Ohio Man’s Tattoo Could Raise Issue Of Prejudice In Trial For Sexual Assault

download-4-e1508209344400.jpgThe crime charged against Christopher Wilson, 37 was tragically all too obvious . . . as it is likely to be for the jury. Wilson is an Ohio man charged with sexual imposition and assault.

Wilson appears as depraved as advertised on his forehead where a tattoo reads “I’m a pornstar.  I f*** Teen Sluts.”

Wilson was charged with an assault two years ago when he groped a victim after kicking her to the ground.  According to WCPO, he was identified in a line up by the victim. Not surprisingly, his lawyer has asked for a competency hearing.

The question is how the court should handle any trial if he is found competent. The tattoo is his choice and he can put his hair over it.  However, defendants are not allowed to wear hats in court. Moreover a prosecutor will likely ask for the jury to be able to inspect or see the tattoo.  The court will be left with a question of whether the tattoo is too prejudicial or whether it is unavoidable as a personal choice of the defendant.  We previously discussed this issue with a defendant bearing Satanic augmentation.  Yet, these tattoos contain an admission to the crime at issue in the trial.  In the end, a judge could legitimately conclude that this falls into the category as bad choices bringing even worse consequences.

Kudos: Professor Roger E. Schechter

43 thoughts on “Ohio Man’s Tattoo Could Raise Issue Of Prejudice In Trial For Sexual Assault”

  1. If you are stupid enough to get anything tattooed on your face, let alone this gems choice of words, you deserve what you get. At least our welfare dollars won’t be supporting him once he’s locked up in the big house.

    1. Who is it, exactly, that you believe will pay to house, educate, feed, clothe and care for this being in prison? Big deal–so it won’t be money allocated for welfare benefits. . .instead, the money will simply come out of another government pocket, which you and I, as taxpayers, have funded. Where do you think the money to deal with this waste of oxygen emanates? The prison fairy?

      1. Geez get a grip, will ya?

        If we’re paying for him to be behind bars then that’s money well spent keeping stupid off the streets. It’s cheaper than welfare and the collateral damage we have to pay for that always follows.

        Jail you see is a thing taxpayer dollars ought to pay for. Welfare, not necessarily so.

        1. Happy to pay to cage this animal for the rest of his life. Money well spent. Your comment, which I addressed, appeared as though you didn’t want government dollars paying for him to exist. My response, to that remark, simply stated that we, the taxpayers, will pay out the nose for this subhuman, with money spent to house, educate, feed and shelter this thing in prison. . .money that far surpasses any welfare money that he probably already gets.

  2. I don’t care for tattoos, but if individuals such as he desire a tattoo that relegates them to a life of scorn and low status at least spend a few extra dollars and hire a tattoo artist with masterful artistic skill. He might not be redeemable, but his artwork itself could draw some admiration.

  3. The tattoo should be considered no different than any other identifying mark. . .like a scar, a birthmark, etc. If there was any question as to the identity of the individual, who engaged in this assault, where the victim, I assume, claimed that a madman, with a tattoo running across his forehead assaulted her, this peculiar and highly unusual marking serves to identify him to the members of the jury as her assailant.

    Since the words, in order to be read by others, had to be tattooed in a reverse manner. . .obviously, there had no be some one, some where, willing do tattoo this imbecile. I am highly doubtful that he could manage to do this by himself. Perhaps we should be concerned about the person, who penned/tattooed this, and his or her presence in the community, as well?

    1. bam bam – it looks like a prison tattoo or amateur tattoo. It really does not have a ‘professional’ feel to it.

      1. I get that, but for him to tattoo words, backwards, on his on forehead, seems to beyond his abilities.

        1. Maybe someone tattooed his forehead when he was passed out as a PSA to warn the public.

    2. Wrong. A tattoo is not like a scar or birthmark. I have all three. The tattoo I chose. My scars were less a choice and more a result. My birthmark was there when I was born.

      1. No one cares what you choose to put on your body or what you came out the womb bearing. . .all are identifying marks which serve to strengthen the victim’s case against this individual. This dirtbag’s is gonna have a rough time explaining away the fact that the victim can identify him as the perp by the obvious and noticeable tattoos on his forehead, of all things. No one cares what you choose, or don’t choose, to put on your body.

  4. The tattoo may be indicative of a mental illness. Or it may just fall within the realm of self destructive behavior. If he is found competent to stand trial, one would think the public defender would strike a plea deal.

    He is Exhibit A in the old saying that your character is your fate. With a tattoo like that, he was bound to end up in the defendant’s chair of a court room eventually.

    Whether he is in charge of his mental faculties, or not, he appears to be a menace to the females of our society. I hope he gets locked away before something worse happens.

      1. Out of all of the professors and teachers that I have had in my life, one of my favorites was my high school honors English teacher.

        Not only did he introduce us to Heraclitus’ concept, but he made me love Shakespeare. The class would spend a day on 2 pages going over the text, the sub text, the alluded to text, the geopolitical atmosphere of the times, and the culture. Outstanding teacher.

        1. Karen – I am more of an Aristotle man myself and that would have really helped with the Shakespeare.

          1. True.

            That teacher also organized field trips so we could watch a few Shakespeare plays, which was an entirely different experience than reading them. For one, they moved a lot faster than 2 pages a day dissected in class!

        2. Well you’re the right person to ask then. Was Antonio in the Merchant of Venice, the theatrical depiction of Heraclitus, the weeping philosopher?

  5. Of course, the defendant could have the tat removed before trial, but the government could still introduce his mugshot containing it. Another alternative is to elect a bench trial where the impact of the tatoo would be minimized. Short of any of that, the tat is an admission of a party opponent (assuming the defendant was not involuntarily inked) and the government has a right to have the trier of fact aware of it. I suggest that the defendant commence plea negotiations sooner rather than later.

  6. Who cares about the trial where he will inevitably be found guilty on these facts and his own brand of insanity. His bigger problem comes when he gets to the Yard. Denizens there are not quite so circumspect nor mannered as in the courthouse especially if they have teenage daughters on the outside.

    1. mespo – I was thinking about that, too. He will probably have to be segregated for his sentence. Or put in with all the sex offenders.

        1. mespo – that is assuming he is guilty. Even guilty he is going to need protection or he is just going to be a punching bag.

                1. mespo – he is probably going to ask for the state to pay for the laser removal. I vote no.

  7. A piece of duct tape on the defendant’s forehead might work until the defendant starts sweating heavily from his brow. Which he probably would. So I’d have to recommend a heavy coating of orange grease-paint sporting the letters DOC in black grease-paint instead. Is that prejudicial too? Fine then. Put a heavy coat of base make-up matching the defendant’s complexion on his forehead.

    Out of curiosity, why doesn’t a tattoo qualify as an excited utterance? Lack of spontaneity?

    1. Diane – come on. If you had it tattooed on, it was hardly an excited utterance. You could give it a try though, would last shorter than the duct tape. I had a student who had his name tattooed on the back of his neck. I used to tease him about having a fear of getting amnesia and forgetting who he was. 😉 Wisely, since he was a gang-banger, he only tattooed his first name on his neck.

      1. Paul, if we can fight fire with fire, then why can’t we fight the ridiculous with the ridiculous?

  8. The question is whether the first sentence cancels the second. Since the jury won’t believe he is a porn star, and must be crazy or joking to suggest as much, will they believe that the second sentence falls into the same interpretation? He looks more like Charles Manson’s cousin than any porn star I’ve ever seen.

  9. I think he has to wear his hair up. He choose it, he wears. Besides, he will be far enough from the jury that unless the prosecutor uses his mugshot, he is not going to have any problems.

Comments are closed.