Thursday, August 09, 2007

Clark County Awaits Charging Decision On Murphy

Clark County, Indiana residents may have to wait 30-40 days to learn whether the county prosecutor will file charges against Glenn Murphy, Jr., who recently stepped down as national Young Republican President and Clark Co. GOP Chairman, after a 22-year-old Jeffersonville, Indiana man accused him of performing oral sex on him while he slept. Clark Co. Prosecutor Steve Stewart isn't speaking to reporters about the case, but Murphy's attorney, Larry Wilder, is. Wilder represented Murphy against very similar charges leveled against him back on 1998, which were never forwarded to the prosecutor. The Jeffersonville Evening News reports:

Clark County Prosecutor Steve Stewart has not discussed the investigation publicly and did not return a reporter’s phone calls to his office on Wednesday.

Larry Wilder, Murphy’s attorney, has said that Murphy maintains the sex act was consensual. As of Wednesday afternoon, Murphy had not been arrested for or charged with any crime. Wilder said conversations with Stewart have led him to believe that Stewart will decide whether or not to charge Murphy within 30 to 40 days.

Murphy was accused of a nearly identical illegal act in 1998, according to a police report filed in Clarksville. He was never charged with a crime following that allegation, which was made by a man who was 21 at the time.

Wilder said he represented Murphy following the 1998 accusation and that Murphy cooperated with investigators then. The attorney said Clarksville police investigated the complaint and that the matter was never forwarded to the Clark County Prosecutor’s Office, because of a lack of evidence.

“It was determined that charges were not warranted,” Wilder said.


I think it's a given that the 1998 charges never became public, which might explain why charges were never brought. I know that some people have been highly critical of Taking Down Words' Jen Wagner for publishing the police report which was leaked to her, but I know these kinds of cases have a tendency to get swept under the rug when people aren't watching, particularly in small towns where a prominent person is the focus of the investigation. I think she did the victim a huge favor by focusing public attention on the case. People generally sympathize with female victims of sexual assault, but in cases involving a male victim, there is a tendency not to believe him, or the victim becomes as much the butt of public ridicule as the offender. You can see that in a lot of comments posted on the various blogs which have reported on this case both nationally and locally. Law enforcement officers often seem to be less sympathetic when the incident involves two men. I hope the prosecutor makes the right decision in this case based on the evidence he has been presented by the sheriff's office. Unless the victim suddenly recants his account of the events, the evidence presented in the police report appears to meet the probable cause standard.

7 comments:

Wilson46201 said...

Since Glenn Murphy is claiming the sex was consensual, perhaps the Log Cabin Republicans could recruit him now?

Advance Indiana said...

How many times have you posted that same comment to blogs all over the country, Wilson? Give it a rest.

Wilson46201 said...

I haven't posted it anywhere myself - I dont recall seeing it anywhere else either. I thought I was being obviously original. Oh well...

Anonymous said...

You are dead on as to how prosecutors and police react to claims by a man against another man. I used to work in a prosecutor's office. They don't want to waste their time with them and look at the victim as if he should let it go and move on. I suspect very few men report these types of crimes, partly out of a feeling of shame, but more so out of fear they won't be believed.

Anonymous said...

The 1998 case was probably not brought to trial because the victim would not testify. I doubt it was because, as Wilder asserts, the evidence was "insufficient."

Anonymous said...

Unless the victim suddenly recants his account of the events, the evidence presented in the police report appears to meet the probable cause standard.

I wonder how one gets probable cause from statements from a sister who only recalls the Murphy statements during conversations with him. In two seperate conversations, she recalls what Murphy and his lawyer say, but totally forgets anything her or her brother put out there. I personally think the police report should have only been the statement by the brother. To me, the sister's statements harm the case. The statement's from the victim appear to be right on. It is still kinda scary that if you really wanted to nail someone, all you had to do was file a police report and appear to be telling the truth.

I suspect very few men report these types of crimes, partly out of a feeling of shame, but more so out of fear they won't be believed.

If this happened to certain folks I know, the police would have been contacted ASAP, in addition to the ambulance that was being called after the perp got a nice beat down.

The 1998 case was probably not brought to trial because the victim would not testify.

The case did not go to trial because it was screwed up from the get go. Whenever a victim runs to a lawyer first of all people, it makes everyone go "Ummm?" More than anything, I would expect male sexual assault victims to not tell anyone. Second, for those who don't want to go to the cops ever, or not at that time, I could see them going to get psych help for dealing with the issue. Unless the first victim personally knew the lawyer, running to a lawyer screams "lawsuit" and "I am going to sue you!" That translates to most folks as "I am out for a quick buck."

Anonymous said...

So, potential defendant's counsel is heard from, huh?

Look on each side of you, pal...you're standing alone. Even your client is wayyyyy behind you.