The Supreme Court Decided That A Child Molester Cannot Be Repressed…

A judge in Wyoming was right to block a rape suspect from making unsavory accusations against his victim at trial, the state’s highest court ruled.

Donald Detimore, 72, who Serving 40 to 50 years in prison A man in Wyoming’s corrections system for molesting a 7-year-old girl lost his appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court on Friday.

Detimore, a Lander man, argued that Fremont County District Court Judge Jason Conder violated his victim’s rights by not allowing him to discuss one of his own actions, which he called “shameful and embarrassing” and said could explain some of his allegations. against him.

The high court ruled that Conder acted properly under Wyoming’s rape shield law; This law would allow juries to hear details of rape victims’ sex lives only if they are more valuable as evidence rather than as a smear campaign.

Detimore argued on appeal that prior to his victim disclosure: the When he was 16, he caught a paramedic in a “shameful and embarrassing situation” when he mistreated her.

This, he argued, might explain why she stopped wanting to visit him and why she filed suit against him.

During Detimore’s prosecution, Conder held a secret hearing. the Subject. Detimore did not ask his victim about the “embarrassing and embarrassing” situation during that hearing, according to a unanimous Wyoming Supreme Court decision written by Judge Kari Gray.

Therefore, Conder did not know how the girl would react to Detimore’s allegations against her if forced to confront them in front of a jury.

The judge also found that the claim was more like a smear campaign than evidence. Or in a legal sense, the allegation’s ability to bias the jury against the girl outweighed its probative value.

He decided that Detimore would not be allowed to air this claim at the hearing.

The Wyoming Supreme Court on Friday upheld Detimore’s conviction and denied a new trial, citing the rape shield law and previous cases.

The ruling states that although defendants have the right to confront witnesses against them, courts may decide whether some evidence is marginally relevant.

The high court added a note to Detimore’s claim that it failed to connect it to a motive for the girl’s appearance.

“He failed to establish a connection between catching her in an ’embarrassing and embarrassing situation’ at an unspecified time when she was younger and her lying years later,” the decision states. “Mr. Detimore’s right to present a full defense was not violated by the exclusion of the evidence.”

Clair McFarland can be reached at [email protected].