Former Latter-day Saint bishop charged with sexual abuse of teenager (18-19 years ago)

[smac97]

Deseret News: Former Latter-day Saint bishop charged with sexual abuse of teenager

Quote

A former Latter-day Saint bishop faces felony charges for allegedly sexually assaulting a teenage girl in his office nearly 20 years ago.

Mark Lehnhof Stevens, 68, of Washington, Utah, is charged in 3rd District Court in with one count of forcible sodomy, a first-degree felony, and two counts second-degree of forcible sexual abuse.

This case was filed in Salt Lake County, though Mr. Stevens lives in Washington (southern Utah).  So the alleged abuse likely happened in Salt Lake County (apparently in West Jordan, see below).

Quote

Between 2006 and 2007, Stevens allegedly asked the 16-year-old girl to meet with him to discuss her leadership role in church according to charging documents. The girl, identified in court documents only with initials, met with him in his office at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He allegedly told her he wanted to meet weekly.

He allegedly started asking the teen about sex and her personal sexual behavior. He told her she would be expected to keep her future husband sexually satisfied and if her husband had issues with pornography or sin, God would hold her accountable, the charges state.

Stevens then walked around the desk and sexually assaulted the girl, according to charging documents.

“Churches are sacred spaces in our community. Children need to be protected, and it is incumbent on all of us to safeguard these spaces for our children,” Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill said in a statement.

“I want to thank this brave victim-survivor for coming forward and reporting this alleged abuse. If you are a survivor of sexual assault, I encourage you to report it to law enforcement.”

West Jordan police investigated the case.

“The church’s position is that abuse cannot be tolerated in any form and that those who abuse will be accountable before God,” according to the church’s website.

It would seem odd for a bishop to meet with a young woman on a weekly basis, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. 

The charging document (called the "Information") is not a model of clarity, as it states that "between May 23, 2006, and May 22, 2007, when she was approximately 16 years old, she was sexually assaulted by her bishop, MARK LEHNOF STEVENS, in Salt Lake County."  The document also states (twice) that the accused told the victim that he wanted to meet with her "weekly."  The specific charges (there are three counts) each state "on or about May 23, 2006 through May 22, 2007 in Salt Lake County, the defendant did..."

I have some questions/observations:

1. The document goes on to describe what sounds like a single (though still horrific) incident.  Did they meet "weekly" or not?  The charging document does not say.  If not, why include that detail?  

2. Was there ongoing abuse "between May 23, 2006, and May 22, 2007," or was it a single incident? If multiple incidents, why are they not included in the narrative and in the criminal counts?

3. Why are so many other seemingly relevant and important details not included?  Apparently these details are not actually required to be included in the Information.  Per Rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Information "{must} contain or be accompanied by a statement of facts sufficient to support probable cause for the charged offense or offenses," but "need not include facts such as time, place, means, intent, manner, value, and ownership unless necessary to charge the offense."

4. My surmise (and I am open to correction/clarification from attorneys with more criminal law experience than I have) is that there was a single incident, but that the victim could not articulate when it happened except within a one-year timeframe (05/23/06 to 05/22/07).  Only one incident is described, and there is no specific allegation that the abuse happened more than once (had that happened, I think the prosecutor would specify that).  If there had been more than one event, I think the prosecutor would have brought more charges (the three the prosecutor did bring seem to overlap, and likely pertain to the single incident described in the charging document).

5. Also, I wonder if the executive secretary or other person was outside the bishop's office during these weekly meetings, as the Church's guidelines require.  Or alternatively, if there was just the single assault, if the executive secretary was present then.

6. Assuming there was a single incident, the charging document gives a one-year time window when it occurred.  There is no information given as to what day of the week it was, or the time of day, or whether there was anyone else nearby.  This can create problems for the prosecution, as the defense attorney can seek a "Bill of Particulars" per Rule 4(e) :

Quote

Bill of particulars. When facts not set out in an information are required to inform a defendant of the nature and cause of the offense charged, so as to enable the defendant to prepare a defense, the defendant may file a written motion for a bill of particulars. The motion must be filed at arraignment or within 14 days thereafter, or at such later time as the court may permit. The court may, on its own motion, direct the filing of a bill of particulars. A bill of particulars may be amended or supplemented at any time subject to such conditions as justice may require. The request for and contents of a bill of particulars must be limited to a statement of factual information needed to set forth the essential elements of the particular offense charged.

I have very limited experience with criminal defense, nothing beyond light misdemeanors.  Any input from more experienced attorneys would be appreciated.

7. Other news items about this story include further detail as to the factual allegations.  NSFW-ish.

8. If borne out, this is very disturbing behavior that needs to be punished.  

9. It appears that the reason this crime can be charged 20 years after the fact is because Utah does not have a statute of limitations for the crimes charged.

10. I hope the victim can get the help she needs.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It would seem odd for a bishop to meet with a young woman on a weekly basis, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. 

If he had bad intentions then it tracks. 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

is that there was a single incident

Do you believe that the single incident being reported actually happened?  I suspect that your mind works in a way that has you suspending any concerns until proven in a court of law.  
 

In other words, if I were assaulted, you’d not be my confidante. No offense of course. 

[Doctor Steuss]

Is it really odd for a Bishop to meet with youth weekly?  I had three different bishop that had weekly meetings with several of us youth.  I knew of two people that did the same not only with their bishop, but with the stake president.  We'd usually bump into each other in the hallways at the stake center.  Then again, every bishop I had when younger asked me graphic sexually explicit questions too, so the things that are "odd" for adults to do to children is somewhat tainted.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

It would seem odd for a bishop to meet with a young woman on a weekly basis, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. 

If he had bad intentions then it tracks. 

Agreed.  But it would also seem to be odd to the executive secretary, to the girl's parents, and anyone else who was aware of weekly meetings.

As it is, though, I suspect that there were no regular ("weekly") meetings, and that the allegations pertain to a single incident.  Ongoing abuse would, I think, have resulted in the prosecutor filing a litany of charges.

I also wonder if there are, or will be, further charges from other victims.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

46 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Is it really odd for a Bishop to meet with youth weekly?  I had three different bishop that had weekly meetings with several of us youth.  I knew of two people that did the same not only with their bishop, but with the stake president.  We'd usually bump into each other in the hallways at the stake center.  Then again, every bishop I had when younger asked me graphic sexually explicit questions too, so the things that are "odd" for adults to do to children is somewhat tainted.

For one-on-one meetings, it seems odd to me.  Except for the years that my dad was the bishop, I only met with the bishop one-on-one during the semi-yearly interviews.  My son is currently in a quorum presidency and they are trying to have the presidency meeting every week and I find that odd.  If my daughter or son said that the bishop wanted to meet with them weekly on a one-on-one basis, I'd say no to it.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

2. Was there ongoing abuse "between May 23, 2006, and May 22, 2007," or was it a single incident? If multiple incidents, why are they not included in the narrative and in the criminal counts?

It is possible that the three charges are three different events.  As you mentioned, each charge starts with "on or about May 23, 2006 through May 22, 2007 in Salt Lake County, the defendant did...".  She might only remember how old she was or what school year she was in.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Do you believe that the single incident being reported actually happened?  

I don't know.  All we have is the uncorroborated and anonymous say-so of the complainant.  Per my legal training ("presumption of innocence" and all that), and the Golden Rule, I am presently not drawing any conclusion, and will wait to see what happens in the legal process.

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I suspect that your mind works in a way that has you suspending any concerns until proven in a court of law.  

I'm not that stringent.  I drew conclusions about Joseph Bishop (the man who purportedly accosted McKenna Denson) despite no court findings (criminal or civil).  I felt there was enough publicly-available evidence for me to draw a reasonable and informed conclusion as to the allegations.  I'm leaning that way as to Tim Ballard as well (the white board, the volume of complainants, and his text messages are, in my view, collectively pretty damaging).

Here, there is very little evidence, so drawing any conclusion is premature.  The Information, which I downloaded and read, states that it was written "based on evidence obtained from" four people:

• (1) the alleged victim,
• (2) another unidentified person (listed using initials, so likely a family member of the alleged victim),
• (3) a named female person, and
• (4) the investigating officer.

My guess is that witnesses 2 and 3 are, if anything, either "outcry witnesses" or else may attest to the victim's distressed state at the time, or both.  This is not strong evidence.

On the one hand, it's hard to imagine someone fabricating allegations like this.  On the other hand, fabricated (or distorted/exaggerated) claims can and do happen.  The "politics" and "optics" of even raising this issue, though, tend to be pretty significant. 

From Wikipedia:

Quote

Causes

Causes of false accusations of rape fall into two categories: deliberate deception (lies) and non-deliberate deception (such as false memories, facilitated communication, and "don't know").^[6]

Deliberate deception

An accuser may have several motivations to falsely claim they have been raped. There is disagreement on how many different categories these may be put into. Kanin (1994) listed three: revenge, producing an alibi, and getting sympathy/attention.^[7] Newman (2017) listed four: revenge, producing an alibi, personal gain, and mental illness.^[8]

According to De Zutter et al. (2017), Kanin's list is "valid but insufficient to explain all the different motives of complainants" and presents eight categories of motives: material gain, alibi, revenge, sympathy, attention, disturbed mental state, relabeling, or regret.^[9]

According to Hines and Douglas (2017), 73% of men who've experienced partner-initiated violence reported that their partner threatened to make false accusations. This is compared to 3% for men in the general population.^[10]

Non-deliberate deception

False memories

There are several ways in which an alleged victim can accidentally come to believe that they have been raped by the person(s) they accuse. These include:^[11]

• Recovered-memory therapy: memories of sexual abuse "recovered" during therapy in the absence of any supporting evidence, based on the Freudian notion of "repression"^[11]
• The victim's confusion of the memory of the real rapist with the memory of someone else^[11]
• Memory conformity: memory can become contaminated when co-witnesses discuss their recollection of events^[11]

Facilitated communication

See also: List of abuse allegations made through facilitated communication

Facilitated communication (FC) is a scientifically discredited technique that attempts to aid communication by people with autism or other communication disabilities who are non-verbal. The facilitator guides the disabled person's arm or hand and attempts to help them type on a keyboard or other device.^[12] Research indicates that the facilitator is the source of the messages obtained through FC, not the disabled person. However, the facilitator may believe they are not the source of the messages due to the ideomotor effect, which is the same effect that guides a Ouija board.^[13][14] There have been a number of accusations of sexual abuse made through facilitated communication.^[15] As of 1995, there were sixty known cases, with an unknown numbers of others settled without reaching public visibility.^[16][17]

"Don't know"

According to De Zutter et al. (2017), 20% of complainants said that they did not know why they had filed a false allegation.^[9]

I think we have sufficient data to allow false allegations to be within the realm of possibility.

For now, I will say that the Information is not drafted well, and it was written by the investigating officer.  Candidly, it comes across as somewhat salacious/prurient, but that may be down to the investigating officer's writing style.  

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

In other words, if I were assaulted, you’d not be my confidante. No offense of course. 

I can't speak to that.  If someone whom I know and trust and generally find honest and credible were to tell me she had been assaulted, I would take her claim at face value.  But I don't know you, nor do I know the alleged victim, nor do I know Mr. Stevens, nor do I know any of the sourced of information on which the Information was based, nor do we have any evidence except the uncorroborated, and very late (18-19 years old), say-so of the anonymous complainant.  Hence my current undecided stance.

I have never bought into the "Believe All Woman" mantra, which I find antithetical to both the law and common sense.  Nor do I feel obligated to reflexively accept or reject barebone allegations such as are in the news item.  "Wait and see" seems to be the best way to go for now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Is it really odd for a Bishop to meet with youth weekly?  I had three different bishop that had weekly meetings with several of us youth. 

Individually?  Or as a group?

57 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I knew of two people that did the same not only with their bishop, but with the stake president.  We'd usually bump into each other in the hallways at the stake center.  Then again, every bishop I had when younger asked me graphic sexually explicit questions too, so the things that are "odd" for adults to do to children is somewhat tainted.

I was never asked any such questions, nor did I ask any such questions when I served as a bishop.  Instead, i followed the Church's policies and procedures rather scrupulously, which policies and procedures have been in placed for many years.

If this man did the things alleged in the Information, he did so in violation of the instructions and guidance of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.  But it would also seem to be odd to the executive secretary, to the girl's parents, and anyone else who was aware of weekly meetings.

As it is, though, I suspect that there were no regular ("weekly") meetings, and that the allegations pertain to a single incident.  Ongoing abuse would, I think, have resulted in the prosecutor filing a litany of charges.

I also wonder if there are, or will be, further charges from other victims.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I saw that he was charged with sodomy. I find it harder to believe that he met with her one time and that in that one meeting he felt comfortable enough with his chances of getting away with it to escalate to that point, then I find it to believe that he met with her weekly.

What really makes me a sick about this is that it’s one of the first times, if not the first time, that I’ve heard of such abuse is happening in a bishop‘s office while the man was acting in his role as Bishop. Usually the men charged with these crimes are members, but the abuse happens outside of church and not when they are fulfilling a calling.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, webbles said:

It is possible that the three charges are three different events. 

Possible, but I think unlikely.  Only one event is described.  If he had engaged in the same behavior but at separate times, I'm reasonably confident that the Information would say as much.  It doesn't.

7 minutes ago, webbles said:

As you mentioned, each charge starts with "on or about May 23, 2006 through May 22, 2007 in Salt Lake County, the defendant did...".  She might only remember how old she was or what school year she was in.

Perhaps.  I'd say more, but I don't want to divulge information that might give hints to the victim's identity.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Doctor Steuss]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Individually?  Or as a group?

Individually.

Quote

 

I was never asked any such questions, nor did I ask any such questions when I served as a bishop.  Instead, i followed the Church's policies and procedures rather scrupulously, which policies and procedures have been in placed for many years.

If this man did the things alleged in the Information, he did so in violation of the instructions and guidance of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Interesting.  Maybe it was just a "previous bishop did this, so that must be the way it's done."  Besides being asked as individuals sexually explicit questions regularly in individual meetings with the bishop, we also had group youth meetings to talk specifically about masturbation.  When I broke the law of chastity as a teenager, the bishop had me tell him in exact detail everything my girlfriend and I did.  He kept asking for more and more details, and after it all, insisted that there were more details I needed to tell him, or else I could never be forgiven.  We had several meetings during the "repentance process" where I would have to tell him in exact detail again everything we had done.  My girlfriend experienced the same thing with her bishop (different ward, same stake).

I didn't think anything of it at the time because every single bishop we had as youth did it, as well as at least one stake president.  This was Las Vegas in the 1990s.

It wasn't until I was an adult (and fairly recently) I began to understand just how inappropriate this was, and how it made all of us susceptible to being abused by someone in authority.

ETA:  To be clear, I don't think this was a form of grooming from the Bishop's I had.  I have no reason to think they were doing this for their own sexual gratification.  I think it was a "this is just the way I experienced it, so this must be the way it's done" type thing.  I have no ill feelings towards them.

Edited February 4 by Doctor Steuss

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I saw that he was charged with sodomy. I find it harder to believe that he met with her one time and that in that one meeting he felt comfortable enough with his chances of getting away with it to escalate to that point, then I find it to believe that he met with her weekly.

What really makes me a sick about this is that it’s one of the first times, if not the first time, that I’ve heard of such abuse is happening in a bishop‘s office while the man was acting in his role as Bishop. Usually the men charged with these crimes are members, but the abuse happens outside of church and not when they are fulfilling a calling.

sodomy in Utah includes oral contact as well - https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S403.html

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I saw that he was charged with sodomy.

Yes.  "Sodomy" covers a range of sexual behaviors.  The behavior described in the Information is shocking and horrific.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I find it harder to believe that he met with her one time and that in that one meeting he felt comfortable enough with his chances of getting away with it to escalate to that point, then I find it to believe that he met with her weekly.

That is part of the "Candidly, it comes across as somewhat salacious/prurient" comment I made above.

Even though it is a public record, I am reluctant to provide a link to the Information, precisely because its description of the event leans pretty heavily in the salacious/prurient, almost to the point of drawing a Snidely Whiplash-style caricature of the defendant.  And he purportedly did all this evil, depraved stuff - including forcible sexual assault which would have left substantial forensic evidence - in a single interview.  No "grooming" or other preparatory behavior that sexual predators often utilize.  From zero to violent sexual assault, all in one meeting.  

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What really makes me a sick about this is that it’s one of the first times, if not the first time, that I’ve heard of such abuse is happening in a bishop‘s office while the man was acting in his role as Bishop. Usually the men charged with these crimes are members, but the abuse happens outside of church and not when they are fulfilling a calling.

The absence of detail as to when the incident occurred is potentially noteworthy. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Individually.

Interesting.  Maybe it was just a "previous bishop did this, so that must be the way it's done." 

The prevalence of bishops asking inappropriate questions appears to be a matter of some debate.  Some think this was pervasive, others think otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

If not, why include that detail?  

Even if it occurred only once, that she was likely required to meet with him weekly (the excuse being she was in a leadership role) would have been traumatizing, especially if she wasn’t able to bring herself to tell anyone and her advisers were encouraging her to take an active leadership role for the other girls she had stewardship over.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Potter said:

Do individual Mormon churches have safety teams to protect members? 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/07/01/i-know-how-to-lower-church-abuse-rates-by-75
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/how-latter-day-saints-approach-abuse
 

A lot depends on local members, some which may ignore church policy even when it is pointed out to them (this happened to me when my bishop of the time—mid 90s—blew off my protest that only one male leader was taking 13 boys for an overnight camp, though my worry was more his old van was going to breakdown out in the boonies, it was winter in Banff and cellphones weren’t yet a big thing and the boys were only 11 or 12 iirc).

I don’t know how long the rule has been all males had to be in teams of two to teach and some years later that covered females as well.  I can’t remember if the two man rule I was demanding be followed was just the overnight camp or it was across the board by then.  My guess it was a Scouting rule the Church had to follow to be connected to Scouts Canada.  Seems like the two man rule has been 30 years and I know we were getting windows put in classrooms in the 90s, but don’t know if church wide by then.

The Church has done a lot since I was a kid 60+ years ago.  It needs to do more of course.   I haven’t been involved in youth care for a number of years nor attending much beyond Sunday Services and this ward thankfully has not run into any issues I am aware of, so I may be behind on what’s been put in place.

 A previous ward (about 30 years ago) had a disabled man who lived in a group home and was brought to our ward on Sundays fondled a young woman who stood to close to him.  His mental age (maybe 4 or 5) meant he did not understand why it upset her and why he shouldn’t do it, he had learned the behaviour at the group home….such abuse being a big problem for such.  Because he was the son of an older couple and had been attending the ward all his life even after he got too big for the elderly couple to care for and was moved to the group home and he had close friends of all ages in the ward, it would have been crushing to ban him completely from meetings.  They put in place safety measures that ensured all children were out of arm’s reach unless a parent was with them as well as requiring at least one man to be with him at all times.  He was wheel chaired bound with limited, slow movements, so such measures were sufficient for safety, but unfortunately it still allowed for trauma of the young woman who was his victim.  The mother wanted him barred from church, they were relatively new in the ward and not familiar with his history (he lived around the corner from us, he was most of the time a sweet little boy in a body that was way too big and damaged, the family were very conscientious about caring for him, he was popular at church), so all they understandably saw was the abuser.  I think if there had been any way to make his going to another ward fill his social and emotional needs, it would have been done, but doing so would likely have resulted in major health consequences for him as he was already dealing with his parents’ old age (both died not long after) and the ward was really the only stable thing in his life at that time.  The family moved out of the ward not long after, I am really hoping the young woman got some excellent counseling as they were already dealing with a lot before this happened.

Edited February 4 by Calm

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

If not, why include that detail? 

Even if it occurred only once, that she was likely required to meet with him weekly (the excuse being she was in a leadership role) would have been traumatizing, especially if she wasn’t able to bring herself to tell anyone and her advisers were encouraging her to take an active leadership role for the other girls she had stewardship over.

None of that, however, is laid out in the Information.  The detail seems to be a dangling thread.  it does not seem to serve any particular purpose in the Information (and, instead, seems to obscure the narrative).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

None of that, however, is laid out in the Information.  The detail seems to be a dangling thread.  it does not seem to serve any particular purpose in the Information (and, instead, seems to obscure the narrative).

Thanks,

-Smac

Hopefully solid and useful info will be provided so speculation won’t run wild.  Though for the sake of the alleged survivor and her family and friends and his family and friends, if he committed any type of abuse, hopefully he quickly confesses in full and does his time quietly so she has minimal disturbance to her life as this gets resolved.  Her peace and safety is of much higher priority over our concern and curiosity and need for details to understand even if this is our community that is suffering (I believe any community suffers when one of its members betrays the standards of that community in such a vile way and the ‘did it happen or not’ just makes it harder imo unless by some wonderful chance it can get resolved in positive ways for all involved….which is highly unlikely in these kinds of cases).

Edited February 4 by Calm

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hopefully solid and useful info will be provided so speculation won’t run wild.  

I would not be surprised if there is little-to-no evidence other than the say-so of the complainant. 

The alleged event happened 18+ years ago. 

No forensic evidence. 

Apparently no percipient witnesses, and the potential witnesses may be barred as only able to offer hearsay. 

Also, I think there are some potential flaws in the Information, perhaps even serious ones.  

Being able to compile and present admissible evidence to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" looks pretty iffy.

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Though for the sake of the alleged survivor and her family and friends and his family and friends, if he committed any type of abuse, hopefully he quickly confesses in full and does his time quietly so she has minimal disturbance to her life as this gets resolved.  

Assuming he is, in fact, guilty.

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Her peace and safety is of much higher priority over our concern and curiosity even if this is our community that is suffering (I believe any community suffers when one of its members betrays the standards of that community in such a vile way and the ‘did it happen or not’ just makes it harder imo unless by some wonderful chance it can get resolved in positive ways for all involved….which is highly unlikely in these kinds of cases).

I quite agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 4 by smac97

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Being able to compile and present admissible evidence to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" looks pretty iffy.

Why would the prosecutor charge him then?  It’s not like prosecutors jump at these cases if the stats are accurate.  And most don’t even get referred to prosecutors in the first place.  This suggest this case has more going for it than it appears, imo.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50354436/this-has-got-to-change-in-utah-sexual-assaults-are-poorly-tracked-and-under-prosecuted

Quote

Valentine's research revealed most cases died with law enforcement. In Utah County, she found 73% were not formally referred to prosecutors. The most common reason for law enforcement not to screen a case with prosecutors was "lack of evidence or unfounded."

Valentine said her findings point to a system where women are not believed, even though numerous credible studies have shown false reports of sexual assaults are extremely rare.

"I'm a researcher," she said. "I've read all the studies, and there have been a lot of studies about false reporting of rape cases. It happens, but it's about 2-8%. That's the same as other crimes."

In Salt Lake County, Valentine's research revealed that during 2012 through 2017, only 8% of sexual assault cases were prosecuted, and that was an improvement. Her previous review of sexual assault cases in Salt Lake County from 2003 to 2011 found only 6% of those cases were prosecuted.

"When I repeated this study, I thought that law enforcement would be screening more cases with the prosecutor's office," she said. "And I found that is not the case, that still law enforcement is only screening a third or less of these cases with fully collected sexual assault kits with the prosecutor's office. The reason we had an increase in prosecution for Salt Lake County, is because the Salt Lake DA's Office is prosecuting more of the cases that do get screened."

In Salt Lake County, 65% of sexual assault cases were not formally screened with the prosecutor's office from 2012 to 2017. That's marginally down from 66% when Valentine conducted the initial study.

 

Edited February 4 by Calm

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Being able to compile and present admissible evidence to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" looks pretty iffy.

Why would the prosecutor charge him then?  

I'd rather not speculate.

I watched a prosecutor punt on a sexual assault case far stronger than this one in terms of evidence.

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

It’s not like prosecutors jump at these cases if the stats are accurate.  And most don’t even get referred to prosecutors in the first place.  This suggest this case has more going for it than it appears, imo.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50354436/this-has-got-to-change-in-utah-sexual-assaults-are-poorly-tracked-and-under-prosecuted

We'll see.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 5 by smac97

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

watched a prosecutor punt on a sexual assault case far stronger than this one in terms of evidence.

How do you know it’s stronger in evidence than this one since we don’t have the evidence detail?  
 

You don’t have access to the case file somehow?  Investigations aren’t online now, are they?

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

How do you know it’s stronger in evidence than this one since we don’t have the evidence detail?  
 

You don’t have access to the case file somehow?  Investigations aren’t online now, are they?

No, I am surmising.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

It’s so interesting how differently we approach these cases- as a lawyer, it’s all about proving things first,  and me as a therapist, my first reaction is empathy.  
 

Can you imagine a marriage between a lawyer and a therapist? That would be  - not fun. 

Edited February 5 by MustardSeed