Men granted new trial in Wisconsin kidnapping case
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Two men accused of attempting to kidnap a jogger in Walworth County in 2005 will get a new trial.
The District 2 Court of Appeals says prosecutors unfairly showed jurors a computer-generated animation showing their version of what happened.
Jeremy Denton and Aubrey Dahl were accused of attempting to kidnap a woman who was jogging on Highway 67. The woman ran away from the men, jumped in another car and got away.
The court says a judge should not have allowed prosecutors to show jurors a sophisticated computer-animated depiction of what allegedly happened. The officer who created the exhibit had no firsthand knowledge of the facts, and the court says the animation could have unfairly prejudiced jurors.
May 14, 2009 at 7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
janesvillian, you have been on these boards enough to know, wild speculation, instant guilt upon accusation and prejudging are the rule of the town. No one recognizes the danger of a police state. This is why the Supreme Court is trying to decide if it was okay for a school to strip search a 12 year old girl, to find out if she has prescription asprin. These things happen when we let the authorities do whatever they want.
May 13, 2009 at 11:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
This ruling says nothing about the evidence presented by other witnesses. It only says that a biased portrayal of the evidence was presented. The way our criminal justice system works, the state has the burden of proving the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. When the state screws up, the entire conviction is potentially thrown out, so the state really has a great responsibility to make sure that it is not stacking the deck. The alternative is a police state, where what the police and prosecutor say are presumed true.
May 13, 2009 at 6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
i am sure even without the computer they will be punished especially since there are not one but two witnesses.
May 13, 2009 at 5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Correct. An elaborate computer generated animation of what might have happened could very well prejudice jurors. The accused deserve a new trial regardless of their guilt, or innocence.
May 13, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh for cryin' out loud! Are they serious? OMG! SHE was there! SHE was the witness! And what about the driver who got her out of there? I'm sure THAT person probably testified as well.
This is ridiculous!
May 13, 2009 at 2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
I suppose if a bystander had happened along and caught the attack on video they would say the same thing when it was presented? They don't have firsthand knowledge and have prejudiced the jurors. PLEASE!! How about we start punishing criminals and not the victims!!!
May 13, 2009 at 1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
That's what I'd like to know.
Seems criminals do have more rights than victims.
May 13, 2009 at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why wasn't the victim's first hand account of the incident sufficent?
May 13, 2009 at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good God - It was probably based on an eyewitness. The VICTIM's account of what happened.
It's always "poor me" from the guilty. Creeps!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.