The arraignment was today at 1pm. I was there with Tom Kagan. More info coming soon. I just got back.
-
-
Tom Kagan and I went to the Simco arraignment today (Wednesday, September 30th) at Millbrook Village Court at 1pm.
The date had been changed from last night to this afternoon. Presumably to keep things quiet and keep attendance at a low at this arraignment. The role of the internet and public communication surrounding this case was openly discussed and cited as a reason to keep silent regarding certain issues regarding the case...specifically the name of the alleged victim. Thankfully, Tom and I were free to attend the arraignment. Unfortunately Sam made the drive last night, only to discover that the date had been again changed (for the second time).
Tom and I arrived at the court around noon, and introduced ourselves to the court clerk (Shirley). We openly stated who we were (from Bullshido, reporting on the case for a martial arts web-community), and we all discussed the role the internet has played in this case. She told us that she has been bombarded with phone calls about the case.
We came back to the court at 12:45pm and took our seats in the court (which is very small). Mr. and Mrs. Simco were there at that point reviewing with their attorney what would go on during the arraignment. We were asked to sign in with the court, were screened by the court officer, and took our seats. Considering the court's obvious knowledge that the internet has played in this case, it is commendable that we were permitted to observe the arraignment. Neither Simco nor his wife, ever made eye contact with us as far as I can tell (even though we were seated right behind them and nobody else was in the court but us). However, the judge very clearly looked at us every time the subject of the internet came up in the proceedings.
Present at the arraignment were Mr. and Mrs. Simco, their attorney, the state prosecutor, the court officer, one other LEO who came with the prosecutor, one observer (a friend of the Simco's it seems - who smelled strongly of alcohol BTW), Tom, myself, and the court clerk. I was a bit suprised at how empty the court was and how little security there was considering all the publicity this case has received. There were no metal detectors at the courthouse and Tom and I had been in the courtroom a full 10 minutes (along with the Simcos) before the court officer bothered to screen us. I guess the constant date changes served their purpose with regard to attendance. It seems that nobody was there from PoJo.
The arraignment began: State of New York vs. Eugene Simco.
The formal reading of the charges was waived. Though reference to "the 2 charges" against Simco was made and both Simco's attorney and prosecutor acknowledged that they were aware of the charges.
First off, Simco's attorney filed a motion to dismiss the case based on statute of limitations. The prosecutor will present her answer to this motion by October 14th for Simco's attorney and the court to review.
The judge specifically asked the defense attorney if he received a particular document from the prosecution prior to the arraignment. The defense attorney acknowledged receiving it. Neither Tom nor I could make out what documents they were referring to as they were speaking quietly at the bench.
Secondly, Simco pled not guilty to "the 2 charges". Simco's attorney cited the reason for this plea (as we expected): that Simco is a victim of slander for financial gain perpetuated by the owner of a competing business. It was stated that the owner of the competing business is the brother of the alleged victim and that the internet was used as a primary vehicle for this slander campaign. The judge discussed at length that the name of the alleged victim shall not be mentioned in court or communicated in other public forums (internet), though it was indicated that the alleged victim is a female.
Following the entering of Simco's not guilty plea, the prosecutor requested a temporary order of protection (6 months duration starting that moment in court) which bans all contact with the alleged victim by Simco and/or his family directly or via third parties. Simco's attorney confirmed with the judge that he can contact alleged victim, and is not covered by the third party restriction cited in the protection order.
Simco's attorney, while not objecting to the protection order, did question the need of such protection since the alleged victim, to his understanding, does not currently reside in New York, and was not planning to appear. To this the prosecutor replied that the alleged victim planned on returning to New York and cooperating fully with the prosecution.
After this, the judge set the next court date for October 28th at 7pm (if it does not change again), where the motion to dismiss and the prosecutor's answer would be discussed. Simco was released on his own recognizance. The prosecution had no objection to Simco continuing to be out on his own recognizance citing his ties to the community and his prior cooperation as enough to satisfy the state's need to ensure he would return to court on the 28th.
After court was adjourned, Tom and I left. There were several (3 or 4) people waiting outside the court room, presumably for the arraignment to be completed.
As an aside, Simco (who I had never met prior) looked smaller and thinner than I expected and looked to me to be a man under a lot of stress.Comment
-
Thanks Tom Steve, and Sam for showing up. Thanks for the write up STeve.
People please don't litter the thread with what were the charges, why this and that. Wait until it is determined what can be said if anything at all. If the internet was brought up in the proceedings then, it can possibly lead to hassles for bullshido.net. Let's wait until Sam comments before, asking a ton of unanswerable questions.
Thanks.Comment
-
At this point, I have nothing to add. The most pressing question is the strength of the defense's motion to dismiss, and I wouldn't comment before I read both this motion and the prosecution's reply.Comment
-
Lets not discuss which, if any girl, in the picture is the possible victim.Comment
-
Please refrain from discussing the alleged victim at this time.Comment
-
The thread is long so, I'll repost the YMAS link.
MABS Runoff: Simco - No BS Martial Arts
The photo discussion is now removed from the MABS thread.Comment
-
Edit: Dumb Question removed finished reading the rest of the threads.Originally posted by It is FakeLast edited by Nate1481; 10/06/2008 8:47am, .Comment
-
So what is the statute of limitations up there? And what kind of exceptions are there to the rule?Comment
-
Short answer, I do not know yet.Comment
-
I'm not a lawyer, but know a bit about sexual abuse and the law.
According to RAINN (http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/s...of-limitations), the statute runs as follows in the state of New York:
So it sounds like, for a felony third degree sexual abuse charge, five years from the act of abuse, but the statute is tolled until the victim reaches majority age (18). As I understand it, based upon the fact pattern uncovered so far, the statute has not run.Comment
-
My guess would be that the DA would bot have pursued it if the limitation was met. BUt, Simco's lawyer I am sure, is covering his bases.Comment
-
What would make this legally interesting is if this law was modified between the time of the alleged incident happened, and the present arrest. Then one has a retroactivity argument.Comment
-
Sex crimes are ugly business for everyone involved. Whether there are just unsubstantiated allegations or video taped proof everyone walks away changed forever. As sickening as someone sexually assaulting another human being is, so is the thought that people level false allegations out of pettiness and spite for their own personal gains .Comment
-
Word. Gawd, I would hate for this to be some kinds of smear bullshit that turns out destroying an innocent man's livelihood. Man, I hope not...Originally posted by JRT6Comment
Comment