Jury deadlocks on bogus picture charges

Here is another guest post about a local prosecution for some innocent pictures. 10 jurors had some common sense, even if no one else did. The prosecutor says that this is a "unique case", but he ought to drop it.

Dear George,

Months ago, I found your blog post Overzealous child porn prosecution on my boyfriend Alexander Morisse that is being falsely accused by his ex-wife. We were so relieved to see that somebody in the digital world REALLY understood what this case is about. The articles in Santa Cruz Sentinel and Mercury News depict a horrible case and could really tarnish his reputation. We just finished the 2 1/2 weeks trial, here in Santa Cruz. We've had over 30 different supporters come to court...Family, friends, even some friends that used to be mutual friends of Alexander Morisse and Eliina Karyndinha (his ex) and that are now on our side. Since yesterday, we are all impatiently waiting for the jury's verdict. Here's the most recent stub: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22833941/jurors-begin-deliberations-child-pornography-trial.

Here are some points on the case, that have been argued by our lawyer Kellin Cooper that clearly state the truth of the matter. The following information was part of his closing statement.

This case is a tragedy - Alex Morisse is innocent - The police and prosecution got this wrong

Did Alex Morisse take these polka dot photos for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer? Answer: “No”

Circumstantial evidence:

If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.

ALL the evidence points to complete lack of sexual intent:

Truth is simple,

The polka dot photo’s (the ones he got arrested for) were NEVER in his possession, always in the mother and daughter’s possession (on THEIR computer)

Alex’s statements are truthful and consistent every step of the way

Disclosure to Marriage Family Therapist Julie Raudenbaugh months before the pictures were found by mother. Alexander Morisse questioned her about if it’s normal for 4 years old children to be so curious of their body and want to take pictures to "see how their parts look like". He told Julie Raudenbaugh exactly how the pictures were taken (to Sahtah’s request) and even described them. She gave him advice on how to handle a request like this, if it happened again, and acknowledged that children that young are very curious about their body.

Truthful and consistent in ambush pretext statement (the morning of his arrest on April 25th 2012, Alexander Morisse received an ambush phone call from his ex Eliina. She was in a police van, questioning him precisely about the polka dot pictures she had found. Alex had NO idea this phone call was going to lead to his arrest)

Morisse was tricked

Truthful and consistent in statement to the police on April 25th 2012

Dr Robert Kaufman opines he was truthful

Dr Charles Flinton opines he was truthful – Alexander Morisse took a full slew of forensic psychological evaluations that determine such things as deception, sexual deviancy and maladjusted behaviors. The conclusions were totally in his favor. He did not score on ANY of the deception, sexual deviancy and maladjusted behaviors’ tests.

Charles Flinton is an EXPERT in paraphilia, pedophilia being a sub branch of it.

Sahtah corroborates truthfulness! She asks her mother WHY can’t she see her dad and WHERE is he. When the mother explains that he took “inappropriate” pictures of her and shows which ones they are, Sahtah replies “I wanted to take these pictures”

Eliina is not to be trusted:

Eliina testimony can not be relied upon because it is untrustworthy,

Eliina committed perjury at the preliminary examination,

She destroyed evidence, pictures she had on her computer

Refusal to identify herself in photos,

She fabricated false allegations

The prosecutor asked the jury to totally ignore:

Julie Raudenbaugh, a mandatory reporter for the state of California, whom didn’t even find reasonable suspicion in this case after Alex’s full disclosure, more than 6 months before his arrest
Dr Kaufman, who states that
- There is no evidence that Alex has any proclivities that can be described as sexually exploitive.
- Alex is focused on the best interest of Sahtah
- No indication that Alex derived any sexual gratification from the photos

Dr Flinton’s forensic evaluation found that,
- Alex is not a pedophile.
- Alex does not have a predisposition to engage in sexual misconduct toward minors.
- the polka dot photos are not child pornography.

By the way, we got the verdict of the jury last Friday. It is a mistrial, the jury couldn't come to a unanimous decision. Alex, who was charged with 7 counts (for 7 different pictures) got in average 10 jurors out of 12 that voted not guilty. ... May the truth be revealed and innocent fathers defended!

Thank you indefinitely!
Alexe