Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 21 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Aaron’s first hearing could be next week
Published Friday, October 30, 2009
The former pastor accused of sexually molesting and torturing young boys while on camping trips is expected to get his first sit-down with both sides of the legal fence sometime in the coming days.
Ralph Lee Aaron, 54, was charged earlier this week with 152 counts of sex-related crimes including the production and possession of child pornography, sexual abuse and torture and sodomy. He is currently in the county jail under a $24.5 million bond.
District attorney Greg Gambril said Thursday Aaron has requested a preliminary hearing and been given counsel in the form of a court-appointed attorney, Al Smith of Elba.
“The way the court proceeds now is that they appoint an attorney, which has been done,” Gambril said. “Prior to that hearing, the court sets a time for what we call a settlement conference, which gives the parties involved an opportunity to sit down and see if resolution can be made in the case. If not, then it goes to the preliminary hearing if Mr. Aaron chooses.”
Gambril said that settlement conference is expected sometime next week.
“I have heard it might be Friday, but I don’t know a specific time or day,” he said.
Gambril said between now and that conference date, there will be a meeting between the victims’ families and his office.
“Before any discussions begin with the defense, myself and (a representative from the) Sheriff’s Office will sit with the victims’ families and make sure everyone is in agreement on how we want this case disposed of,” he said. “I can promise you the state maintains we will be seeking a maximum of life imprisonment in this case. I don’t expect anything to change that.”
Under Alabama law, all convictions of a “Class A” felony carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Of the 152 total charges Aaron faces, 44 are “Class A” felonies.
Comments
Posted by jujaphillips (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 6:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let the legal do its work and pray for the families.
Posted by ToldYouSo (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As was posted on another "thread", much was msde of the "settelment" issue and that somehow the D.A. was wanting to settle for something less than justice. NOT SO! and the D.A. clears up this misconception in the above article. By law, there can be no death penalty in this case and the settlement hearing is simply following state law and the guidelines. Please, no more playing politics with this nasty situation...it's bad enough as is. The current D.A. is a credit to the Office, especially in the light of some recent D.A.s.
Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well put, ToldYouSo. The mob mentality of the "tea baggers" on this blog is appalling. These people don't know what they are talking about, they don't understand law or government, and they make the most ridiculous and barbaric statements as a way of proving something about themselves. The DA and the Sheriff are obviously taking this matter seriously and handling it professionally. The only thing the tea baggers are going to do is risk having the conviction overturned because they have inflamed the passions of the community to a such degree that the defendant has a plausible argument that he didn't receive a fair trial.
Let the professionals do their job in this matter. As for you tea baggers, go back to watching Maury Povich.
Posted by knos (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe we should take the line of the Arabs...public stoning. They are a superior culture. Would have settled this the day this sicko was found out...
Amend the laws! Allow stoning! Or if nothing else death of some sort for these types.
Posted by WAtidefan (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ToldYouSo: good post
Interesting how much certain people seem to know about "tea bagging". Just an observation.
Posted by MoreCowBell (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree WAtidefan. Tea Party is a conservative thing. Tea bagging is a liberal thing. Two completely different things.
Posted by Shamrock (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Flicknose has returned already, as I predicted. Moderator is on alert.
Posted by KayNKansas (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please remember that if this case is settled out of court, Ralph Lee Allen will walk away and begin his life over again. I would like to know if the state of Alabama will require him to register as a sexual predator. There is a ton of evidence against him. If the victims (who are actually more important than this predator) want to go to court, I hope they will choose to do so. As a survivor, I can tell you that the monetary award is not nearly as important as taking this man off the streets. It's not easy to come forward, these women are to be commended!
Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear KayNKansas:
The term "settlement" hearing may have some confused. This is not a civil case about monetary awards. This is a criminal case. The DA has said that he will not agree to any punishment that is less than life without parole, which is all that the court could sentence him to if he was tried and convicted. The settlement conference is a right that defendants in all criminal proceedings have, and the defendant in this case invoked, and its purpose is to determine if a judicial trial is even necessary - for example if the defendant is willing to plead guilty and accept the maximum punishment. A settlement conference doesn't mean that the DA is willing to settle for less than full punishment that the law allows.
And, the alleged victims are not women, but boys between the ages of 8 - 12 years.
People, please pay attention and know what you are talking about before you post comments.
Posted by dacodah_raine (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
well said Estragon.... and about being put away for life? i dont understand the justice of being put away for life... i mean seriously, what is prison to men like this, it's just another camping trip with a bunch of other child molestors. they get to sit around share stories, compare, etc. What is Alabama trying to prove by saying they will take nothing less than life for this guy's punishment, again for someone else we will work the rest of our lives to SUPPORT another child molestor... so yea let legal do there work, but legal sucks as far as i am concered... sorry!!!! i do pray for the families though
Posted by WAtidefan (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If the case goes to trial, am I correct in thinking that the victims will have to testify in open court and will have no chance to remain anonymous? Have there been cases in CC where closed circuit TV was used?
Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cacodah_raine:
Maximum punishments for crimes are set forth in the state's criminal statutes. It is thus the job of the state legislature, with the ultimate approval of the governor, to determine the punishment for a crime. The DA and the local judges who try criminal cases can not go beyond the maximum punishment provided in the criminal statutes.
There is a limitation on a state's power to impose punishment, however, and that is the Eighth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. In a case decided a year ago, Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court overturned Louisiana's law providing for the death penalty in cases of child rape. The Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars the imposition of the death penalty in cases where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death. Here is a link to that decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/0.... There is an excellent analysis of this decision and the other recent Supreme Court death penalty decisions by Linda Greenhouse who covers the Court for the New York Times. It is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washin...
Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WAtidefan: Good thinking, and interesting question. I don't know what procedures CC's circuit court has adopted for these kinds of cases. As a general rule, the 6th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to confront his accusers. To see if this has been modified in cases of child abuse, I did what your buddy LoyalAmerican does and googled the question. Here are some web articles that I found on the internet on the subject: (1) http://www.abanet.org/child/cctv/legal_a... and (2) http://childlaw.sc.edu/frmCaseLaw/maryla....
It appears that the state will have to prove that there are special circumstances with respect to each child victim to justify "screening" a child from the defendant. Generalized assertions that the child would potentially experience trauma if he or she had to testify live, in the presence of the accused, are not enough to overcome the 6th Amendment right. Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988). And, of course, the right of confrontation also includes the right of cross-examination by a defense attorney, so even if the kids did not have to appear live in the courtroom at the time of trial, but in a closed circuit TV setup, they could still be cross-examined. It is for this reason that parents sometimes decide that it is in the best interests of their children to avoid a trial if a Defendant agrees to plead guilty and receive a substantial punishment. I feel sure that all these issues are being weighed by those concerned in the present case.
Posted by WAtidefan (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Estragon: thanks for the links.
Posted by rlb1940 (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 5:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is my understanding that the southern prison systems 'inmate population' has a complete 'other' set of rules not set forth in the law books, or court settings for proper argument, oration, or precedents for prior rulings, that deals with these type defendants once he becomes available to their 'jurisdiction'.
Posted by dacodah_raine (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Estragon: thank you for the links and for the statement... and i understand what you mean as for the law goes, it was just my opion that justice just dont seem like justice to me is all.... but i know this guy will get his in the end... He will reap what he sows!!!
Posted by shilohgirl (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I fully understand legal laws, but I do not understand why we as taxpayers have to waste on red cent on the lowest of trash like this that will hurt a innocent child. That should be automatic fireing squad. Or better yet these moms that like to hunt, give him one last chance and let us target practice on him, a bullet is about all he is worth wasting on. Because I promise you any mom that has a child ever hurt or been through this own experience herself will promise you he won't make it to get the first step. And this goes for ANYONE that hurts a child. Reckon why there is so much of this type stuff nowdays and was'nt 50 years ago, they paid dearly for there crimes. Some things need to go back to the old days. Let him feel a bit of pain and scared like these innocent kids did. Every child preadator.
Posted by Estragon (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
shilohgirl: Before you hope nostalgically for the good old days, maybe you should read this: http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/05_hist...
And, if you think that an "automatic fireing (sic) squad" is an appropriate punishment, then unfortunately you really don't understand "legal laws."
Posted by shilohgirl (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Estragon: I fully understand "legal Laws" but you must not really understand the "love" a mother has for her child. You can read all you want but the truth is the truth and anyone that hurts children don't deserve time and money to be wasted on them because they are the lowest of trash. Do you live with this on your mind of how these kids feel everyday? Well I do and it never goes away. I am not asking can you imagine, I mean the real nightmares of the same torture.
Posted by dixiegirl (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Estragon: you sound an awful lot like a lawyer. Wouldn't suprise me a bit if you are "on the inside" of all this. If you were just one of the real working class, you would know that the only reason our DA will seek the max is for publicity to help his hopefully failing attempt at re-election. He couldn't care less for the people of Covington County or for true justice.
Posted by AceLee (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Shamrock, in response to your previous post on this topic:
I find that Jesus died for all sins, and that we should not judge others even of the most heinous offenses. Locking someone away doesn't deal with all issues of a problem, nor does capital punishment. The family has to find forgiveness in their hearts in able to truly move on, not the lack of satisfaction from revenge.
Jesus said to the crowd who were to stone Mary Magdelene: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
In parallel, we have all sinned, and the lamb of the lord has died for all of us. The greatest sin is not even child molestation in the bible: it is pride.
Ezekiel 21:14-17
"You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to earth; I made you a spectacle of you before kings."
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)