Frank William Rackley's Alleged Rape Victim Jailed To Ensure Testimony

[lespacino]

This one baffles the hell out of me!


(Sacramento, CA)

"A 17-year-old alleged rape victim was taken into custody last week to ensure that she testifies against her suspected sexual abuser.

The unnamed teen is a key witness in the trial of Frank William Rackley, a 220-pound tattoo-covered accused rapist with a 20-year criminal history, CBS Sacramento reports.

Despite the girl's failure to appear at a February hearing for the case, her attorney, Lisa Franco, insists that prosecutors could seek alternatives to jailing the teen, such as ankle bracelets.

"She's the victim, that's first and foremost," said Franco, according to News10. "She's suffered a horrible, horrible experience and now she's being treated like the criminal and forced to live with this everyday."

"She's made it clear to the judge she's willing to do anything else," said Franco.

Rackley is charged for the incident, which occurred last July. He is also a suspect in a second rape.

"The last thing we ever want to do is put a victim or a witness in custody, but when you have serious crimes of violence and a multiple offenses, you have to balance the protection of the community here," Sacramento County Assistant District Attorney Albert Locher told ABC News.

A Friday morning hearing is scheduled to determine if the witness should be released."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1408169.html

[sugarfree irony]

Unless she made a deal to get of being prosecuted for a crime testimony should be her decision . The article made no mention of a deal being made .

Another article http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archiv...n-witness.html

A Sacramento judge ordered today that an alleged juvenile rape victim must remain locked up to ensure her court appearance against the man accused of sexually assaulting her.

"That is my ruling today, and I do it ... with a heavy heart," Superior Court Judge Lawrence G. Brown told the sobbing girl as she stood in the courtroom cage normally reserved for accused felons.

Deputy District Attorney Alan R. Van Stralen argued for the girl's continued detention. Van Stralen said the detention of the girl presents prosecutors with "an extremely difficult situation." But he said his office believes that the defendant in the case, Frank William Rackley Sr., 37, "is a serial rapist" and that the girl's release "would seriously jeopardize that prosecution."

The girl's attorney, Lisa M. Franco, argued in favor of the alleged victim's release, saying she has been "revictimized" since she has been incarcerated at Sacramento County juvenile hall.

Brown told the girl, "I can't tell you how terribly sorry I am that you're in the circumstance you're in. This is bizarre to say the least. You're not a criminal."

But the judge added, "The dilemma I'm continuing to have is, I need to have every confidence you would in fact make your court appearances. Your track record has not been good."

Smells like the makings of a mistrial and a law suit to me .

[malq]

I don't understand this.
Clearly this has been reviewed at the highest levels and determined that is worth the political reprocussions to ensure this dangerous person is convicted.

From a video I watched, the DA is saying they have the right under the premise that they have a greater responsibility to protect the community.

I get all that, but still, this boils down to punishing a witness and a victim. I bet rape victims advocates are going to turn this into a shitstorm.

[Whisper]

Frank William Rackley

SACRAMENTO (CBS) – [...]
Weighing more than 220 pounds and covered in tattoos, including a swastika, Frank William Rackley sits behind bars accused of kidnapping and raping a 17-year-old girl who’s now behind bars herself just to make sure she shows up to the suspect’s trial.

Attorney Lisa Franco represents the teen. She’s outraged after a judge ordered her client jailed to make sure she helps put Rackley away. His case is scheduled to start April 23.

“It is extremely rare to have a sexual assault witness who is a victim in a case be imprisoned,” Franco said. “What this is serving to do is only making victims out there – potential victims and future victims – not want to come forward because they’re going to have to go to jail, because they’re afraid to testify.”

Franco says her client is too terrified to take the stand, and under state law sex assault victims are not required to do so, but still she’s behind bars.
Assistant District Attorney Albert Locher says even if she doesn’t testify, the victim is required to attend court. But so far she’s missed two court dates and several meetings with the district attorney’s office, forcing the case to be dropped and refiled.
[...]
Community safety. But Franco asks, at what cost?
“You can’t stomp all over her rights and put her in jail when she’s a victim, revictimize her and treat her like she’s the criminal,” she said.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/...-in-rape-case/

Id be afraid to testify too the guys huge and fucking mean,
but jails just fucking traumatizing the kid all over again,
have security watch her someplace other then juvie

[kniption]

WTF?

[Whisper]

WTF?

EXACTLY WHY THE FUCK IS SHE LOCKED UP AND HAVING TO ABIDE BY RULES SET OUT FOR FUCKING KIDS THAT BREAK THE LAWS???
Shes the one that been offended not the offender
Id fucking be out for balls and blood if that was my child

[AngelFire]

WTF?

Yes, WTF is right but since this has gone and pissed me off. I much rather say WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH THE COURTS??

I wonder if the brilliant person that thought of this would want his or her daughter being treated this way. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE

[Obsolete]

Even I can't play devils advocate on this one. No matter what scenario I come up with I can't justify why this girl is sitting in jail, being forced to face her rapist in court.

SMH.

[Aena]

Since when is a victim required to be at her or his attackers hearings? What law are they using to condone this? I have never heard of a victim being forced to testify nor be at court hearings for their attacker.

[HeatherHabilatory]

That is one scaryass looking dude. I'm not normally freaked out by people on looks alone. But god damn.

[navsec]

When I was a prosecutor I tried to stay away from domestic violence cases but would nonetheless end up with a few every once in a while. A lot of prosecutors had trouble with domestic violence victims recanting. The way I handled it was I would sit the victim down prior to filing the case and explain that once I filed the case, the case belonged to me, not the victim and that I would take a very hard line with the victim if she later tried to kill my case by recanting or refusing to testify.

I had a case against this one career-criminal douchebag who had two open files: a case where he had raped a 12 year old and a case where he had beaten up his baby-mama (for the umpteenth time), stolen her car and deliberately crashed her car into her house. I was hoping to convict him on the baby-mama case because if I did he would go to prison possibly for life due to his criminal record, and so there would be a greater chance to deal with the rape case without making the victim testify.

whenever the domestic violence case would come up for status conference, the defendant would act cocky and proclaim that I had no case because the woman would never testify against him. Sure enough, when it came time for trial the woman suddenly became uncooperative. I tried to reason with her but to no avail. So I had her arrested and forcibly brought to trial. She testified truthfully and he was convicted.

Now, this wasn't a rape case so I can see that there are different considerations at play. and I did receive flak from people who felt that a victim should decide whether to cooperate. but consider:

the man that I convicted, like the gentleman pictured above, was the lowest form of scum - violent, narcissistic, remorseless. I am sure that the man pictured above, like my defendant, faces an incredibly lengthy sentence due to his record. so this could be the case that seals his fate.

If he walks he would undoubtedly continue to inflict more violence on other victims: women, his children, their children, and so forth.

When you weigh the pros and cons it becomes very difficult for the State to have a guy like this in its grasp and simply watch him slip through its fingers because a victim got cold feet.

[Valasca]

Pfft. He does not scare me. OK, not much.
I have learned it's the big'uns that are usually the softies.

Edit: I SWEAR I'm not on drugs, but it took me this long to realize what I just said here. Someone slap me, will ya?

[Chinchillazilla]

If she isn't legally required to testify, what grounds do they have to lock her up like this? You have to have a reason. What the fuck is it?

[LadyCygnet]

I'm afraid that this will discourage victims from reporting their rapes.

[Aena]

When I was a prosecutor I tried to stay away from domestic violence cases but would nonetheless end up with a few every once in a while. A lot of prosecutors had trouble with domestic violence victims recanting. The way I handled it was I would sit the victim down prior to filing the case and explain that once I filed the case, the case belonged to me, not the victim and that I would take a very hard line with the victim if she later tried to kill my case by recanting or refusing to testify.

I had a case against this one career-criminal douchebag who had two open files: a case where he had raped a 12 year old and a case where he had beaten up his baby-mama (for the umpteenth time), stolen her car and deliberately crashed her car into her house. I was hoping to convict him on the baby-mama case because if I did he would go to prison possibly for life due to his criminal record, and so there would be a greater chance to deal with the rape case without making the victim testify.

whenever the domestic violence case would come up for status conference, the defendant would act cocky and proclaim that I had no case because the woman would never testify against him. Sure enough, when it came time for trial the woman suddenly became uncooperative. I tried to reason with her but to no avail. So I had her arrested and forcibly brought to trial. She testified truthfully and he was convicted.

Now, this wasn't a rape case so I can see that there are different considerations at play. and I did receive flak from people who felt that a victim should decide whether to cooperate. but consider:

the man that I convicted, like the gentleman pictured above, was the lowest form of scum - violent, narcissistic, remorseless. I am sure that the man pictured above, like my defendant, faces an incredibly lengthy sentence due to his record. so this could be the case that seals his fate.

If he walks he would undoubtedly continue to inflict more violence on other victims: women, his children, their children, and so forth.

When you weigh the pros and cons it becomes very difficult for the State to have a guy like this in its grasp and simply watch him slip through its fingers because a victim got cold feet.

A victim should not be forced to testify against her assailant. Victims have rights too. Just because you were afraid you would lose your case if she didn't testify shouldn't give you the right to arrest her and force her to testify. She has committed no crime, why should she spend one day in jail for being a victim. Why would you have your victim arrested so she would testify for you? You are supposed to be helping/fighting for her, not making her pay like the bad guy. When you force a victim to testify it may get a bad guy off the street but one of these times when you have an uncooperative witness it may bite you in the ass.

Also, this isn't just because she didn't want to testify against him, this is because she didn't show up to any of his hearings. Since when does a victim have to show up for pre-trial hearings? This whole thing is just BS.

More government bullshit, taking away more of our rights every day.

[navsec]

Just because you were afraid you would lose your case if she didn't testify shouldn't give you the right to arrest her and force her to testify.

The law does provide the State, in certain types of cases, with the right to detain any witnesses to insure their testimony. It does not differentiate between victim and non-victim witnesses

She has committed no crime, why should she spend one day in jail for being a victim.

In my case she failed to comply with a subpoena, which is a crime.

Victims have rights too.

Yes, but refusing to testify when under subpoena is not one of them.

Why would you have your victim arrested so she would testify for you?

To put the defendant into prison; prevent future crimes.

You are supposed to be helping/fighting for her, not making her pay like the bad guy.

only up to a point. the prosecutor's client is the State and "the people." if the victim's interest in not testifying clashes with the people's interest in preventing future crime and/or punishment the State may win out depending on what's at stake. Consider the Wests in England -- I can't remember, but I thought that their earlier victim(s) didn't want to cooperate. Perhaps their later crimes could have been prevented if the State could have compelled the earlier victims to cooperate.

This balancing test if reserved of course for the most serious of crimes. The law does not provide that victims of car theft, burglary and so forth can be arrested for refusing to cooperate.

When you force a victim to testify it may get a bad guy off the street but one of these times when you have an uncooperative witness it may bite you in the ass.

I no longer work for the State, but yes, there was always the risk in those situations that a victim will lie on the stand out of spite. However, juries are not as dumb as people like to think and most people have a good innate sense for detecting bullshit.

Also, this isn't just because she didn't want to testify against him, this is because she didn't show up to any of his hearings. Since when does a victim have to show up for pre-trial hearings?

Yes, I agree, I've never heard of that either.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

A 17-year-old alleged rape victim was ordered released from custody Monday more than three weeks after Sacramento County prosecutors had her detained in juvenile hall to ensure her testimony.
[...]

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lawrence G. Brown ordered the teen to be released with GPS monitoring. Additional terms of the release and where she'll live were sealed. The girl is in foster care.

"I am truly sorry for all that you have been through," Brown said.

http://www.news10.net/news/article/1...d-from-custody

[sugarfree irony]

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/03/446...testifies.html
She testified for 3 and half hours .

[Aena]

Under a provision of the state Code of Civil Procedure, authorities cannot force sexual assault victims to testify. Under the Penal Code, however, they can make them at least show up in court.

So they cannot force her to testify, but they can force her to be there. So they could have called her to the stand and when she got up there not said a word and there would have been nothing they could have done. I somehow overlooked that she was juvenile at the time this all happened also.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/03/446...#storylink=cpy

[Whisper]

Man Convicted of Rape after Victim was Jailed

Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully announced Monday that Frank Rackley has been convicted of rape.

Rackley's case had gained national attention after his 17-year-old victim was jailed by the District Attorney’s Office to make sure she would testify. She was later released and was kept track of via ankle monitoring[...]

http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/...,4530825.story