Patrick Casey molested his stepchild.
Due to an unusually lenient plea bargain, he received only an eight-month prison sentence. Neither the child nor the mother, Cynthia, had the chance to make a statement about the plea bargain beforehand.
University of Utah College of Law Professor Paul Cassell thinks that was wrong. He argued his case before the Utah Supreme Court, Oct. 3.
?In 1994, the citizens of Utah passed a Crime Victims? Rights Amendment?It gives victims the right to be heard before a plea bargain goes through,? Cassell said. ?It?s very unusual to see the charge reduced to such a degree.?
Cassell has spent several hundred hours working on the case, part of the law school’s Pro Bono Initiative, whereby lawyers and students volunteer their time for specific projects.
Third-year law student Troy Booher donated some of his time to the case as part of the Initiative.
?It?s one of your few chances to work with criminal law,? Booher said. His interest is civil litigation. ?It?s a nice opportunity to do a lot of other stuff.?
Booher and four other students role-played Utah Supreme Court justices in the College of Law?s Moot Courtroom Tuesday, the day before the oral argument. They ?grilled? Cassell with questions to prepare him, the law professor said.
The argument was held at the Brigham Young University law school. Once a year, the Utah Supreme Court holds a session at BYU?s and U?s law schools as an educational tool for the respective schools? students, Cassell said.
Since President Bush nominated Cassell to serve as a federal district court judge in Utah, this could very well be his last argument before a judge, ?assuming things go along smoothly with the confirmation process,? Cassell said. Due to the recent terrorist attacks, the timetable for judiciary appointments is ?very much up in the air,? he continued, and he does not know when the U.S. Senate will consider his nomination. Cassell hopes to continue teaching at the U if accepted as a federal judge.
Victims’ rights have long been an interest of Cassell?s. In 2000, he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that voluntary criminal confessions could be used in a court of law even if the criminals involved hadn?t been notified about their right to remain silent. The court did not rule in favor of him.
Involved in the drafting of the Crime Victims? Rights Amendment, Cassell wants to help put Utah?s ?constitutional commitment? into effect.
Allen Jeppeson, a prosecutor for Tooele County, told Cynthia Casey her ex-husband would face a first-degree felony, which can carry a sentence from five years to life. Patrick Casey arranged to plea bargain his way down to a misdemeanor, which carries a jail sentence of one year or less.
Cynthia Casey wanted to make a statement before the judge accepted the plea bargain, but Jeppeson did not provide her the opportunity to do that.
?We felt like our rights had been violated,? she said.
Deciding to hire a lawyer for their own representation, Cynthia Casey eventually found Cassell.
Walter Bugden, Patrick Casey?s defense counsel since the beginning, said the victim?s family is trying to ?veto? his client?s plea bargain.
?The victim is not on equal footing with the criminal defendant,? Bugden said. ?The victim never has the authority or the standing to set aside a plea bargain. The victim in this case should have been heard, but the mistake that was made does not entitle the victim to the remedy of setting aside the plea.?
The victim had the opportunity to speak at the sentencing, after which the defendant received an eight month sentence, he continued.
The case represents a collision of the victims? right to speak and the defendant?s protection against double jeopardy, which prohibits multiple prosecutions for the same crime, Bugden said.
?The defendant?s constitutional right is superior to a victim?s right to be heard,? he continued. ?A victim does not have equal status to a criminal defendant or the state. They have a very limited right, the right to be heard. In this case, there?s no remedy?She didn?t realize that she had the right to speak. I didn?t have any idea she wanted to talk, and the judge didn?t have any idea.?
?The court is clearly struggling with two competing concerns,? Cassell said. ?For every right, there must be a remedy.? Without remedies, victims? rights would be converted into ?meaningless paper promises.?
After learning she and her children had the right to speak before Patrick Casey?s plea bargain was accepted, Cynthia Casey learned the prosecutor, Jeppeson, had ?done this to a lot of people in child molestation cases,? accepting lenient plea bargains to take ?the easy way out,? she said.
Jeppeson resigned from his position in January, according to Doug Ahlstrom, Tooele County attorney and Jeppeson?s supervisor at the time. Ahlstrom said Jeppeson did not routinely accept lenient plea bargains.
It could take months before the Supreme Court reaches a decision. Cynthia Casey hopes to receive at least a court declaration that her and her children?s rights had been violated. If they get that, ?I?ll feel like we were 100 percent successful,? she said.
Her ex-husband?s plea bargain had already been accepted, so making a statement before a judge was kind of moot, she continued.
?We knew right from the beginning that they probably would not change the fact that my ex-husband had already served his sentence, although we did ask for a mis-plea,? Cynthia Casey said. ?Our main goal was trying to make sure this doesn?t happen to other victims in the future. It was a horrendous thing to go through.?