Texas law fails mentally disabled boy, sentenced to 100 years for 1st offense

Posted by Law Article on July 15th, 2009 at 09:00pm

Hans K. June 14, 2009

When an 18-year-old with severe cognitive disabilities performed sex acts on a 6-year-old neighbor, the modest town of Paris, Texas, was unforgiving. But Aaron Hart’s punishment, 100 years in jail for a single incident, has stunned veteran disability rights advocates, who believed counseling, probation or even placement in a group home would have sufficed for a first-time offender with the intellectual maturity of a First-grader.

The municipality of Paris (Population 26,000) is located in Lamar County, Texas. The Country motto: “Where the past meets Progress” The County District Attorney is Gary Young. The judge in this case; Eric Clifford , Lamar County 6th District Court Judge has quickly crawled under a stone and took his information of the Counties Web page: 119 N. Main,Paris, Texas 75460 Phone deleted, Fax deleted, E-Mail deleted. All other County judges and officials have their details listed on the web site.

The sentence raises important questions about how people with severe disabilities are prosecuted in Texas, at a time when both state lawmakers and the U.S. Supreme Court are considering the proper punishment for persons who are young, mentally disabled, or both. Repeat child molesters and rapists routinely receive lesser sentences than Hart’s.

The day following the press announcement about the Aaron Hart’s sentence, Texas Governor signed legislation aimed at improving safety and management of the state’s institutions for the mentally disabled. The system has been stung by allegations of extensive abuse, including fights between residents staged by workers. Dozens of residents have died under suspicious circumstances and hundreds of employees have been disciplined for mistreating residents. A 2008 review by the federal Department of Justice reported that residents’ civil rights were being violated.

“Those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Perry said.

Governor Perry obviously has not heard about the trial of Aaron Hart. Calls to his office by various news organizations have not been returned.

Aaron Hart, who has an IQ of 47 (which equates to age 6-7), was found to be mentally retarded as a child and placed in a special school curriculum. He never learned to read or write. His speech is unsteady. His disabilities made him a victim of bullies who stole his bikes and his shoes, his father said. After graduation, Hart, who does not have the capacity to work, was a regular presence in the neighborhood. He made friends with some younger boys, playing video games and doing household chores to earn money. On the eve of his arrest, he was excited about a fair coming to town and asked a neighbor if he could mow her lawn to get a few dollars. She found him in the back shed fondling her 6-year-old stepson. When the policemen arrived, they read Hart his rights, and he confessed to what he had done. As they transported him to jail, he asked repeatedly whether he would get paid for mowing the lawn.

Young, the prosecutor, said that once a psychologist found Hart competent to stand trial, it was obvious the 18-year-old “knew right from wrong.” He said choosing diversion over prison was not an option. Under the law, those convicted of serious felonies such as sexual assault of a child are not eligible for diversion programs. He further said that while he sympathizes with Hart’s “mental health challenges,” he stands by his commitment to prosecute Hart on five counts related to the incident. it is common for prosecutors to pursue various charges in a trial involving one incident, not knowing which direction the jury will support.

David Pearson, Hart’s appellate attorney, said he has never seen a worse miscarriage of justice.

Pearson blames Hart’s trial attorney, who had the responsibility of explaining Hart’s disability to the judge and jury. That attorney, appointed by the court because Hart’s family could not afford counsel, did not apply for special accommodations, such as a liaison who could help the respondent understand what was happening in court. Nor did he endeavor to summon witnesses who could testify to Hart’s mental condition, Pearson said.

And he did not get a subsequent opinion after a court-appointed doctor found Hart competent to stand trial. That meant Hart no longer qualified for prison diversion options, like group homes and institutional settings for disabled offenders.

The first trial attorney, Ben Massar, did not answer repeated telephone calls to his office.

Faced with a five-count guilty plea, a jury convicted Hart in February and sentenced him to three 30-year prison terms and two five-year terms, one for each category of offense. Lamar County Judge Eric Clifford, who made the determination to stack the sentences into one 100-year prison term, said neither he nor the jury loved the concept of prison for Hart, but felt there was no other option.

“In the state of Texas, there is not a whole lot you can do with somebody like him,” said Clifford, who rejected Hart’s first request for a new trial.

Jurors tell a separate story. They say that during deliberations, they repeatedly sent notes to the judge asking if there were alternatives to prison, which they said the judge did not answer clearly. They said they were sure Hart would serve a concurrent sentence and were flabbergasted when Clifford stacked the sentences.

Hart’s father, Robert, said that while his son may look like a man, mentally, he is as young as his victim. He said the one silver lining in this case is that his son does not understand how serious his situation is.

“He keeps saying he will be out soon, he will be home with us, that maybe he will get probation,” he said. “It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever had to hear.”

So is this a combination of a small town incompetent judge mixed with an overzealous D.A. and a defective judicial system in Texas? You be the judge.

Lawmakers in Texas are working out the last kinks on a bill that would require law enforcement officials who take someone with obvious cognitive disabilities into custody to enable a court magistrate know within 72 hours. The court magistrate would have to order a regional mental health or mental retardation authority to evaluate the person immediately and would allow that assessment to be considered during the trial’s penalty phase.

Tags: Civil Right, Cognitive, Commentary, CRIME, Disabilities, Law, Legal, Mental, Opinión, Sexual, texas