McAlester judge approved one-year sentence for rape
This case has already gained national attention after being aired on The O’Reilly Factor, but I think it merits mention again. On May 13, 2009, David Harold Earls pleaded no contest to charges of rape and forcible sodomy of a 4-year-old girl from Pittsburgh County. This plea agreement resulted in a one-year sentence and came about because the girl’s family and the prosecutor in the case were afraid to put the girl on the witness stand, thinking she would freeze up. Other deciding factors were the lack of DNA and other forensic evidence.
When Judge Thomas Bartheld approved the agreement, he probably never imagined the uproar he was about to cause. Some members of the Oklahoma House have drafted a resolution that calls for his removal from office, citing gross neglect of duty. Judge Bartheld says he is surprised at the effort, saying he was following the law by taking the plea agreement.
I have to admit, a one-year sentence for such a crime seems very lacking, but there may be other factors to consider. David Harold Earls has been in and out of jail before and was release on medical parole for cancer in 2003. Doctors have said he has about three years to live. I am not sure if all of this should be considered mitigating factors, but the health and welfare of the 4-year-old victim would fall under that category.
As a parent, I am not sure how I would react if something like this were to happen to one of my daughters, but I can imagine very well how the parents must feel and how they would do anything to protect their daughter from further harm. That harm could include being asked to testify on the witness stand, especially considering her age. It would possibly be a very traumatic event and the effects on the girl would have to be weighed before making a decision. I am sure her parents and the prosecutor in the case, J.B. Miller did just that. Here is what Miller had to say concerning how the case was represented on national television. From The Oklahoman:
The case attracted national attention recently when the Fox network ran information on it on segments of “The O’Reilly Factor” produced by Geraldo Rivera. The district attorney said the program misstated a number of facts in the case.
“I think it’s abhorrent that local, state and national media are trying to crucify the district judge for doing nothing more than accepting a plea bargain, something he does almost every day,” Pittsburg County District Attorney J.B. Miller said. “He was doing his job. So were we.”
Rivera lambasted the judge and district attorney. He said the judge turned down a request to record the girl’s testimony and avoid confronting Earls in open court.
That’s wrong, Miller said.
The child testified in open court during a pre-trial hearing. Earls was present. Before trial, prosecutors were trying to get the girl qualified to testify on closed circuit, a procedure to determine whether the child could discern between the truth and a lie, Miller said.
The judge did certify that the child could testify by closed circuit. But Miller said his assistants, a child advocate and her family feared she would freeze up and Earls could end up being freed. That’s when the plea bargain was reached – before the trial began.
It’s easy to sit back as a citizen or state legislator, having nothing to do with the case, and make statements about how this case should have transpired. It’s another thing entirely to be involved with the case and have to make decisions based on the actual facts of the case. Yes, the sentence does seem very lax, but there are other factors to consider.
There is only ONE factor to consider- a child is not being protected. Quit making excuses for everyone’s failure, pinhead. You obviously don’t get it- try focusing on the kid. And all children of Oklahoma!
I am going to overlook your name calling this one time. Don’t bother trying it a second time because your comment will be deleted if it happens again.
If you would take the time to read the entire post, you would realize that I am not necessarily condoning the plea agreement. I do point out, however, that there are other factors to consider. Not the least of these factors is the concern of the parents about their child. They are trying to protect her and evidently they and the prosecutor had real concerns about her freezing up on the witness stand. They took those fears into consideration when they brokered the agreement.
If I had my way, I would throw David Harold Earls in a jail cell with a good old boy and then we wouldn’t have to worry about the problem, but that is not how our court system work. Could it be better? I am sure it could, but we have to work with what we have.
This judge needs to be removed from the bench. He does not do a good job.
As I have said before, I do not necessarily agree with the sentence, but there were several factors for the judge to consider in agreeing to the plea. Perhaps we should try to understand what he was trying to do and those considerations.
I think to ask for the removal of judge bartheld is unjust and just plain jumping the gun. If we asked for every judge that handed down a sentence on a child abuse case we didn’t agree on to be removed from the bench there wouldn’t be very many left. My heart goes out to that poor child and others just like her that have been treated so horribly, but bartheld i’m sure did what he felt best at the time. He is a good man with a good heart , i know this because i know judge bartheld.