I am taking a case to GJ next week where a father and his 19 year old daughter have been having consensual sex (AP, no need for you to respond). Should just dad be indicted since most people think, as the parent, he is more culpable? Should they both be indicted? And the ones of you from east Texas, don't act like this only happens in my jurisdiction!

New, from Milton-Bradley: "Incest," the board game.

It's the game the whole family can play!



------------------
Oh yeah, Mark wanted advice, too. I say ... it depends on how long the behavior has been going on (if it started before she was of age, then don't charge her), or the existence of any condition that might have made the girl coerced, forced, etc. (like mental health issues). But I wouldn't give her a free pass "just because."

Despite her age, does it make any difference if she initiated the report?

She did initiate the report, which will probably be important to the GJ. At the age of 19 she "rekindled" her relationship with dear old dad, whom she had not seen since she was 2. Of course, they both had a few drinks to get in the mood. Keystone Light would be my guess! But neither one was drunk, unfortunately.

A concern in charging her is that do so risks deterring others from reporting crimes in which they have participated against their usual better judgment. There is a strong argument that we should encourage reporting and reward those who do so. Is there a way to wallop dad but severly reprimand daughter without ruining her future? Her behavior could be the result of emotional confusion and misplaced affection. A difficult decision for you.

Do you have confessions from both? If not, and you charge both, how will you prove your case? You won't be able to call either to the stand.

Only charge Dad. He is (1) the adult and (2) the person in authority over the daughter. Yes, she is an adult at 19, but if the conduct started earlier (always does), then Dad gets all the blame.

No purpose is served by prosecuting the daughter and it would distract the prosecution with huge newspaper headlines and community debates.

How do we know the daughter didn't seduce Dad then turn him in in repayment of leaving her at the age of 2. Do we know that she's the less culpable party?

Maybe she knew dear old dad couldn't control himself after two bottles of mad dog 20-20.

Sadly we see that "defense" all too often. The four year old who betwitched and seduced the adult male, the mentally retarded girl who was a willing participant, or the father just teaching his daughter what sex is all about so she can avoid it in the future. Let children be children and adults be responsible for them. It's a good job that the consumption of Mad Dog, and siblings, doesn't constitute a defense.

[This message was edited by John Stride on 06-19-06 at .]

Obviously, Mr. Denny (whoever you are, since your profile doesn't shed any light on who you are or where you work or whether you're a prosecutor), you've never been a 19 year old girl. Girls don't magically get hit with a bolt of intelligence and insight when they hit 18 or even 19, especially when it's dear old daddy who's doing her. It's an unequal balance of power in that relationship. Only one person is the parent and he's not acting like it.

According to the State Bar records, he is a prosecutor in Amarillo and was licensed in 2000.

Agree that if not two confessions, you could not prosecute both, without extraordinary witness testimony from eyewitnesses. But I agree, she shouldn't be prosecuted anyway. Probably has some issues about dad hitting the road when she was 2...

I wonder whether you have an "Accomplice Witness" problem with proving the case against dad using the daughter's testimony. Because she is above the age of consent, I would think she would be an accomplice as a matter of law. I'm assuming no photos, physical evidence or 3rd party witnesses.

boone, that is an interesting point that I had not thought of. But fortunately, we have a confession from dear old dad. On a humorous note, both daughter and dad spoke about how well endowed dad is. The investigator from the SO should have inspected dad's "unit" to confirm and corroborate the statements, but he failed to do so. We find humor in the strangest of places!

And I cannot believe we have not heard from A.P. on this subject.

Well, you did ask him to stay out.

That's right, and the fact that Mark sits, used to sit or will soon again sit on our unit's board of directors has nothing to do with my keeping silent upon his order. I would like to point out however, that keeping my response to myself has done much toward helping people to forget that I have this demon that takes over and belches out nonsense and useless dribble.

Maybe, Mark, you could enlist A.P.'s help to go inspect dad get that corroborating evidence for you.

True that, Jane, but instead of inches, A.P. might use a measuring standard of, say, a bottle of cooking sherry or channel catfish.

I better shut up.

Was nice to see ya.

[The investigator from the SO should have inspected dad's "unit" to confirm and corroborate the statements, but he failed to do so.]

I don't think they have a TCLEOSE class for this and if they do, I am not going.

Get your local SANE nurse to do the photos

Mark, would I be in less trouble if I moved my response to the falling-ceiling-courtroom thread? Figured it was a loop-hole and might not look like I disregarded your original order. And, don't forget to get a few extra copies of "The Perfect Plea" -- there, John, you don't have to say it now, heh-heh.