Jo Jo Giorgianni Exit from Courtroom, Ben Kartcher Press Conference #1; Jo Jo Exit from Courtroom, Ben Kartcher Press Conference #1

Clearly sets forth a procedure I think it's appropriate I can think of no case cries out for a good first order it is the state's position all night or is not applicable to this juncture this is a post-conviction type of procedure rather than any court on the recall and I want us tending to it as the court has indicated throughout the proceedings since August 6. What we were doing here is continuing the hearing that was originally done. Norma 6 1982 the general purpose of bringing the law to Demi. Through the both of the conditions put it in the record since the defendant has been convicted has been sentenced. Board believes that that sentence which was interrupted by these proceedings should be resumed your application for bail pending an appeal in this matter is denied.

Dr For the record specifically at this point in time I am not applying to this court for the return of a $2000 fine because I perceive that to have been part of the sentence which we feel was the appropriate sentence. But I do inquire of the court. I think it is an aspect of the sentence which the court has not considered and I inquire of the court as to whether it intends to make no disposition of their judgments on the status of a $2000 fine. Just reread the sentence of those the six has been vacated. Your turn. You can make whatever appropriate motion to repetitions concerning the fine that matter at the present time. This is not the proper ending for those or THANK YOU THANK YOU can now be said to. Make you. Feel a little more.

You know OK let's set up that there's all this stuff and finally wake you with a. Gun. But what I love is that you. Know what I'm going to get the right thing and. The little. Woman. I just want to tell you when I first took this position I was told nothing happens here in August. This is just another quiet August in Mercer County. I don't think we have any formal step to make. We'll just respond to any questions. You know what I mean is that I don't like you

at the August 6th hearing we were satisfied that any proofs that were before the court were such that they did not warrant the action that was taken and I think a review of the transcript raises a question as to that. In any event the state had submitted medical reports and we were satisfied. The ultimate determination of the court was to the contrary and we proceeded to move for the the rehearing. And that's exactly what has happened. Well remember remember that the defendant had produced no medical testimony whatsoever and still to this date has not done so. And this was a what I would characterize as a sewer spondee application by the the court the defendant hadn't produced his doctor Dr. Lex has never been in this courtroom. We had literally nothing to respond to at that point we have presented our medical reports. Doctor once report had been submitted and

when the judge indicated that he was releasing based on the testimony of Doctor Valens Whalen. The rehearing followed and the testimony was presented. Yes well our prime consideration today was having the sentence reinstated the sentence was reinstated and as far as we're concerned that resolves the issue. I think I can answer that question. You're very happy that we have six we have six letters with a signature on the phone saying Dr. Harold Lex. I assume there is a doctor Lex if you would rather not really get that right. Oh I don't think there was any question our decision regarding proceeding further was made shortly after Mr. Davis and I discussed the matter on August the 6th. And I think if you follow the chronology of of the reporting to

the public you'll find that there was an announcement of our intention to proceed with the matter I believe Monday or Tuesday. And I think the public outcry as you characterize it is something that followed thereafter but our decision to appeal was made very shortly after the decision was made right. Somewhat right. Yes you think you are you know what. Well I I can't really speak for the appellate court I know his attorney has indicated that he's going to proceed to the appellate courts. And I really can't give you an opinion as to what what they will do I think the issues that we briefed and the law that we presented to the court certainly warranted session today. We got report we have four or

five. Right right. Hearing that we were informed the Doctor Valens Well I would be testifying concerning the word that we did not receive. We did not receive a copy of the report until it was read into the record on August 6th. In any event I want to remind you that our Dr. balance well as testimony was that all of the medical needs of the defendant could be met in the hospital setting. And that's the information that Mr. Henderson development process you know you know whether it's essential agree with that but if you disagree with the judges as they go there the estate sale sign is about well tough to disagree with judges but. We were satisfied with the August 6 hearing but after the Aug. 6 hearing that there was an issue that should be reviewed by the trial court and an issue that should be

reviewed by the appellate court in the absence of the trial court I think the filing of the motion for reconsideration and the ultimate result today's is really the critical aspect of it in terms of the criticism which has been asked about our prime concern was the reinstatement of sentence if we have to bear some of the burden for what happened today. You know that's something that I'm willing to do in behalf of the office. I have my own personal views towards it. But again our prime concern was was seeing that justice was done in this case and I think that's exactly what happened here. For you to hear that there was the testimony that was probably presented by Dr. valance Whalen on August the 6th was essentially a conversation that he had had from with Dr. Lex as I pointed out in my summation to the court. And there are two elements that have to be established

at a hearing such as the hearing which took place on August 6. The first is the necessity or is the life threatening condition of the defendant. And the second is the ability of the corrections system to. To deal with that situation on cross-examination Doctor Valens well indicated that he felt that the life threatening condition of the defendant could be handled within by the Department of Corrections and the judge did not accept that. Thus the application for the re hearing there at the version of this case that had their way with a case that was their goal or no I don't think it interfered with with any other cases but it did take up a great deal of time effort and work. And let me take a moment introduce people sitting up here and I should have done that initially says Debra stone from the attorney general's office of deputy attorney general and Allen notes new attorney

general's office and how he was seen from the Mercer County prosecutor's office. And these four people together with bills are linguists. Somewhere around here and rich bird was here somewhere also. And Larry gets wilder from the attorney general's office also participated in this effort. This was done in a very short period of time in a country that I'd never heard of before letters and phone calls and so forth. Obviously the wire services picked up the story and was transmitted nationwide and I guess it got into Canada and other places. We did hear some response frankly. I guess I've been asked a question continuously throughout these proceedings whether I felt that the public response in any way alter the judicial proceedings and I think that in fairness they did not. The application for a rehearing was in preparation it was being filed. Judge Barlow is as I've indicated before an excellent judge. And I think that he would have

acted in the same manner if this were a story that was never reported or if this was a story that received the the type of response that it did. There were matters presented to him as I indicated upstairs in my summation. The issue here was was developing all of the facts and establishing the truth. And I know that he's a judge that's concerned with those issues as are we and in our office. And I don't think that the result or the manner in which this case was handled would have been any different. You know that. Well it may well appear that way but by the same token the rules have been filed the papers have been filed in an appropriate matter a manner the case was moved expeditiously don't forget the feeling that someone has been sentenced to 15 years in jail who is now released and now you have the state coming forward and saying you know there are other factors which the court should be aware of. We want to re hearing on that and

I think the court in that situation would in fact expedite the matter and here we go. Oh you're all right. It would be fun. Well I think you should know something about our procedures the attorney general's office handle all of our appeals. As a matter of course in any event we were able to benefit from their expertise by having them on the scene a bit earlier. But in the normal course of events the proceeding on appeal in this case would be handled by the attorney general's office we do not maintain our own appellate section in this office. I think it's obvious and I would be foolish to say otherwise that we were not aware of all of you. And you know I don't know how you really live their lives.

The difference is penetration. The proof the requirement of proof of penetration carnal abuse does not require proof of penetration rate requires proof of penetration. We're dealing with a 14 year old victim becomes a statutory offense in any event because she's underage. You know this is under the old law by the way the law as you know it. I've been advised to my left two years seven months 10 days now that's an approximation but yeah that's pretty accurate. Why do you think that the statute says carnal abuse and rape if that's the title of the statute. And if you read the statute the word rape never appears. The title I think it just became a catch word. He was charged with carnal abuse he was also charged with aiding and abetting the rape that was the other codefendant Mr. sin Dora. The jury convicted him. I think you're almost dealing with semantics when you say carnal abuse rape. The penalty is the same the sentence is the same

you know like I think you better see your lawyer I don't know if you know more than that. Right. Yes and there's a statutory offense of statutory rape here. Now he was charged with carnal abuse he was also charged with aiding and abetting the rape I don't think the outrage at my remark was was well taken. Technically there was a rape offense. He was indicted on the carnal abuse offense again we're talking about penetration and I think in terms of the actual offense here we're dealing in many cases with semantics whether they are on your part not right with the word yesterday in your life when I hear you know that as the court indicated and I think the court was very clear on this issue of the burden is on the defendant to come forward

not only the state to come forward and.