Obviously Falsely Accused Man Freed After Two And A Half Years -- When It Becomes Wildly, Wildly Clear He Was Guilty Only Of Being A Good Samaritan
Dahlia Lithwick writes on Slate about the horrifying case of Mark Weiner, who just had his rape conviction vacated after he spent two and a half years in prison:
The story began on a December night in 2012. Weiner, then a 52-year-old man who managed a local Food Lion and attended night classes at a local community college, stopped and picked up 20-year-old Chelsea Steiniger, who was walking from a convenience store to her mother's house. Steiniger's boyfriend, Michael Mills, had just informed her that she could not sleep at his apartment, which did not permit guests after a certain hour, so she was angrily headed to stay with her mother. It was cold, it was dark, it was late. Weiner saw her and offered to drive her to her mother's house, picking her up directly across from the local police station.Mark Weiner's version of events: He drove Steiniger to her mom's house and went home.
Most of the rest of the trial narrative unfolds through the sequence of texts Steiniger sent her boyfriend as they drove to her mom's place.
At 12:10 a.m., Steiniger texted her boyfriend that "some dud[e]" was giving her a ride. At 12:18 a.m., she texted, "he tried to get in my pants." At 12:21 a.m., she texted, "just pulled up he wont let me out of the car."
At 12:23 a.m., the texts allegedly start coming from Weiner instead of Steiniger, the first one reading: "[S]he doesn't have her phone." And at 12:27: "Shes so sexy when shes passed out." At 12:28: "She was a fighter ill give her that much." At 12:36: "Ill let her wake before i let you talk to her."
When a panicking Mills texted back at 12:38 a.m., "w[h]ere are you taking her," Weiner allegedly responded: "[S]hes in my house she said she was cold so IMMa warm her up."
Steiniger testified that Weiner, while driving past the mother's house, managed to knock her out at about 12:22 a.m. with a chemical-soaked cloth that worked in 15 seconds, at which point he began sending the taunting texts to Mills. Including a text using the word IMMa--not the most common expression for white, 52-year-old Food Lion managers.
That's right: Over the course of four minutes, Weiner allegedly incapacitated Steiniger, took control of her phone, and texted her boyfriend, all while driving to a rural property late at night.
There was "a growing mountain of exculpatory evidence." As Lithwick put it:
The fact that there was a trial at all is remarkable.
But there was a trial, and the exculpatory evidence never made it there; was never turned over to the defense. This includes evidence from cops who traced the phone's whereabouts and saw it was nowhere near the abandoned building Steiniger claimed she was taken to, for example.
But the prosecutor "believed" (and believed and believed) Weiner's accuser, Steiniger, despite how obvious it was that she was lying.
Mark Weiner has lost more than two years with his young son and with his wife, he's lost his job, he's lost his family home, and he's lost every penny he ever had in savings or retirement accounts....If anyone suggests that the fact that Mark Weiner was released this week means "the system works," I fear that I will have to punch him in the neck. Because at every single turn, the system that should have worked to consider proof of Weiner's innocence failed him.
...Mark Weiner's freedom did not come about this week because the system worked. It came about because the system protected the system from abject embarrassment. That isn't justice. That's just sad.
You know what will change this? ending the immunity that prosecutors enjoy.
It's one thing to try to ignore exculpatory evidence and go to trial with what you have and make your case and hope for the best. At worst, you've wasted some money and the court and a jury's time.
It's quite another to suppress such evidence and railroad someone. It's easy to play fast and loose with other people's lives when you know you'll never be called to account for your actions in any meaningful sense.
Oh, sure, the wrongfully convicted will get a nice fat bit of money, but it won't come out of the prosecutor's budget...or his/her hide. They won't be disbarred.
Note to self: don't be a good Samaritan.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 17, 2015 6:58 AM
Two things coming to mind:
1) Nothing good happens after midnight.
2) Men, never be alone with a woman, esp. one you don't know. And even if you do know her get out of there ASAP. When it's a "he said/she said" case, these days what "he said" means nothing.
bkmale at July 17, 2015 7:11 AM
And the lesson to be learned? Never, EVER help a strange woman out.
Matt at July 17, 2015 7:31 AM
It sounds like the jury in this case forgot that the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty" and the judge did not make that clear to them.
Every trial on which I've ever been a juror involved a long speech by the judge about how the defendant does not need to say anything in his defense and that we are to presume him innocent of all charges until the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty - along with a long explanation of what constitutes "reasonable doubt."
I sat through one where each of seven police officer witnesses were asked to describe the car he was driving and the uniform he was wearing - in order to establish that the defendant could not have misinterpreted the car pursuing him as anything other than a police car and the pursuer as anything other than a police officer. California drivers are required by law to obey the instructions of clearly identifiable police officers while operating a motor vehicle on a public road.
Conan the Grammarian at July 17, 2015 8:38 AM
Ignore my earlier comment - I read farther and realized the jury never saw the evidence.
Doesn't matter what the prosecutor "believes" - evidence related to the case is to be turned over to the defense. This prosecutor is guilty of misconduct and should be disbarred.
Conan the Grammarian at July 17, 2015 8:41 AM
Also, Weiner needs to sue Steiniger.
And anyone who's dating her needs to dump her immediately.
That is one messed up woman.
Conan the Grammarian at July 17, 2015 8:43 AM
Some twitter snarkiness:
I R A Darth Aggie at July 17, 2015 8:45 AM
Also, Weiner needs to sue Steiniger.
Yes. But I have a feeling that it will be akin to getting blood from a stone. Best of luck collecting. On the other hand, if one is feeling vengeful, it makes for a wonderful club to make someone's life absolutely positively painful.
She gets a paying job? attach her wages.
Buys a car, or better a house? attach a lien.
But...shouldn't she be brought up on charges?
I R A Darth Aggie at July 17, 2015 8:50 AM
It gets worse - and looks like two woman (the prosecutor and the judge) used their positions to railroad an innocent man into prison:
Conan the Grammarian at July 17, 2015 9:00 AM
"Doesn't matter what the prosecutor 'believes' - evidence related to the case is to be turned over to the defense. This prosecutor is guilty of misconduct and should be disbarred."
At the very least, she should be found in contempt and socked with the maximum penalty, whatever it is in that state. But judges won't do that. Because the prosecutors and judges are of the same tribe, and tribe comes first.
Cousin Dave at July 17, 2015 9:35 AM
I'm with you IRA. The justice system needs to be held accountable for it's actions. And that means holding the individuals who make up the justice system accountable for their individual actions.
For a similar account of prosecutors gone wild look up special prosecutor Francis Schmitz. His attempts to label all republicans as 'illegal coordinators' just got rebuked by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Is anything going to happen to Schmitz, probably not. Personally, I think he should be disbarred and jailed for his abuse of power.
Ben at July 17, 2015 10:02 AM
Chelsea Steiniger is a criminal. I hope she pays dearly for this.
It's one thing to be such a stupid, psycho bitch that you would send text messages like that to your boyfriend. But to sit there and allow an innocent man to go to jail?
She should absolutely be brought up on charges and really ought to do some jail time herself.
Pirate Jo at July 17, 2015 10:26 AM
I agree with PJ. Perjury, false swearing, initiating a false police report, etc. Those could all be applied to her and likely multiple times over depending on how many times she signed documents or gave her stories to police and prosecutors officially. There are probably other charges that could be applied too. She should be sued as well. The prosecutor and judge need to be disbarred, prosecuted, etc. Very clearly misconduct.
BunnyGirl at July 17, 2015 11:41 AM
If Steiniger testified at trial, perjury can and should be charged.
For prosecutor's blatant misconduct, a civil lawsuit against the state ( the prosecutor's employer ) seeking civil monetary damages are nearly always successful.
Nick at July 17, 2015 12:04 PM
I ran across this moments ago on the Volokh Conspiracy:
I R A Darth Aggie at July 17, 2015 2:13 PM
but the result was an even stronger law that applies not only to prosecutors but to police and forensic experts, as well it should.
All forensic reports, police interview files and notes, ect should be sent directly to the defense.
The prosecutor should be able to decide what is "relevant" for the defense to have
lujlp at July 17, 2015 4:28 PM
There are times when I read stories on your blog, and I can only sigh and get depressed about it. The prosecutor should be disbarred and spend at least as much time in jail as Weiner did. But of course, nothing with happen to the prosecutor, and she'll be free to railroad someone else. Life goes on.
Patrick at July 17, 2015 5:45 PM
Something is broken, but they act as if works just fine.
Richard Speights at July 17, 2015 8:00 PM
Leave a comment