Utah Supreme Court reverses Warren Jeffs conviction

[_Darth J]

Will they let Jeff Bail out of Incarceration?

Duh.

[_Joey]

Great thread over at Peterson's board called "Speaking of Jeffs" where some poster asks what the difference between Jeffs and Smith is. The question and context is really deserving of discussion but I doubt it will get it's due over there.

[_bcspace]

The accusation is that Warren Jeffs knowingly or intentionally solicited, requested, commanded, encouraged, or intentionally aided Steed in raping Wall.

The problem was that the jury was instructed essentially to ignore the issue of whether or not a crime had been committed in the first place which is a requirement for being an accomplice.

Will he get a new trial? It's up to Utah so it's not guarenteed or mandated.

[_Tchild]

Here you go (it's a pdf):

http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopi ... 072710.pdf

This doesn't mean he's "free." It means he gets a new trial.

Very glad to hear that the prophet Warren Jeff's is getting a new (fair) trial. When you are dutifully obeying the voice of the Lord and his commands, you do not deserve man's judgements in trying to live eternal truths.

Just like Joseph Smith, the Lord is merely "testing" his prophet.

[_Sethbag]

Thanks for the discussion guys. I more clearly understand the issues now. I agree, at least from what's been discussed here in this thread, that the court made the right decision.

The position of special trust between Jeffs and Wall only pertains to his enticement, which is correct in terms of his being prosecuted for enticing Wall, however for the charged crime of rape as an accomplice to stick, the jury has to decide that a rape occurred in the first place, and only the actual rapist's relationship with the victim matters in that determination.

So. Based on the first trial, does it look like the prosecution could convince a new jury that Steed's relationship with Wall could meet the definitions in the rape statute?

If so, what would be that position of special trust? The law apparently allows things like spiritual or religious authority to count, otherwise Jeffs himself could have not been seen has having a position of special trust over Wall. Does this count for Steed? He wasn't Wall's "Prophet" or church leader. However, the FLDS seem to teach the women to submit to their priesthood holders. By Jeffs arranging their marriage, could it be argued that, to crudely borrow a Mormon apologetic idiom, Steed had a relationship of special trust over Wall by "divine investiture of authority"?

That is, if Jeffs holds a relationship of special trust over Wall by virtue of her belief that he is God's righthand man on Earth and that therefore whatever he asks her to do, it's like God asking her to do it, then does Jeffs endorsing Steed as her husband put Steed in a relationship of special trust over Wall because she would view Steed as having been placed over her by God through Jeffs? We know that FLDS women are taught submission to the priesthood, so would the law recognize Steed's "authority" over her through her belief that she should submit to him as to God?

This is an area of the law that I find troubling. The law cannot normally consider religious beliefs in most ways, but in this area, it is precisely religious beliefs that create the relationship of special trust in the first place, so they really must be considered.

[_Darth J]

Thanks for the discussion guys. I more clearly understand the issues now. I agree, at least from what's been discussed here in this thread, that the court made the right decision.

The position of special trust between Jeffs and Wall only pertains to his enticement, which is correct in terms of his being prosecuted for enticing Wall, however for the charged crime of rape as an accomplice to stick, the jury has to decide that a rape occurred in the first place, and only the actual rapist's relationship with the victim matters in that determination.

So. Based on the first trial, does it look like the prosecution could convince a new jury that Steed's relationship with Wall could meet the definitions in the rape statute?

If so, what would be that position of special trust? The law apparently allows things like spiritual or religious authority to count, otherwise Jeffs himself could have not been seen has having a position of special trust over Wall. Does this count for Steed? He wasn't Wall's "Prophet" or church leader. However, the FLDS seem to teach the women to submit to their priesthood holders. By Jeffs arranging their marriage, could it be argued that, to crudely borrow a Mormon apologetic idiom, Steed had a relationship of special trust over Wall by "divine investiture of authority"?

That is, if Jeffs holds a relationship of special trust over Wall by virtue of her belief that he is God's righthand man on Earth and that therefore whatever he asks her to do, it's like God asking her to do it, then does Jeffs endorsing Steed as her husband put Steed in a relationship of special trust over Wall because she would view Steed as having been placed over her by God through Jeffs? We know that FLDS women are taught submission to the priesthood, so would the law recognize Steed's "authority" over her through her belief that she should submit to him as to God?

This is an area of the law that I find troubling. The law cannot normally consider religious beliefs in most ways, but in this area, it is precisely religious beliefs that create the relationship of special trust in the first place, so they really must be considered.

Okay, without turning this into a 60-page thread about courts and the First Amendment, there is a concept in law called the "entanglement doctrine" (general principles of law actually are called doctrines sometimes). A court cannot interpret or rule on religious beliefs or practices because the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion or interfering with the free exercise of religion. Obviously, this is not absolutely unlimited freedom: you're not going to be able to practice human sacrifice in that church you just started, for example.

A court can't decide whether or not God exists, whether or not the FLDS Church or any other church is "true," or whether or not Warren Jeffs or anyone else is really a prophet. A court can look at the way the church is organized for determining who is who in the organization and the relationship they have with each other. So if there were, say, a fight over who owns church property (which the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt with), then a court can still deal with that kind of case because it has to do with property law, not interpreting religious doctrines. OTOH, if a bishop was released and tried to sue the LDS Church for "wrongful termination," let's say, then that won't work because it's entirely about religious dogma and practices.

In Warren Jeffs' case, you don't have to decide if he's really a prophet to recognize the fact that he's a religious leader, so that in itself is not a First Amendment problem. But that also isn't relevant to Warren Jeffs' case. The "special relationship of trust" has to do with the issue of consent as between the victim and the person who raped her. A special relationship of trust between the victim and the accomplice to the rape is not relevant to determining accomplice liability.

In other words, if you're on the jury, to convict Warren Jeffs of accomplice rape, you have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that: 1. Steed raped Wall; 2. Warren Jeffs did something under the accomplice liability statute to facilitate this rape; and 3. Warren Jeffs did #2 with the intent of Steed having non-consensual sex with Wall.

Number 3 is where I think the State really, really screwed up. From the facts summarized by the Utah Supreme Court, I think you could prove #1 and #2 pretty easily. I don't see how you're going to prove that Warren Jeffs intended for there to be a rape. Everything the Supreme Court says makes it look like Warren Jeffs intended for Wall to consent to having sex with her "husband." Obviously Warren Jeffs intended for sex to happen. But I'm really having difficulty seeing how you have no reasonable doubt about whether Jeffs' intent was for rape to happen.

It's not like you can't find a crime to charge Warren Jeffs with, you know. Maybe beastie should have prosecuted this case. Warren Jeffs being an accomplice to "statutory rape" (instead of rape just based on lack of consent) seems like a lot stronger case to me.

EDIT: Out, out, damn typos!

[_Sethbag]

The "special relationship of trust" has to do with the issue of consent as between the victim and the person who raped her. A special relationship of trust between the victim and the accomplice to the rape is not relevant to determining accomplice liability.

Understood. That's why I asked the next part, which is whether or not Steed had the same kind of "special relationship of trust" with Wall that Jeffs had, by virtue of the belief of Wall that she had been given to Steed by God, as instructed by Jeffs.

In other words:
1) Jeffs holds a "special relationship of trust" with Wall by virtue of his position in their shared belief system, as representing "authority" in the religious context.
2) Jeffs revealed to Wall that it was his will, and hence God's will within their belief system, that she marry Steed.
3) Does Steed therefor hold a special relationship of trust with respect to Wall by virtue of this revelation of divine will about their marriage"?
4) Is the belief of the FLDS regarding submission of women to priesthood authority relevant here in establishing whether Steed held that "special relationship of trust" that would make him liable to the rape charge?

Wall consented (under spiritual duress) to "marriage" to Steed. She only consented because of her belief that she should obey the Prophet, but it doesn't change the fact that the person to whom she actually consented was in fact Steed himself. If this consent was under duress, then I would argue that he held the same special relationship of trust with Wall that Jeffs did, and thus the rape charge could stick.

What am I missing here?

[_Darth J]

The "special relationship of trust" has to do with the issue of consent as between the victim and the person who raped her. A special relationship of trust between the victim and the accomplice to the rape is not relevant to determining accomplice liability.

Understood. That's why I asked the next part, which is whether or not Steed had the same kind of "special relationship of trust" with Wall that Jeffs had, by virtue of the belief of Wall that she had been given to Steed by God, as instructed by Jeffs.

In other words:
1) Jeffs holds a "special relationship of trust" with Wall by virtue of his position in their shared belief system, as representing "authority" in the religious context.
2) Jeffs revealed to Wall that it was his will, and hence God's will within their belief system, that she marry Steed.
3) Does Steed therefor hold a special relationship of trust with respect to Wall by virtue of this revelation of divine will about their marriage"?
4) Is the belief of the FLDS regarding submission of women to priesthood authority relevant here in establishing whether Steed held that "special relationship of trust" that would make him liable to the rape charge?

Wall consented (under spiritual duress) to "marriage" to Steed. She only consented because of her belief that she should obey the Prophet, but it doesn't change the fact that the person to whom she actually consented was in fact Steed himself. If this consent was under duress, then I would argue that he held the same special relationship of trust with Wall that Jeffs did, and thus the rape charge could stick.

What am I missing here?

I don't think you're missing anything. I agree that you can make a good argument about Steed having a "special relationship of trust" in the context of him raping his "wife" under #4 on your list. I just think you don't even need to get into that, since there is plenty of other evidence that Wall did not want to have sex under the factors in the "consent" statute quoted earlier.

I guess I'm just looking at this at a more pragmatic way---getting a conviction, more so than making a statement about girls being forced to have sex because of religious pressure. Obviously, the latter is evil. But if you can get a conviction and send the responsible people to prison, then you're protecting the victim, regardless of whatever nuance there is about what particular statutory language you want to use to get that conviction. Whether you make your case based on her expressing lack of consent through words and conduct, or lack of consent because of her "husband" abusing his position of religious authority, it's rape either way.

Kind of like how it was tax evasion that they got Al Capone on.

EDIT: But I think the specific charges against Warren Jeffs were stupid to begin with. Why does beastie so quickly see a statutory rape issue, but the Utah Attorney General's Office couldn't figure that out?