At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
The prosecutor in the case of a Liberian native charged with repeatedly raping and molesting a 7-year-old girl said Monday that he is filing an appeal of a controversial judge's ruling that dismissed all charges because an interpreter who spoke the suspect's rare West African dialect could not be found.
Montgomery County State's Attorney John McCarthy called the ruling last Tuesday by Judge Katherine Savage "improper," adding that his office has "requested that an appeal be taken to reverse the court's order."
Savage ruled on July 17 that Mahamu Kanneh, a Liberian who received asylum in the U.S. and attended high school and community college here, was denied a speedy trial after three years awaiting a court-appointed interpreter who could speak the tribal language of Vai. Linguists estimate that only 100,000 people speak Vai.
Savage called her decision one of the most difficult she's had to make in a long time, especially since she was aware of "the gravity of this case and the community's concern about offenses of this type."
Click here for FOXNews.com's Crime center.
Det. Omar Hasan wrote in the charging document that the victim "attempted to physically stop the behavior from the defendant, but was unsuccessful," the Washington Post reported. Kanneh threatened the young girl "with not being able to leave the apartment unless she engaged in sexual behavior with the defendant," Hasan wrote in his report.
McCarthy charged the delays cited in Savage's order to dismiss the "result of the court locating a qualified interpreter," and not the fault of the prosecutor.
"The fact is on four separate occasions this court provided Vai interpreters," McCarthy said, adding that one of the interpreters had agreed to participate in further proceedings.
Court records, meanwhile, show that an interpreter was "sworn" by a Maryland court on the same day Savage dismissed the case, FOXNews.com has learned.
Loretta Knight, a clerk with the court system in Montgomery County, Md., claimed she had been unable to find an interpreter to stay on the case, even after an exhaustive search that included the Liberian Embassy and courts in 47 states.
But a look at the court docket for July 17, the day the case was dismissed, shows the entry "Interpreter sworn.” Several items below in the docket, Judge Savage “grants defendant’s oral motion to dismiss case based on a speedy trial violation.”
A review by FOX News of the audio from that hearing shows, however, that an interpreter was present throughout the entire court proceeding, during which time Kanneh's lawyer, Theresa Chernosky, argued that her client had not been able to get a good job because of unresolved rape charges.
Chernosky is heard also telling Savage that her client works at a gas station, and has not signed up for school because of the uncertainty about his future.
The translator can be heard throughout the entire hearing.
Savage, however, notes to that the events in the case were "unforeseeable, truly difficult in terms of the interpreter issue."
She then tells the court that "in spite of herculean efforts on the part of the state's attorney ... time has become the enemy."
"What we come back to, then ... too much time has passed, is that it's the defendant who hold speedy trial rights."
The Washington Post reported, however, that Kanneh had waived his rights to a speedy trial.
Why Savage dismissed the case when records indicate an interpreter had been sworn is just one of several questions raised by an examination of records by FOXNews.com.
Records from a case-worker report dated Oct. 31, 2006, show that the case worker visited Kanneh's residence to check on him and instead found another sex offender, Sehkou Massaquoi, at the home along with two male children who shared the last name of the defendant.
Massaquoi is currently on probation and “was associated with the same victim” as the defendant.
"The defendant was not at home at the time," the case worker's wrote. Later in the day, however, Kanneh spoke to the case worker and told him “he was unaware that those children were in his apartment while he was there. He just comes home from work and goes to his room every night.”
A Nov. 1, 2006, report from the clinical psychologist, Joseph G. Poirier, noted that the defendant came to the U.S. in September 2001.
The report states that Kanneh was born in Monrovia, Liberia, on May 19, 1984, but at a “very young” age moved with his family as refugees to Guyana, where he was introduced to English (Guyana is an English speaking country in South America, a former Dutch colony that later became a British possession before independence in 1966).
“Presently, Mr. Kanneh’s command of English was reasonably good, but he commented that at times he still did not understand English very well and would require continuing explanations until he did understand," Poirier's report also states. "Mr. Kanneh was aware of the allegations involving child sexual abuse, he was aware of the role of significant courtroom players.
"We found Mr. Kanneh to be responsive and able to meaningfully participate in the screening interview," the report continues. "Likewise, we would anticipate that he will be able to adequately assist defense counsel especially if time is taken to explain to him matters or events that he does not readily grasp because of his language/cultural background.”
In the next portion of the case file, Administrative Judge Ann S. Harrington on Feb. 16, 2007, scheduled the trial to be on July 30, 2007, in front of Judge David Boynton. Handwritten note in file says: “Continuance: only interpreter for via (sic) not available for motions date.” (A reference to the Feb. 16, 2007, motions date before Judge Eric M. Johnson).
FOX News, meanwhile, spoke with a man Sunday who claimed to be Kanneh in a five-minute phone conversation conducted in English. He said the allegations against him were false and the dismissal of the charges was "a good thing." Asked if the accusations were true, he responded, "I said what I had to say" and hung up.
The Washington Post wrote in its article that in just one night reporters were independently able to identify three Vai translators available to assist in the case. It noted that the need for interpreters has risen starkly in Montgomery County, Md., with the court system spending $1 million in interpreters in 2006, or 10 times the amount it spent in 2000.
According to witnesses, who originally reported the case to authorities, Kanneh allegedly repeatedly raped and sexually molested the girl, a relative. In a statement made by the girl to police, she said she had been told she'd be forced to stay in the apartment unless she had sex with Kanneh.
FOXNews.com's Greg Simmons and FOX News' James Rosen and Serafin Gomez contributed to this report.
This is insanity.
1) The accused rapist speaks English and spoke clearly to the prosecutors and the judge. He lived in an English speaking country for years before coming to the USA.
2) The accused rapist had adequate representation and language assistance in case he missed something in English. An interpreter was made available.
3) The accused rapist waived his right to a speedy trial. Why a judge would use a right that was specifically waived by the defendant as an excuse to dismiss the case is beyond me.
4) Since when does "speedy trial" have an exact time limitation? I was under the impression that "speedy trial" was interpreted as "as soon as reasonably possible".
So now we have immigrants refusing to learn the language, committing crimes, and their attorneys using their lack of understanding of the language as a loophole to get off. How long before this becomes a standard defense tactic of defence attorneys?
THIS is part of the reason that I believe that all immigrants must learn English, and the government should have no requirement to provide language services for immigrants. If the defendant wishes to have an interpreter present, then let him or his defense attorney find and pay for it. It is NOT the job of the prosecutor or the court to do so... or at least it should not be.
And why is the judge making this ruling when it is clear that the defendant speaks English, there was an interpreter available, and the defendant waived his right to a speedy trial? What point is she trying to make? Why is the rights of the defendant MORE IMPORTANT to the judge than to the defendant who waived those rights? The judge seems to be a 'criminal rights" activist. This is nothing less than social engineering through judicial fiat.
1) The accused rapist speaks English and spoke clearly to the prosecutors and the judge. He lived in an English speaking country for years before coming to the USA.
2) The accused rapist had adequate representation and language assistance in case he missed something in English. An interpreter was made available.
3) The accused rapist waived his right to a speedy trial. Why a judge would use a right that was specifically waived by the defendant as an excuse to dismiss the case is beyond me.
4) Since when does "speedy trial" have an exact time limitation? I was under the impression that "speedy trial" was interpreted as "as soon as reasonably possible".
So now we have immigrants refusing to learn the language, committing crimes, and their attorneys using their lack of understanding of the language as a loophole to get off. How long before this becomes a standard defense tactic of defence attorneys?
THIS is part of the reason that I believe that all immigrants must learn English, and the government should have no requirement to provide language services for immigrants. If the defendant wishes to have an interpreter present, then let him or his defense attorney find and pay for it. It is NOT the job of the prosecutor or the court to do so... or at least it should not be.
And why is the judge making this ruling when it is clear that the defendant speaks English, there was an interpreter available, and the defendant waived his right to a speedy trial? What point is she trying to make? Why is the rights of the defendant MORE IMPORTANT to the judge than to the defendant who waived those rights? The judge seems to be a 'criminal rights" activist. This is nothing less than social engineering through judicial fiat.
Comments?
Chock another one up to “political correctness”; another reason to quit bilingual education; and a travesty of justice: there was never a trial, just a dismissal of the charges; therefore he was not exonerated of the charges so that if he were innocent, justice fails him too.
I was under the impression that "speedy trial" was interpreted as "as soon as reasonably possible".
The prosecutor has appealed. Hopefully even the commies on the appellate bench in Maryland will get that this was a bad move by the judge.
In Maryland, the right to speedy trial invocation is supposed to guarantee trial within 180 days from the date of the plea and arraignment hearing. But the defendant waived those rights, and I don't know of a statute that says that there is a maximum time for a case to pend in Maryland if the right is waived.
I'm still trying to figure out her rationale on this one.
This was mentioned on my local news tonight (I'm in the DC metro area). The station actually interviewed the translator - he didn't seem to understand what happened either.
Glad to hear the prosecutor appealed, hopefully he will win the appeal before this guy can molest more children, or flee the state.
THIS is part of the reason that I believe that all immigrants must learn English, and the government should have no requirement to provide language services for immigrants. t.
Comments?
Hi Elliot,
The U.S. is a wonderful place for multiculturalism and to learn multi languages. But perhaps we have reached a point that we should have a mandatory American English version ulpan. I don't expect immigrants to pick up the English language right away, but none-the-less if new immigrants are at least immersed in basics we might see less challenges for a productive society.
The guy is accused of MULTIPLE CHILD RAPES. The prosecutor supplied a translator. The defendant waived his right to a speedy trial. Where did the prosecutor go wrong? For trying to prosecute a rapist? What the hell are you talking about, Excon?
ETW, I know the article you posted says the guy waived his rights to a speedy trial, but that hasn't been mentioned on any of the news coverage I've been hearing. It makes me wonder if the WP got their facts wrong (never!) or if my local news isn't reporting that fact because they like to fear-monger (never!) and it makes the judge/prosecution/legal system look bad. Ah, trusted news sources abound!
The prosecutor DIDN'T supply a translator. He knew he was supposed to. HE blew it. It doesn't matter what the guy was charged with!!! It matters that his rights were violated.
You guy's never seem to care much about that, do you?
Linear Mode
