Inside the Courtroom
Trial of the Child Molestation Case
WARNING: Some readers may find the content of this story disturbing. Discretion is advised.
On Sept. 11, while our country mourns the fifth anniversary of our nation's worst domestic tragedy, another domestic tragedy will unfold in a suburban Atlanta courtroom. Former foster parent Ronald William Shelton will be put on trial before the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Ga., for molestation of two of his foster children.
The allegations are grim. The State of Georgia accuses Shelton of nine counts of child molestation and aggravated child molestation. Eight of the counts include sexual acts between Ronnie Shelton and a young girl. The remaining count includes a sexual act with a young boy.
Fostering Families Today is undertaking a unique opportunity to share the story of a real life foster parent on trial for allegations of child sexual abuse. Each day, Fostering Families Today through an experienced, knowledgeable, former foster parent, Erik Cooper, will bring to you a summary of actual trial events, including the jury selection process, opening statements of both the prosecutor and defense, victim and witness testimony, closing arguments and, of course, the verdict. The intent is not to sensationalize or exploit the life-changing events of this legal process. View this trial as a classroom, where we will identify in layman's terms, the legal procedure and terminology commonly used in the courtroom to enhance your understanding of the process as it unfolds.
We strongly recommend reader discretion of this story. Some readers may be offended by the content. Details of the accusations against Shelton may be considered graphic and disturbing to some readers. Please do not allow any child to read our coverage of this trial.
Coverage of this case will be objective and impartial. Neither this publication nor this writer will claim the innocence or guilt of Ronnie Shelton. Instead, as our readers, you will be provided fair and balanced coverage of the daily courtroom activities. Both Fostering Families Today and I are excited about this unique opportunity to share with you, trial of the child molestation case.
Fostering Families Today will provide daily updates of courtroom testimony available at www.adoptinfo.net. Upon conclusion of the trial, Fostering Families Today will publish a complete story of Trial of the Child Molestation Case. |
| |
Monday, September 11, 2006 previous day's entry
DAY 1: JURY SELECTION BEGINS
By Erik A. Cooper
WARNING: Some readers may find the content of this story disturbing. Discretion is advised.
While thousands of names were read today in memoriam of September 11th victims in Shanksville, Pa., at Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan, and at the Pentagon, potential jurors from a suburban Atlanta community filed into the Gwinnett County Justice and Administration Center with sullen expressions and muted tones. Unaware of the trial they'd been commanded to attend for jury selection, white, black, Bangladeshi and Chinese faces, among others, filed past defendant Ronald William Shelton in what will become the trial of his life.
The State of Georgia accuses former foster parent Ronald William Shelton of nine counts of child molestation and aggravated child molestation involving two of his former foster children. If convicted, Shelton faces up to 230 years in prison. The alleged victims lived with Shelton, his wife and family, including three biological sons, for nearly five years. Now teenagers, alleged victims Emma and Ryan, whose names have been changed to protect their identity, are expected to testify at trial.
Honorable Judge R. Timothy Hamil is the presiding judge in this case. But this morning, Judge Hamil was noticeably absent due to a death in his family. In his absence, Magistrate Court Judge George Hutchinson presided over today's proceedings.
In every trial setting, regardless of the crimes accused or nature of the charges, avid courtroom observers notice the tiny nuances which distinguish themselves through undertones and, sometimes, overtones. Take for example the appearance of the defendant. How should one dress when accused of a crime, and does it really make any difference to a juror? You bet it does. Though today's remembrance and the occasion of his trial may have called for a dark navy suit complimented with a white dress shirt and red tie, Shelton chose a muted gray suit and white shirt, making him appear as average an individual as one may imagine.
Gray does not say "innocent." Gray says "average." Defense attorney Douglas N. Peters appeared as the classic southern conservative gentleman, wearing a black suit with a white shirt and matching burgundy bowtie and suspenders. Assistant district attorney Tracie Hobbs wore a shoulderless solid black above-the-knee but below-the-thigh dress with the softest pink coat, making her appear both strong and kind at the same time. Why do the clothes and appearances of the defendant and attorneys matter? Ask a jury consultant and you'll learn first impressions make all the difference.
Trial of the State of Georgia vs. Ronald William Shelton, case number 05-B-1790-8, began late this morning, delayed by courtroom space shortages. Tracie Hobbs represented the State of Georgia in prosecuting the allegations against Ronnie Shelton. Shelton's defense team included his defense attorney, Douglas N. Peters, Peters' legal assistant, and the defense's jury consultant.
Juror consultants for both the state and defense play a vital role in any trial. Responsible for empanelling the best jurors possible to help acquit the defendant, a jury consultant considers many aspects of a juror's character before recommending to either accept or strike the potential jurist. Was the juror evasive while answering any questions? Did the juror make eye contact? Is the juror's personal experience a factor in ruling in favor of the defense? State prosecutors seldom use jury consultants as often as defense attorneys.
Georgia Rules of Criminal Procedure grant twelve "strikes" of potential jurors for both the state and defense in each case. A strike indicates a juror is excluded from participation in the trial. A large pool of prospective jurors were assembled together in courtroom 2B to answer general questions regarding their knowledge of the defendant or any witnesses, their own personal experiences with law enforcement or accusations of child molestation, their knowledge of children and opinions regarding whether or not children tell lies, and other thought provoking inquiries. As a pool of jurors assembled together, general questioning promotes an atmosphere of openness and honesty. But questions of a much more personal nature are often left to individual questioning through sequestration. The voir dire process allows jurors to testify, without the presence of other jurors, about their personal experiences, work histories, knowledge of children, and impartiality to serve as a juror and return a fair and honest verdict.
Those nuances can make all the difference -- ranging from the right clothes to wear for remarkable first impressions, to body language, such as standing while jurors enter and exit the courtroom to show respect for them. During the general questioning session of jurors this afternoon, Peters took opportunity to personalize himself and his client with the jurors through skilled use of subtle nuances, like touting the University of Georgia’s football team, his alma mater, his prior work experience as an assistant district attorney himself, and even a chance to crack a joke and get the jurors to laugh with him. Personalizing yourself with a jury – making the juror one with you – is a critical trial tactic for both the state and defense. Peters did this several times today while delivering 31 personal questions for all prospective jurors to answer. Peppered with appropriately timed "thank yous," Peters got laughs when asking which jurors believe what happens on CSI: Miami is real. Nuances occur in other ways too. Take for example Peters’ location in the courtroom when he pointed out to the 62 prospective jurors that he once worked as an assistant district attorney, just like Tracie Hobbs (he stood right behind her). Or consider Peters’ graciousness while sliding in a few influential thoughts about Gwinnett County’s indictment process. After asking his second of 31 questions, "Have any of you ever sat on a Grand Jury before?" no juror responded. Before asking the next question though, Peters was able to inform jurors that the Grand Jury process in Gwinnett County, Georgia allows only evidence presented by state prosecutors to be considered, the defendant can’t be present, and the defendant’s attorney can't attend either. Subtle hints to warm a juror to your side can make all the difference during a trial of strong emotions. What jurors may not realize yet is just how difficult certain experiences during this trial will be for them and everyone else in the courtroom.
The Lion's Den
Returning to the Gwinnett County Justice and Administration Center this morning invoked memories of my own trial just a short time ago. The cool autumn air reminded me of the brisk March morning last year when I entered the same courthouse as an accused child molester myself. As I walked toward the courthouse entrance this morning, I was greeted by the defendant and his wife, former friends of mine, who commented about the coincidence of my appearance. My attendance was no coincidence.
Pretrial drama this morning included a minor confrontation in the courthouse lobby. Bothered by my attendance at the trial, Douglas Peters, once a part of my legal defense team and now defense counsel for Shelton, took me aside and asked why I was there. Though I explained my role as a journalist for this assignment, Peters indicated my presence could cause unnecessary opposition from the Gwinnett County District Attorney’s Office. "Everyone who works in there knows you and they all hate you," Peters said. "If they know you're here after I defended you, the State will claim I’m an attorney who defends foster parents accused of molesting their foster children."
"What’s so wrong with that?" I thought to myself.
On March 31, 2005, I was acquitted of all nine counts of child molestation levied against me by six of my former foster children. Keeping the importance of this assignment in mind, I thanked Peters for his concerns, but expressed my intentions to cover this story and uphold my constitutional rights to attend the trial both as a journalist and as a member of the general public. Concerns were quickly squelched when assistant district attorney, Tracie Hobbs, introduced herself to me and indicated to Mr. Peters no concern for my appearance in the courtroom. The trial began without further incident.
The Importance of Selection the Right Jurors
Every trial begins with the empanelling of a jury. One hopes, if tried by a jury, you are tried by a jury of your peers. We want to believe in the judicial process, imagining the scales of justice held in balance by the blindfolded woman. But justice, as many attorneys will tell you, depends on so much more than our vision of impartiality.
In Georgia, a criminal trial jury consists of 12 jurors and, in this case, two alternate jurors (my trial had three). Alternate jurors are prohibited from deliberating or casting a vote of innocence or guilt. Once selected, none of the jurors know who is the alternate juror until the trial is concluded and before the jury is handed the case for deliberation.
Selecting the right jurors is critical to winning your verdict. If you represent the state's interest in this case, you want jurors who believe a child never lies, all police investigations are legitimate, and if the defendant's been accused he must have done something wrong. If you're a defense attorney, you want a juror who can think outside of the box, consider alternative points of view, question the veracity of statements made, including their timing, and find that small hole of "reasonable doubt" every defendant depends on for an acquittal.
What exactly is "Reasonable Doubt?"
Good question. Reasonable doubt is often considered a subjective opinion of fact with no objective basis whatsoever. Reasonable doubt opens holes in the prosecution's case, casting doubt, no matter how small, on the facts presented. Defendant's rely on reasonable doubt to disprove the allegations against them. Prosecutors rely on proving their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convince a juror the case is without question – the defendant committed the crime.
Today's Conclusion
With great anticipation to complete individual voir dire of at least the first 15 jurors this afternoon, the attorneys successfully completed only nine. What happens during sequestered voir dire? Jurors are asked about their answers to earlier questions posed during general questioning of all jurors seated together. In an individual setting, with fewer people in the courtroom, a juror can open up and share more about their personal opinions without fear of subjugation by their jury peers.
One learns a great deal while listening to jurors answering questions one-on-one with the attorneys. In my trial, I was surprised by how many middle-aged adults openly shared their personal opinions and feelings about certain subjects, including those who, without hearing any evidence, were already convinced I was guilty. Several times during my own trial, prospective jurors made outcries of their own victimization of sexual abuse as a child themselves. Kleenex were passed from judge’s bench to juror box to wipe away tears of sadness and despair as a prospective juror told an open court of her abuse as a child. She never shared the experience with anyone before -- not even her husband.
Though jurors are instructed by the judge to avoid all exposure to media, including radio, television and newspapers, and not to research this case through the internet or any other means, sometimes jurors inevitably ignore these instructions and do some homework of their own. For this reason and in the interest of a fair and just trial, our publication has elected to withhold certain information learned during the individual voir dire process today. Upon conclusion of the trial, Fostering Families Today magazine will share with you a detailed description of each prospective juror's responses to individual voir dire questions. Some responses may shock you.
What's coming up?
Courtroom activities this week are anticipated to include completion of the jury selection process and beginning of opening arguments. Nearly 40 witnesses or more were announced to testify. The trial is expected to last two weeks or longer.
Learn more about this true life trial of the child molestation case by checking this Web site daily and clicking on each day's new link.
Have a question?
Did our coverage of this trial exclude something you find very important? Email us at editor@adoptinfo.net, or louis@adoptinfo.net to ask us your question. We will share your thought with our writer, Erik A. Cooper, and post his response to your question in our blog soon.
Share your opinion!
Your opinion counts! With your input, we can all learn from this coverage. What do you think? Share your opinion by e-mailing us at louis@adoptinfo.net or editor@adoptinfo.net.
For more information about Erik Cooper’s personal story, visit his Web site at www.ErikCooper.com. You may also read Cooper’s article, Devastating Effects of False Allegations: A Survivor’s Story, written exclusively for Fostering Families Today online at: http://www.fosteringfamiliestoday.com/FFT/fft_web/ci_spotlight_beanId_2837.html.
DISCLAIMER: Trial of a Child Molestation Case is a true story involving actual events and the people involved. Whenever possible, the actual names of those involved in the case have been used. All minor children’s names have been changed to protect them.All information is available through access of public records, including actual courtroom testimony, transcripts, and other written documentation. Some information may not be available under seal of the court.
|
|
