Rape Survivor Advocates For Change In Statute Of Limitations

Rape Survivor Advocates For Change In Statute Of Limitations

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments


INDIANA IS ONE OF ONLY A HANDFUL
OF STATES THAT LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF STATES THAT LIMITS THE AMOUNT
OF TIME TO FIVE YEARS THAT RAPE OF TIME TO FIVE YEARS THAT RAPE
VICTIMS HAVE TO REPORT THE VICTIMS HAVE TO REPORT THE
CRIME. CRIME.
EFFORTS TO EXPAND THE TIME FRAME EFFORTS TO EXPAND THE TIME FRAME
OR ELIMINATE IT ALL TOGETHER OR ELIMINATE IT ALL TOGETHER
HAVE FAILED TO GAIN ANY TRACTION HAVE FAILED TO GAIN ANY TRACTION
IN THE LEGISLATURE. IN THE LEGISLATURE.
BUT AS SARA WITTMEYER REPORTS, A BUT AS SARA WITTMEYER REPORTS, A
GRASS ROOTS EFFORT, SPURRED BY A GRASS ROOTS EFFORT, SPURRED BY A
RAPE SURVIVOR COULD BE THE RAPE SURVIVOR COULD BE THE
CATALYST THAT LAWMAKERS NEED TO CATALYST THAT LAWMAKERS NEED TO
REVISIT THE ISSUE. REVISIT THE ISSUE.
>>JENNY WENDT TOOK OUTSIDE THE >>JENNY WENDT TOOK OUTSIDE THE
STATE HOUSE THIS WEEK, LOOKING STATE HOUSE THIS WEEK, LOOKING
UP AS BLUE AND WHITE BALLOONS UP AS BLUE AND WHITE BALLOONS
GOT SMALLER AND SMALLER IN THE GOT SMALLER AND SMALLER IN THE
SKY UNTIL THEY DISAPPEARED. SKY UNTIL THEY DISAPPEARED.
[ APPLAUSE ] [ APPLAUSE ]
>>THE BALLOON RELEASE IS HELD >>THE BALLOON RELEASE IS HELD
EACH YEAR TO KICK OFF SEXUAL EACH YEAR TO KICK OFF SEXUAL
ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH, BUT ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH, BUT
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WENDT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WENDT
PARTICIPATED. PARTICIPATED.
UNTIL RECENTLY, SHE KEPT HER UNTIL RECENTLY, SHE KEPT HER
RAPE A SECRET. RAPE A SECRET.
>>I TOLD ONE FRIEND THAT HAD >>I TOLD ONE FRIEND THAT HAD
BEEN A FRIEND OF MINE FOR A LONG BEEN A FRIEND OF MINE FOR A LONG
TIME. TIME.
I DIDN’T GET MUCH SUPPORT AND I I DIDN’T GET MUCH SUPPORT AND I
TOLD ANOTHER FRIEND OUT OF TOLD ANOTHER FRIEND OUT OF
NECESSITY. NECESSITY.
>>THE RAPE HAPPENED ALMOST A >>THE RAPE HAPPENED ALMOST A
DECADE AGO, WHEN WENDT WAS A DECADE AGO, WHEN WENDT WAS A
STUDENT AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY STUDENT AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY
PURDUE UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS. PURDUE UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS.
>>AT THE TIME, I DID NOT REPORT>>AT THE TIME, I DID NOT REPORT
IT BECAUSE I FIGURED, I HAD NO IT BECAUSE I FIGURED, I HAD NO
EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT IT WAS EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT IT WAS
THIS MAN. THIS MAN.
I HAD NO DNA EVIDENCE. I HAD NO DNA EVIDENCE.
THEREFORE, I KNEW THAT IF I WENT THEREFORE, I KNEW THAT IF I WENT
TO COURT AND TRIED TO PROSECUTE TO COURT AND TRIED TO PROSECUTE
THIS MAN, I WOULD HAVE A VERY THIS MAN, I WOULD HAVE A VERY
HARD TIME AND MOST LIKELY IT HARD TIME AND MOST LIKELY IT
WOULD END UP IN HIM GOING FREE. WOULD END UP IN HIM GOING FREE.
I WASN’T SURE THAT I WAS READY I WASN’T SURE THAT I WAS READY
TO BE THAT PERSON IN MEDIA WHO TO BE THAT PERSON IN MEDIA WHO
WAS RAPED BY HER COLLEGE T.A. WAS RAPED BY HER COLLEGE T.A.
>>SINCE THEN SHE’S TRIED TO >>SINCE THEN SHE’S TRIED TO
MOVE ON WITH HER LIFE. MOVE ON WITH HER LIFE.
SHE GRADUATED FROM NURSING SHE GRADUATED FROM NURSING
SCHOOL AND WAS LIVING SCHOOL AND WAS LIVING
COMFORTABLY IN GREENFIELD WHEN COMFORTABLY IN GREENFIELD WHEN
HER PHONE RANG. HER PHONE RANG.
>>I HEARD THE MESSAGE FROM THE >>I HEARD THE MESSAGE FROM THE
DETECTIVE AT THE COLLEGE WHERE I DETECTIVE AT THE COLLEGE WHERE I
ATTENDED WHEN I WAS ATTACKED. ATTENDED WHEN I WAS ATTACKED.
SHE LEFT ME A MESSAGE AND IT SHE LEFT ME A MESSAGE AND IT
HAPPENED TO BE ON A FRIDAY HAPPENED TO BE ON A FRIDAY
EVENING. EVENING.
SO I COULDN’T TALK TO HER UNTIL SO I COULDN’T TALK TO HER UNTIL
MONDAY. MONDAY.
I KNEW EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS I KNEW EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS
ABOUT. ABOUT.
THERE WAS NO OTHER THING THAT IT THERE WAS NO OTHER THING THAT IT
COULD BE ABOUT. COULD BE ABOUT.
>>THE DETECTIVE KNEW THE >>THE DETECTIVE KNEW THE
DETAILS. DETAILS.
SHE HAD GOTTEN THEM FIRSTHAND SHE HAD GOTTEN THEM FIRSTHAND
FROM WENDT’S ATTACKER. FROM WENDT’S ATTACKER.
IN JANUARY, THE MAN WALKED INTO IN JANUARY, THE MAN WALKED INTO
AN INDIANAPOLIS POLICE STATION AN INDIANAPOLIS POLICE STATION
AND CONFESSED TO THE RAPE. AND CONFESSED TO THE RAPE.
HE WANTED TO TURN HIMSELF IN AND HE WANTED TO TURN HIMSELF IN AND
WENDT SAID SHE WANTED TO PRESS WENDT SAID SHE WANTED TO PRESS
CHARGES BUT IT WASN’T THAT CHARGES BUT IT WASN’T THAT
SIMPLE. SIMPLE.
INDIANA HAS A FIVE-YEAR STATUTE INDIANA HAS A FIVE-YEAR STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS. OF LIMITATIONS.
WENDT’S ATTACKER COULDN’T BE WENDT’S ATTACKER COULDN’T BE
CHARGED. CHARGED.
HE WAS A FREE MAN. HE WAS A FREE MAN.
>>NOBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO WALK>>NOBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO WALK
INTO A POLICE STATION AND TELL INTO A POLICE STATION AND TELL
THEM OF A HORRENDOUS CRIME THAT THEM OF A HORRENDOUS CRIME THAT
THEY ACTUALLY COMMITTED. THEY ACTUALLY COMMITTED.
>>HE CONFESSED. >>HE CONFESSED.
HE BROUGHT IT UP. HE BROUGHT IT UP.
I WAS GOING ABOUT MY LIFE. I WAS GOING ABOUT MY LIFE.
ONCE I HEARD THIS, I DECIDED I ONCE I HEARD THIS, I DECIDED I
NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT,
AND THAT’S WHEN I DECIDED THAT I AND THAT’S WHEN I DECIDED THAT I
NEEDED TO ELIMINATE THE STATUTE NEEDED TO ELIMINATE THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS. OF LIMITATIONS.
>>ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS BEHIND >>ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS BEHIND
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS
YEARS AFTER A CRIME, IT’S YEARS AFTER A CRIME, IT’S
DIFFICULT TO FIND RELIABLE DIFFICULT TO FIND RELIABLE
EVIDENCE, AND SOMEONE MAY END UP EVIDENCE, AND SOMEONE MAY END UP
BEING WRONGLY CONVICTED OF A BEING WRONGLY CONVICTED OF A
CRIME. CRIME.
WENDT STARTED AN ONLINE PETITION WENDT STARTED AN ONLINE PETITION
TO GET RID OF THE STATUTE. TO GET RID OF THE STATUTE.
WITHIN TWO WEEKS, SHE HAD MORE WITHIN TWO WEEKS, SHE HAD MORE
THAN 2,000 SIGNATURES. THAN 2,000 SIGNATURES.
>>IT HAD BEEN ON OUR AGENDA AND>>IT HAD BEEN ON OUR AGENDA AND
SO THE THOUGHT WAS WE DIDN’T SO THE THOUGHT WAS WE DIDN’T
WANT TO INTRODUCE IT BACK THIS WANT TO INTRODUCE IT BACK THIS
LEGISLATION — BACK THIS LEGISLATION — BACK THIS
LEGISLATIVE SESSION. LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
WE WERE FOCUSED ON SOME OTHER WE WERE FOCUSED ON SOME OTHER
THINGS. THINGS.
SO THE PLAN WAS ORIGINALLY SO THE PLAN WAS ORIGINALLY
BEFORE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED WITH BEFORE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED WITH
JENNY, TO REVISIT THE STATUTE OF JENNY, TO REVISIT THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS AND SO WE JUST HAD LIMITATIONS AND SO WE JUST HAD
PERFECT TIMING. PERFECT TIMING.
>>WITH THE INDIANA COALITION >>WITH THE INDIANA COALITION
AGAINST SEXUAL ASSAULT, WENDT IS AGAINST SEXUAL ASSAULT, WENDT IS
BEGINNING WORK WITH LEGISLATORS BEGINNING WORK WITH LEGISLATORS
AND THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE. AND THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE.
ACCORDING TO RAIN, THE STATUTE ACCORDING TO RAIN, THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS IS FIVE YEARS OR OF LIMITATIONS IS FIVE YEARS OR
LESS IN EIGHT STATES. LESS IN EIGHT STATES.
IT’S 6 TO 9 YEARS IN 11 STATES IT’S 6 TO 9 YEARS IN 11 STATES
AND 10 TO 20 IN 12 STATES. AND 10 TO 20 IN 12 STATES.
IN 19 STATES, THERE’S NO TIME IN 19 STATES, THERE’S NO TIME
LIMIT FOR FILING RAPE CHARGES. LIMIT FOR FILING RAPE CHARGES.
>>I FIGURED WE HAD TO START >>I FIGURED WE HAD TO START
FROM SOMEWHERE. FROM SOMEWHERE.
TO GO FROM FIVE YEARS TO TO GO FROM FIVE YEARS TO
ELIMINATION I THOUGHT WAS ELIMINATION I THOUGHT WAS
SOMETHING RIDICULOUS TO ASK. SOMETHING RIDICULOUS TO ASK.
NOW I REALIZE IT’S NOT. NOW I REALIZE IT’S NOT.
>>NANCY STOCKTON WORKS WITH >>NANCY STOCKTON WORKS WITH
COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO WAS THE AGE COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO WAS THE AGE
WENDT WAS WHEN SHE WAS RAPED. WENDT WAS WHEN SHE WAS RAPED.
STOCKTON SAYS THERE’S A PROBLEM STOCKTON SAYS THERE’S A PROBLEM
WITH UNDER REPORTING. WITH UNDER REPORTING.
FEWER THAN HALF OF RAPE VICTIMS FEWER THAN HALF OF RAPE VICTIMS
EVER REPORT WHAT HAPPENED, AND EVER REPORT WHAT HAPPENED, AND
REMOVING THE STATUTE OR REMOVING THE STATUTE OR
ELIMINATING IT WOULD ENCOURAGE ELIMINATING IT WOULD ENCOURAGE
MORE SURVIVORS TO COME FORWARD. MORE SURVIVORS TO COME FORWARD.
>>THEY CAN FEEL REATTACKED, >>THEY CAN FEEL REATTACKED,
REVICTIMMIZED IN SOME WAYS, FEEL REVICTIMMIZED IN SOME WAYS, FEEL
MAYBE SOMEHOW IT WAS MY FAULT MAYBE SOMEHOW IT WAS MY FAULT
AFTER ALL, OR I HAVE SOME BLAME AFTER ALL, OR I HAVE SOME BLAME
IN THE SITUATION BECAUSE THE IN THE SITUATION BECAUSE THE
SYSTEM AT LARGE IS NOT SYSTEM AT LARGE IS NOT
RESPONDING TO WHAT HAPPENED TO RESPONDING TO WHAT HAPPENED TO
ME. ME.
>>I’M HOPING TO GIVE A VOICE TO>>I’M HOPING TO GIVE A VOICE TO
ALL OF THOSE WHO COULD NOT USE ALL OF THOSE WHO COULD NOT USE
THEIR VOICE. THEIR VOICE.
AND TO ANYBODY WHO WAS AND TO ANYBODY WHO WAS
INTERESTED IN MAKING A CHANGE. INTERESTED IN MAKING A CHANGE.
>>FOR MORE ON INDIANA’S LAWS ON>>FOR MORE ON INDIANA’S LAWS ON
SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES, WE’RE SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES, WE’RE
JOINED BY TIM MORRISON. JOINED BY TIM MORRISON.
HE’S ADJUNCT PROFESSOR AT THE HE’S ADJUNCT PROFESSOR AT THE
I.U. MAURER SCHOOL OF LAW AND I.U. MAURER SCHOOL OF LAW AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL THE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE. JUSTICE.
HE’S ALSO A FORMER FEDERAL HE’S ALSO A FORMER FEDERAL
PROSECUTOR. PROSECUTOR.
TIM, THANKS FOR JOINING US TIM, THANKS FOR JOINING US
TODAY. TODAY.
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS
FOR HAVING THAT STATUTE OF FOR HAVING THAT STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS/. LIMITATIONS/.
LIMITATIONS/. LIMITATIONS/.
>>THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS >>THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
PROVIDES A MEANS BY WHICH YOUR PROVIDES A MEANS BY WHICH YOUR
EVIDENCE IS OF HIGHER QUALITY. EVIDENCE IS OF HIGHER QUALITY.
EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT THE PHRASE EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT THE PHRASE
“JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE “JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE
DENIED.” DENIED.”
AND THAT’S BECAUSE THE LONGER AND THAT’S BECAUSE THE LONGER
THAT A CASE PENDS, WITNESSES THAT A CASE PENDS, WITNESSES
FORGET. FORGET.
EVIDENCE GETS MISDIRECTED. EVIDENCE GETS MISDIRECTED.
IT’S NOT STORED CORRECTLY. IT’S NOT STORED CORRECTLY.
MEMORIES FADE. MEMORIES FADE.
ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS
HAPPEN AND THE QUALITY OF THE HAPPEN AND THE QUALITY OF THE
CASE THAT YOU CAN PRESENT IS CASE THAT YOU CAN PRESENT IS
LESSENED BY THAT FACT. LESSENED BY THAT FACT.
SO THAT’S ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS. SO THAT’S ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS.
ANOTHER ARGUMENT IS BASICALLY ANOTHER ARGUMENT IS BASICALLY
IT’S THE ONLY PROTECTION THAT A IT’S THE ONLY PROTECTION THAT A
DEFENDANT HAS TO FORCE THE TIME DEFENDANT HAS TO FORCE THE TIME
ALONG. ALONG.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE ISSUES OF IF YOU LOOK AT THE ISSUES OF
SPEEDY TRIAL WHICH IS IN THE SPEEDY TRIAL WHICH IS IN THE
CONSTITUTION, ALL OF THOSE CONSTITUTION, ALL OF THOSE
AFFECT AFTER YOU ARE CHARGED. AFFECT AFTER YOU ARE CHARGED.
THEY DON’T AFFECT BEFORE YOU ARE THEY DON’T AFFECT BEFORE YOU ARE
CHARGED. CHARGED.
AND SO THE STATUTE OF AND SO THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS PROVIDES AT LEAST LIMITATIONS PROVIDES AT LEAST
SOME CERTAINTY OUT THERE, IF I’M SOME CERTAINTY OUT THERE, IF I’M
GOING TO BE CHARGED, I WILL BE GOING TO BE CHARGED, I WILL BE
CHARGED BEFORE THEN. CHARGED BEFORE THEN.
FINALLY, IT PROVIDES SOME FINALLY, IT PROVIDES SOME
IMPETUS, WE ALL WORK BETTER IMPETUS, WE ALL WORK BETTER
UNDER DEADLINES AND THE POLICE UNDER DEADLINES AND THE POLICE
AGENCIES, IF THEY KNOW THAT THIS AGENCIES, IF THEY KNOW THAT THIS
IS THE END, THAT THEY HAD BETTER IS THE END, THAT THEY HAD BETTER
DEVOTE THE RESOURCES AND TO BE DEVOTE THE RESOURCES AND TO BE
ABLE TO CHARGE SOMEBODY WITHIN ABLE TO CHARGE SOMEBODY WITHIN
THAT PERIOD OF TIME. THAT PERIOD OF TIME.
>>NOW, THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES>>NOW, THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES
WHERE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHERE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
DOES NOT TAKE CASE IN SEXUAL DOES NOT TAKE CASE IN SEXUAL
ASSAULT. ASSAULT.
>>YES. >>YES.
IN INDIANA, IF THE — IF IT’S A IN INDIANA, IF THE — IF IT’S A
RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE IN RAPE OR SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE IN
WHICH A DEADLY WEAPON IS USED, WHICH A DEADLY WEAPON IS USED,
IN WHICH A THREAT OF DEATH IS IN WHICH A THREAT OF DEATH IS
USED, IN WHICH A DRUG MAY BE USED, IN WHICH A DRUG MAY BE
USED, ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF USED, ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF
CIRCUMSTANCES OR SERIOUS BODILY CIRCUMSTANCES OR SERIOUS BODILY
INJURY, THEN THERE IS NO STATUTE INJURY, THEN THERE IS NO STATUTE
THE LIMITATION ON THOSE CHARGES. THE LIMITATION ON THOSE CHARGES.
THAT AFFECTS BOTH THE SEXUAL THAT AFFECTS BOTH THE SEXUAL
ASSAULT AND CHILD MOLESTATION. ASSAULT AND CHILD MOLESTATION.
>>AND NOWADAYS, DNA IS MORE AND>>AND NOWADAYS, DNA IS MORE AND
MORE INVOLVED IN THIS. MORE INVOLVED IN THIS.
HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THIS? HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THIS?
>>WELL, THERE HAVE BEEN A >>WELL, THERE HAVE BEEN A
COUPLE OF CASES IN THE COUNTRY, COUPLE OF CASES IN THE COUNTRY,
IN WHICH THERE’S BEEN DNA IN WHICH THERE’S BEEN DNA
EVIDENCE, BUT NO IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE, BUT NO IDENTIFICATION
OF A DEFENDANT. OF A DEFENDANT.
YEARS GO BY, THEY HAVE A DNA YEARS GO BY, THEY HAVE A DNA
PROFILE. PROFILE.
THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE. THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE.
THEY HAVE NO NAME. THEY HAVE NO NAME.
NO FACE. NO FACE.
NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING. NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING.
THEN AT SOME POINT, A PERSON IS THEN AT SOME POINT, A PERSON IS
SUBSEQUENTLY ARRESTED. SUBSEQUENTLY ARRESTED.
THEIR DNA IS SEIZED AS A RESULT THEIR DNA IS SEIZED AS A RESULT
OF THAT ARREST. OF THAT ARREST.
THEY GO THROUGH THE DATABASES THEY GO THROUGH THE DATABASES
AND THEY PRODUCE THAT. AND THEY PRODUCE THAT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE BUT, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE
OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, BUT WHAT SOME LIMITATIONS, BUT WHAT SOME
JURISDICTIONS HAVE DONE IS TO JURISDICTIONS HAVE DONE IS TO
CHARGE THE INDIVIDUAL NOT BY CHARGE THE INDIVIDUAL NOT BY
NAME BUT BY DNA PROFILE. NAME BUT BY DNA PROFILE.
THAT’S WHAT’S ATTACHED TO THE THAT’S WHAT’S ATTACHED TO THE
WARRANT. WARRANT.
AND COURTS HAVE UPHELD THAT, TO AND COURTS HAVE UPHELD THAT, TO
SUSTAIN A MOTION TO DISMISS SUSTAIN A MOTION TO DISMISS
BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT PARTICULAR BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT PARTICULAR
WITH THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITH THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE
DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT.
>>WE JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF >>WE JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF
TIME LEFT. TIME LEFT.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE ON HOW ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE ON HOW
EVIDENCE IS LOOKED AT THROUGH A EVIDENCE IS LOOKED AT THROUGH A
SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE AND OTHER SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE AND OTHER
CRIMES? CRIMES?
>>IT’S LOOKED AT MUCH THE SAME >>IT’S LOOKED AT MUCH THE SAME
WAY. WAY.
IT’S JUST THAT THERE’S MORE OF IT’S JUST THAT THERE’S MORE OF
IT AND MORE — IT’S JUST MORE IT AND MORE — IT’S JUST MORE
COMPLICATED. COMPLICATED.
USUALLY THERE’S PHYSICAL USUALLY THERE’S PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE, BUT THERE’S ALSO A LOT EVIDENCE, BUT THERE’S ALSO A LOT
OF WITNESS TESTIMONY. OF WITNESS TESTIMONY.
I MEAN, YOU ARE TRYING TO TRACK I MEAN, YOU ARE TRYING TO TRACK
PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE AND PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE AND
AFTER THE EVENT AND THAT’S WHY AFTER THE EVENT AND THAT’S WHY
SOME PEOPLE WOULD THINK THAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD THINK THAT
THAT’S SUCH A CRITICAL ISSUE THAT’S SUCH A CRITICAL ISSUE
BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN AS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN AS
MANY DEFENDANTS — AS MANY MANY DEFENDANTS — AS MANY
WITNESSES AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN. WITNESSES AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN.
YOU DON’T WANT TO LOSE THEM TO YOU DON’T WANT TO LOSE THEM TO
MOVING AWAY, TO, YOU KNOW, DYING MOVING AWAY, TO, YOU KNOW, DYING
TO FORGETTING, ALL THAT KIND OF TO FORGETTING, ALL THAT KIND OF
THING AND THAT’S WHY YOU ARE THING AND THAT’S WHY YOU ARE
TRYING TO COMPACT THAT UP. TRYING TO COMPACT THAT UP.
>>WHAT DO YOU THINK THE >>WHAT DO YOU THINK THE
LIKELIHOOD OF THIS BEING LIKELIHOOD OF THIS BEING
EXTENDED WILL HAPPEN? EXTENDED WILL HAPPEN?
>>YOU KNOW, IT’S NOT A >>YOU KNOW, IT’S NOT A
CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE, SO NO CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE, SO NO
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IS GOING TO CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IS GOING TO
SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO DO SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO DO
AWAY WITH THIS. AWAY WITH THIS.
IT’S NOT A JUDICIAL DOCTRINE. IT’S NOT A JUDICIAL DOCTRINE.
SO THE COURTS AREN’T GOING TO SO THE COURTS AREN’T GOING TO
SAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A STATUTE SAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A STATUTE
OF LIMITATION. OF LIMITATION.
IT’S REALLY UP TO THE IT’S REALLY UP TO THE
LEGISLATURE AND THEY ARE THE LEGISLATURE AND THEY ARE THE
ONES THAT CALL THE SHOTS AND ONES THAT CALL THE SHOTS AND
EVERYO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *