983 claims for loss of first amendment and due process protections. It also includes an allegation of the negligent infliction of emotional distress. Wisconsin has historically been somewhat skeptical of these claims — only recognizing intentional infliction of emotional distress in 1963. A court explained the continuing unease over the claims in Bowen v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, 183 Wis. 2d 627 (Wis. 1994):
On the other hand, courts have struggled with the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress, concerned that the negligent conduct did not adequately assure the authenticity of the plaintiff’s claim of severe emotional harm. Courts have historically been apprehensive that psychological injuries would be easy to feign and that suits would be brought for trivial emotional distress more dependent on the peculiar emotional sensitivities of the plaintiff than upon the nature of the tortfeasor’s conduct. People should not, courts reasoned, be able to sue for everyday minor disturbances. Furthermore courts feared that opening the courts to claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress would open the floodgates of litigation and lead to unlimited liability for a negligent tortfeasor.
The difficulty with such claims (despite the compelling facts) is that courts heavily favor government officials in their use of discretionary powers. It is an ironic twist. Most attorneys view this as an abuse of prosecutorial discretion while Riniker will likely argue that the protection of discretionary powers includes the alleged abuse or lack of exercised discretion.
In Brach v. City of Wausau, 0617 F. Supp. 2d 796 (W.D. Wis.2009), a court dismissed a case against officers for excessive force and forcing the plaintiffs into public wearing only his underwear. The court still found it was privilege for purposes of an 1983 action.
Faced with overwhelming criticism from lawyers and non-lawyers alike, Riniker went to Judge Bill Dyke in Iowa County and demanded a gag order. Dyke gave it to her but the order does not silence the growing number of people denouncing the case as an abusive of power. Ironically, I just spoke with David Bois as part of the ABA conference about the growing misuse of gag orders in courts around the country in high-profile cases.
Perhaps there was something that made Riniker feel that the boy was culpable in this incident. However, to charge a toddler with felony sexual assault defies reason. The use of a felony charge to force a child into supervision is an abuse of the criminal code in my view.
Here is the complaint: 261455600-18135628
Source: Journal Sentinel
Ok I confess,,, me and Mary Jane who lived next door used to play doctors…damn good thing it was 60 yrs ago….
There’s a facebook page, easily found, but I dislike linking to facebook pages, even those of evil people, of a Lisa Riniker in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Teh g00gels tell me that La Crosse is 83 miles away from Grant County.
The woman identified with that page looks vaguely to my sleepy eyes like the woman in the photograph above.
If you read that person’s wall page, a lot of your questions will be answered, and more will open up.
Is this really the same Lisa Riniker?
Could a Public DA have such an unprofessional/open/unprotected/publically readable facebook page?
She really does have a single minded focus when it comes to fighting against child abuse. It is probably not the case she is doing this for this case alone.
My total speculation is that her law degree is from Regent University or Liberty University.
Other wild ass, prejudicial, none of my business, gossipy guesses:
She’s a dolt
She was abused herself
She’s an idiot.
She’s evil and a manipulative bitch.
She’s represents some of the finer qualities of our professional lawyer class. She’s an American Success Story. All hail law school.
Could that really be her page?
Crazy….too much grain….not enough brains apparently….
What sounds like normal child behavior will not only mark this child for life with the title sex offender but also may help turn him into one. After all, why live by society’s rules when society has already named you?
This story was in my queue for this weekend. Not anymore. 🙁
The website link Mespo posted doesn’t indicate this prosecutor’s religious beliefs, but I would guess fundamentalist. A person would have to have either a strong distaste for their own sexuality and/or a primitive view of the punishments that should ensue for all non-marital sexuality, to have even considered this a police matter. As much as some people cast a blind eye towards pre-teen sexual curiosity, it is a fact of humanness and quite common. In cases like this someone puts a patina of moral debauchery over what is an instance of normal sexual behavior and off we go into insanity. I believe the actions of all the officials involved were either insane or colored by bogus morality.
In the alternative, it is possible, as Malisha implies, that the community status of the parents of the other, uncharged, children may play a role. Who knows what the intricacies of small town politics may contain?
Malisha, there really was not a decision, per se. The judge was not pleased the court’s time had been wasted and simply dismissed the charges. The decision itself was only two words, “Case dismissed.” Since the charges were initially brought in juvenile court, the records are sealed.
Were I the Judge that Riniker brought this ridiculous case before, she would most certainly not like the outcome.
Mr. Ed – the favorite trick in Wisconsin is to note that speed will be reduced to 35 near the outskirts of town. Shortly after the 35 MPH sign there will be another, unannounced, reduction to 25. Surprisingly enough that 25 MPH sign is often behind a tree. They LUVS them some out of state drivers there.
My second cousin was the County Sheriff in a central WI county for years & he warned me repeatedly to slow down to 25 when I saw the 35 signs in WI.
They used to jail out of state drivers until the JP could be found. The fine was often “How much cash do you have on you right now?”
This is probably worse than idiotic; I’m guessing it’s corrupt. Whoever the little girl’s family are (powerful political figure in the county?), it seems possible that they have motivated this nonsense for personal (civil) goals. Will the prosecutor be held liable for what she did? If I am to guess at this one, I will say that since she was serving the interests of the “powerful political figure,” she gets a pass. I would also guess that this county does not prosecute REAL sexual abuse of children. That is, when the perpetrator is not a powerless person (such as a six-year-old who can’t figure out that he shouldn’t fuck around with the daughter of a powerful political figure), if a five-year-old gets molested by him, there’s probably no “Hell to Pay.” This story is, eerily, the flip side of the insidious Sandusky coin. And it is the coin of the realm.
Otteray, is it possible to read the decision — redacted would be fine — in that case where your report saved the kid from being convicted of rape? I’m interested in that.
Wisconsin seems a little more uptight than its Scandahoovian neighbors. One indication is the speed limits, which I remember as being lower than across their borders.And then there was colored oleo…
Ah, Wisconsin. A few years ago a young man (in his 20’s) took his first job out of college in a small town in Wisconsin. His girl friend moved in with him. The local prosecutor charged him with fornication under state law. He was found guilty but given no jail time. BUT, he did have to register as a sex offender. Since his degree and his job were built for park and recreation work he was pretty much unemployable.
Too inexperienced, too little perspective, too Republican … too bad.
http://lisariniker.blogspot.com/
This goes to show how much porosecutors are out of touch with reallity. This lady is a bonehead and should be releived of her duties.
This is not the first time I have seen this kind of prosecutor idiocy. Several years ago, I was consulted on the case of a nine year old little boy who was charged with rape of a minor. On examination, I found the child had an IQ of 70, which is classified as mild mental retardation. He was in special education. Furthermore, he had no idea of the concept of sexual intercourse. When asked if his “dingus” (which is what he called his penis) sometimes got stiff and stood out, he said yes but had no idea why. Just said it happened early in the morning when he needed to go to the bathroom and “feels funny” when it does that.
An older cousin had brought home a porn tape of lesbian sex, and he noticed that the girls did not have a ‘dingus.’ A neighbor girl offered to show him that she did not have one either. That was the “rape.” As for the porn tape, he said it was boring and he fell asleep.
After the judge got my report, he dismissed the charge.
As for the District Attorney? His picture was in the paper recently.
http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/oct/04/6/former-d-crumley-court-reckless-driving-evading-ar-ar-1358603/
The charge is ludicrous.
Professor,
Why would you call a 6 y.o. a “toddler”?
Lisa.Riniker@da.wi.gov
all complaints may be addressed to the above email address.
In the UK, unless I’m very much mistaken, only a person over the age of consent can commit statutory rape. The age of consent being 16; if one party is 15 and the other 16 then technically a crime has been committed. Both 15 then no crime.