Читать книгу Phantom Justice - Young Boone's Koo - Страница 4

1

Sentence

On August 26, 1992, the temporary judge Edward Page sentenced me to twenty years in prison to satisfy himself, and on October 15, I was moved to the RDC (Reception and Diagnostic Center) from the Lake County Jail.

Because the fairness of the laws was abandoned, the integrity of the court disappeared and an evil brand of justice reigned under the auspices of the court, so a painful three-week ghost trial commenced. But at the end of the trial I was convicted and the condemnation of my life began, without my receiving a true and solid foundation of fair defense against the charges in this democratic country, America.

When the allegation was made that I raped a patient, no one came and investigated the allegation and collected the necessary evidence in accordance with criminal procedure, yet two years later the charges were published. During the trial, the court allowed the sham deputy prosecutor, Phillip Benson, to present fabricated and uncontested physical evidence.

From the beginning, because phantom justice overpowered reason at the time of the trial, there was no fairness of the law to speak of, but predominantly discriminatory trial patterns were dictated. So eventually I had to surrender my rights to devils.

ORDER

08-26-92. For committing the offense of rape, a Class B felony, the defendant is remanded to the custody of the department of correction for classification and confinement in an appropriate facility for a term of twenty years, the maximum sentence.

SO ORDERED: T. EDWARD PAGE, Judge Pro Tempore

*Pursuant to the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, Trial Rule 63(A).

In the Hammond Times:

August 27, 1992

Koo sentenced to 20 years

Crown Point — Dr. Young Soo Koo was sentenced to the maximum 20-years term for rape conviction in July.

August 28, 1992

Koo’s lawyers plan quick appeal

CROWN POINT — Appellate lawyers for a Schererville doctor convicted of raping a patient during an office visit say they will waste no time in trying to get the conviction overturned.

Joseph Van Bokkelen, who will represent Dr. Young Soo Koo in his appeal, said during this week’s sentencing hearing that he wants a new trial and “a clear shot” at an acquittal. Van Bokkelen said his appeal will question the correctness of two rulings by Lake Superior Court Magistrate T. Edward Page. The first was Page’s ruling that the trial defense lawyer, John Breclaw, was improperly excluding women from the jury. During jury selection, lawyers from either side are allowed 10 challenges to potential jurors without cause, and an unlimited number if they can show a reason a person should be excluded.

Page ruled Breclaw was using some of his 10 no-causal, or peremptory, challenges to exclude female jurors. Breclaw denied this and said he challenged the woman cited as an example by Page not because of her gender but because she was a registered nurse. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings say that peremptory challenges, although supposedly for any cause, cannot be used to exclude jurors because of race. When Breclaw said Page’s ruling did not follow the Supreme Court test, Page admitted he was taking the high court ruling and putting a new twist on it, although he said he felt his interpretation will be upheld.

The second challenge will be to Page’s ruling that allowed two women to testify at Koo’s trial that they had been raped by Koo in his office. It was unfair to ask Koo to respond to allegations for which he had never been criminally charged, Breclaw said.

Evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible in Indiana under narrow rule that says such crimes must be so unique as to leave little doubt they were committed by the defendant. These so-called “finger-print” or “signature” crimes are normally used in cases of serial crimes.

Breclaw argued to Page, and Van Bokkelen said he will argue to the appeals court, that if the allegations were too weak to charge Koo, they were too weak to be used as evidence of another crime.

Judges have discretion whether to allow “signature” crimes into evidence and judges presented with the same set of circumstances can disagree about whether such a “signature” exists. Should the appeals court rule in favor of Koo, Van Bokkelen would not have to defend against the uncharged allegations.