Ypsilanti Township man accused of sex assault wins right to new trial
An Ypsilanti Township man convicted of sexual assault won the right to a new trial because he was forced to testify while shackled, prejudicing the jury against him, a state appellate court ruled.
Samuel Maxwell, 45, faces four counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct involving force and one count of assault with intent to commit sexual penetration. Jury selection is set to begin on Jan. 25.
Maxwell, who insists the sex was consensual, also has two other sex offense convictions in the past 30 years.
Court records show Maxwell was convicted of the five charges by a jury in 2007, and he was sentenced to the maximum term of 18 to 30 years in prison. But last summer, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Circuit Judge Archie Brown erred in having Maxwell testify while wearing shackles.
The restraints prejudiced the jury and warranted a new trial, the appellate judges found. Their ruling notes circuit court officials implied Maxwell was a security threat, but never placed such concerns on the record.
Court documents show Maxwell objected to wearing shackles before testifying and asked if jurors could be dismissed before he walked to the witness stand. Brown denied both requests.
“That was a key moment,” said Kurt Olson, one of Maxwell’s new attorneys.
Prosecutors say Maxwell accompanied the victim to a Superior Township park on Aug. 3, 2006, under the guise of helping the 34-year-old man find his son. Once in a secluded area, Maxwell allegedly sexually assaulted him multiple times, court records show.
The victim sought treatment for his injuries at the hospital, and Maxwell was arrested that night as he walked through the Sycamore Meadows neighborhood.
Maxwell gave authorities three different versions of events that night but has maintained his innocence throughout the case, records show. A constant has been that the victim, with whom he’d had previous sexual encounters, initiated the sex acts before demanding money for drugs.
“He tried to extort me for money to get his crack on,” Maxwell told police, according to court documents.
The jury didn’t believe his story and convicted him. At sentencing, Brown called the attack pre-planned and “particularly dehumanizing,” records showed. Brown also noted Maxwell’s 1980 conviction for third-degree criminal sexual conduct in Washtenaw County, and another for third-degree criminal sexual conduct in Wayne County in 1985.
Olson would not say whether the trial strategy will be same, but said he’s confident Maxwell will be exonerated.
“When all the facts come down, it’ll be an issue of credibility of everyone, including the victim,” he said.
Washtenaw County Chief Deputy Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller said he would not comment on a pending case so close to trial.
Maxwell remains in the Washtenaw County Jail on $1 million bond.
Art Aisner is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.
Comments
ronn oneal
Thu, Dec 31, 2009 : 12:22 a.m.
shackles didnt gt him convicted. His back ground speaks for it self. He didnt have shackles the last time he was convicted.
Cash
Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 8 p.m.
Hunter, I agree. I cannot imagine a judge having him on the stand in shackles. You could put a saint on the stand in shackles and they'd get convicted.
clara
Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 7:56 p.m.
Case Number: 06-001674-FH UNPUBLISHED February 3, 2009 "Defendant argues that his due process rights were violated because, despite his request, his shackles were not removed before he proceeded to the witness stand to testify. He claims that his rights were also violated by the denied request to have the jury leave the courtroom while he walked to the witness stand. We agree. Based on the current record, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, and also conclude that defendant suffered prejudice." "In the instant case, the trial court dismissed the deleterious effects of shackling, equating them with awareness that defendant was in custody. Although the court implied that defendant posed security concerns, there is absolutely no record support for this conclusion. There is a reference to a comment made by a witness, but no information about the substance of the comment or why it may have been indicative of a security concern appears on the record. Our review of this witnesss testimony did not disclose a comment that would give rise to such a concern. The security concern in this case does not appear to be specific to [this] particular trial. There is no evidence that the concern was any greater than it would be with any defendant accused of a violent crime. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the request to remove defendants shackles or, at a minimum, to take steps to conceal them from the jury. Regarding prejudice, we note that shackling is inherently prejudicial." http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20090203_c281909_50_281909.opn.pdf
Lokalisierung
Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 7:06 p.m.
Yeah that's pretty damning having him shackled during the trial. Hey Mick, you should cancel your susbription to annarbor.com if you don't like it.
Hunter
Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 4:54 p.m.
The right not to be shackled in front of the jury is well known in the field of criminal law. I'm amazed the judge made such an obvious error, and I'm also surprised the prosecutor didn't tell the judge at the beginning of the trial "Hey why don't we unshackle him so we don't have to go through all of this again after he appeals and gets his conviction reversed." This just shows you can save a lot of time and money by respecting people's constitutional rights.
djm12652
Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 3:47 p.m.
Gotta love an attorney out to make themselves a name...
Mick52
Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 3:05 p.m.
I would like to see the Ct of Appeals decision forwarded to the MI Supreme Court, or would like to know more about why the prosecutor's office did not forward the appellate decision for review. I feel that reading A2.com stories leaves me with more questions after I read them. I think someone with experience in the various topics could report much better. Perhaps this article should have been reviewed by Rich Kinsey before it was posted.