• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I Can't Recall

Stacko

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
10,837
The former Loudoun County sheriff’s deputy charged with stealing more than $200,000 from the office’s asset forfeiture program has an unusual reason that federal prosecutors might not be able to put him on trial.

He has a 12- or 14-year gap in his memory.

A federal judge on Friday ordered that 44-year-old Frank Pearson undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether he is competent to understand the legal proceedings in the case and help his defense. The reason his attorneys sought it: “Mr. Pearson has no memory of events that occurred after 2001.”

It’s not just his alleged crimes that Pearson says he can’t recall, though prosecutors say those occurred between 2010 and October 2013, well inside the period of purported amnesia. Defense attorneys said that after Pearson’s wife found him unresponsive on the bathroom floor of the family’s home in October 2013 and had him taken to a hospital, Pearson said that it was 2001 and that he did not recognize friends whom he had met after that year.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...46c80e-7c10-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html

How convenient for him.
 
Perhaps an interesting question: if the accused truly cannot remember then they cannot be expected to testify on that particular topic, yes? And thus in the USA they would not even have to call upon their 5th amendment rights to avoid testifying about their role in the crime. But as I understand it, that would not make them not guilty of the crime- if the rest of the evidence and testimonies of other witnesses was sufficient for conviction, the accused could be convicted even if they truly don't remember the crime, right? (please correct me if I am wrong).

In fact, if the memory loss was after the commission of the crime the accused could not even claim an insanity or impaired cognition defense, because the mental state of the accused during the crime is the key element, right?

If I am correct, this is only theory, of course. A lot of juries would hesitate to convict someone who had sustained serous brain injury after a crime, and/or the judge would be sympathetic to the accused in terms of sentencing even if the accused was convicted by the jury. Do we really want even more mentally damaged people in our prisons? It is very expensive.

Of course this is a different discussion from if the accused can convincingly demonstrate to the jury and judge their current lack of memory.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Perhaps an interesting question: if the accused truly cannot remember then they cannot be expected to testify on that particular topic, yes? And thus in the USA they would not even have to call upon their 5th amendment rights to avoid testifying about their role in the crime. But as I understand it, that would not make them not guilty of the crime- if the rest of the evidence and testimonies of other witnesses was sufficient for conviction, the accused could be convicted even if they truly don't remember the crime, right? (please correct me if I am wrong).

In fact, if the memory loss was after the commission of the crime the accused could not even claim an insanity or impaired cognition defense, because the mental state of the accused during the crime is the key element, right?

If I am correct, this is only theory, of course. A lot of juries would hesitate to convict someone who had sustained serous brain injury after a crime, and/or the judge would be sympathetic to the accused in terms of sentencing even if the accused was convicted by the jury. Do we really want even more mentally damaged people in our prisons? It is very expensive.

Of course this is a different discussion from if the accused can convincingly demonstrate to the jury and judge their current lack of memory.
Click to expand...
Amnesia, if real, would likely severely limit his ability to aid in his defense. I would not be surprised if the judge were to rule that trial could not go forward if he were to be convinced that the amnesia is not feigned.
 
Metullus said:
Amnesia, if real, would likely severely limit his ability to aid in his defense. I would not be surprised if the judge were to rule that trial could not go forward if he were to be convinced that the amnesia is not feigned.
Click to expand...

Ah, I hadn't thought of that- good point.
 
According to Dante, the thievery by itself would put this guy in the Eighth Circle of Hell (along with astrologers and other people who lie about predicting the future). But the violation of a public trust kicks him down to the Ninth Circle of Hell.

If found guilty, I hope this guy serves hard time.

Can they launch a civil suit and get the money back? One would think that the ease with which U.S. police seize money from unconvicted civilians ("we are not arresting you, we are arresting the money"), that it would be easy for the department to just take back the money without a trial.
 
I've been drunk in Loudon country before. But that was about 40 years ago. As suburban DC suburbs, it was where the most inbreeding was to be found back in the day.

Not sure how things have changed since the explosion of DC suburbia.
 
Presuming that the fellow had a stroke or similar condition, and that he has suffered sufficient brain damage to wipe out memories of the time period involved....I agree that he could not materially aid in his defense, offer alibies, or anything else.
Likely the case could be proved against him on evidentiary grounds but the lack of recall would, I agree, be a serious impediment to a trial.
We had a situation here where an individual who was involved in a messy divorce case pulled a gun as judge was about to rule (this was prior to metal detectors and all.) and killed his wife, her attorney, and shot and wounded several other people in the courtroom.
A shootout ensued with officers from various jurisdictions who were present to testify in various cases engaged the guy and shot him in the head.
He was not killed, but suffered significant brain damage. There was no doubt of his guilt, but he could not be brought to trial for many years as he had no memory of the incident and was severely impaired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom