|
A case of
false accusation by a wife against her
husband during a bitter custody dispute.
Help is needed now!
William is in a
Michigan prison on a Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC)
conviction. His wife claimed that he had raped
her. The case was a matter of "he said/she
said". Wil has been in prison, now, for more
than 18 years. During all of that time he has
consistently maintained his innocence.
* MOTIVE FOR
THE CHARGE - The trial took place
during a bitter divorce and custody dispute. It
was expected that Will would win custody,
because his wife had abandoned the family for
more than two months.
* THERE ARE
MANY IMPROPRIETIES SURROUNDING THIS CASE:
Wil had to defend himself in criminal court at
the same time that his divorce was proceeding.
The divorce court froze Wil's assets after his
CSC arrest. At the same time the criminal court
refused to acknowledge that Wil did not have the
use of those assets. Therefore, the criminal
court refused to appoint a public defender. The
way Wil obtained legal counsel was based on a
"promise" to pay.
Wil was offered
a cheap and easy way out. On the first day
of trial he was offered a "no contest plea
bargain". He could have walked away (after
having served 11 months in the county jail).
He refused the offer - went to trial and was
convicted - then the same judge who offered
him the plea bargain sentenced him to 30
(thirty) years. William had no prior
criminal record.
- The
prosecutor had argued for 30 to 60 years.
-
State guidelines are 1 (one) to 10 years.
* Twenty
lawyers have been interested in Wil's case over
the past 18 years. Most of them say
there was "error in trial" and "ineffective
assistance of counsel". The prevailing opinion
is that the law under which Wil was convicted
was not constitutional under the state
constitution. The lack of any money to defend
himself is the reason why these attorneys have
not taken his case.
Several
attorneys have taken whatever money Wil could
raise and then abandoned him. Many persons who
have attempted to assist Wil have been met with
hostility, deception and "stonewalling" from
public servants.
- Wil has been
denied his automatic right to an appeal
under the U.S. constitution !
- 11/93 the National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM)
raised the $3,000 needed to purchase an
official transcript.
See footnote 1
* Wil has
been in prison since 9/24/85. He was
sentenced 11/26/86. Because he has no funds he
was unable to obtain an official trial
transcript. He needed this to file his (federal)
constitutionally guaranteed appeal. but
REMEMBER, the criminal
court still refuses to acknowledge he has no
assets. |
|
* The criminal
court docket shows that an evidentiary
hearing was scheduled for 7/29/86, but it was
not held or rescheduled. An Assistant Prosecutor
tried the case, but the county prosecutor who
was running for State Supreme Court addressed
the court on two occasions: The bond hearing and
the sentencing. The implications are strong that
he was "grandstanding" for the feminist vote.
The judge, too, may have been looking for
political favor with the feminist vote.
* The doctor
who examined Wil's wife (the alleged rape
victim) testified that in examining her vagina
he found no injury whatsoever and that this was
unusual when a woman is claiming forceful
intrusion.
* Wil admitted
in court that he and his wife had consual sex
the day of the alleged rape. But the
prosecutor discredited Wil's testimony by saying
that Wil had no choice but to admit to having
intercourse. As evidence he introduced a pair of
Linda's blue jeans containing sperm. Yet there
is no sperm in Wil's semen, because he had a
vasectomy several years before. This fact was
not picked up until Wil had been in prison for
nine years and the NCFM organization had
purchased his transcript so that the details of
the trial could be examined (see footnote 1). No
DNA testing was done (or has been done) to find
out who's sperm was being used to convict him.
* On the day
of the alleged rape, Linda Hetherington had
visited her boy friend before going to visit Wil.
It is suspected that the semen on the blue jeans
is that of the boy friend. He was never called
to testify at the trial.
* Linda and
Wil Hetherington had been married for 16 years
when the couple broke up and Linda filed
charges.
* Linda
visited Wil 8 (eight) times in jail on friendly
terms between the time of his arrest and
sentencing. Linda led Wil to believe that
she wanted to reconcile their marriage. All Wil
wanted was to get back his wife and family.
* There were
no "battered wife" allegations in the CSC case,
nor were there any such charges in their 16 year
marriage. Prior to the charge Wil had filed
a police report of physical attack on him by his
wife. These charges were documented by police
photos of his chest.
SUMMARY OF CASE
1999 TO 2005:
Stuart Friedman, Esq., Ann Arbor,
MI, who was the attorney of record back in 1999 ( Criminal
Appellate Services) filed a brief with the Michigan State Court of Appeals
in November 1999 asking for a new trial. It is labeled case number 86-36197 FC
(members of the public can purchase it from the Court of Appeals for $38.00.
Write Court of Appeals, Washington Suare Building, 109 West Michigan Ave, PO Box
30022, Lansing, MI 48909-7522. Make your check out to The State of Michigan). By
the summer 2000 the state replied by refusing to hear the case.
An appeal was made to the Michigan Supreme Court and this appeal
was denied (court refused to hear it) on Sept 25, 2001. Attorney, Warren
Luppel's office (Chicago, IL) filed a federal writ of habeas corpus on September
27, 2001. On October 10, 2001 Judge, Bernard Friedman, Federal Eastern District
Court of Michigan set aside the writ for a Show Cause Hearing (to determine why
Wil did not file his writ between 1996 and 1997.
This one year period is important, because the newly enacted
"Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act" required eveyone in prison at that
time to file any desired writs of habeas corpus during that period. After that
period the federal government hoped that it would be rid of any such requests
from anyone in prison prior to 1997. It sould be noted that during this time Wil
tried to convince supporters and whoever he could grab to please write a federal
habeas corpus. But he kept getting the advice that he didn't need it. Moreover,
NCFM tried and could not find an attorney who would do it.
After many months of delay the Michigan State Attorney General's
Office responded to Wil's writ of habeas corpus. On the basis of this response,
Judge Bernard Friedman ruled against Wil (denied the Show Cause) on Sept 12,
2002. Without an attorney Wil filed a notice of appeal into the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals in Cincinnatti, Ohio (case #02-2242).
On March 4 William Hetherington was denied his appeal in 6th
circuit federal court. At that time he had a narrow window of 90 days to file an
appeal with the US Supreme Court. Wil attempted to file for this appeal with the
assistance of attorney, Warren Lupel (Chicago). Lupel tried to help with
formatting the presentation, called a "Writ of Certiorari". Wil's chances were
and remain slim because the U.S. Supreme court only accepts a tiny fraction of
the cases submutted to it. On June 2nd his appeal to the Supreme Court was
returned with the request that he make certain corrections. Several attempts
were made to submit a brief, but the rules for formatting (specifying, among
other things, page size and font) proved to bee too much.
Please read Update 7 for April 2004
if you would like to know more about Wil's Writ of Certiorari. If you would like
more dtailed information about Wil's case overall, please visit
Documents
and Archives.
In 2005 a new attorney, Jodi J. Doak, PC, agreed to champion
Wil's case. You can read about this in Update 9 above.
ON AUGUST 1, 1994, Insight On The News Magazine did
their cover story on William Hetherington. The magazine did an in depth
investigation and reported on it fairly and thoroughly. For a back issue call
(800) 356-3588. There is a charge. Have your credit card ready.
HELP!: THINGS YOU CAN DO RIGHT NOW!
DONATIONS TO WIL'S DEFENSE FUND
- Please be generous! Make checks out to: Keith McKay. BE SURE to write, William
Hetherington Defense Fund in the memo field. Mail your check to William
Hetherington Defense Fund, c/o NCFM, PO Box 582023, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
55458-2023. We apologize to those
outside the U.S. for our banking restrictions, but we can only accept U.S.
currency. Please send a Postal Money Order. Thank You !!!
QUESTIONS? Contact a Co-Chair of NCFM
William Hetherington Defense Committee:
Joseph O'Connor at jmoc34@snet.net or
Gregory Singer at (212) 874-7316.
TO PROFESSIONALS -
"I have supporting documents, such as trial transcripts, police reports, Child
Protection Service reports that show that Wil's children were abused after his
incarceration, psychological reports and letters from Wil's daughters and one
from his ex-wife, etc." - Betty Duffey, former Chair, William Hetherington
Defense Fund.
When sending money orders to Wil at
the Ojibway Correctional Facility, please make sure that the exact same return
name and address are on the envelope AND on the money order. This requirement is
strictly enforced, and funds not complying will be confiscated.
SUMMARY BY ATTORNEY ANDREW CARLAN
December 23, 1999
Farmingdale, NY,
consulting attorney:
Andrew Carlan, Esq.
Send e-mail to:
Andrew Calan, Attorney at law
I worked on a possible federal
habeas corpus brief for William Hetherington. Mr. Gregory Singer (NCFM Chair of
the William Hetherington Defense Fund) asked me to familiarize others with the
case. The file is enormous. I have tried to cut it to the bone, but that is
difficult because there are so many independent issues. I hope this summary
serves as a useful guide.
Note: Judge Thomas Yeotis', the sentencing judge, offered Mr.
Hetherington a plea that would have allowed him out of jail immediately. Judge
Yeotis must have been so convinced that Mr. Hetherington was no threat to his
ex-wife, as the Court-appointed psychologist testified, that he staked his
career as an elected judge on that certainty. Radical feminism remains a potent
political force in Michigan elections. Catherine MacKinnon teaches at University
of Michigan Law School.
Hetherington was the first man convicted under Michigan's
spousal rape law in Genesee County. His trial generated heated emotions on this
novel rape law. His recent (Fall 1999) eligibility for parole reopened the old
wounds. Most prosecutors forget in time those they have imprisoned, especially
where all those who participated in this case are gone. Not here. [See Man
Jailed In Spousal Rape Gains Support To Be Freed]
Hetherington faced civil and criminal proceedings
simultaneously. The divorce court froze Hetherington's meager assets, largely a
small disability benefit. Both Yeotis and Michigan Appellate Assigned Counsel
System were aware of this.
Hetherington was denied the right to a review of his conviction
in contravention of Michigan Criminal Procedure.
The trial court denied Hetherington a free transcript. The state
thereby made it impossible for Hetherington to prepare his own appeal. Several
lawyers "represented" him in passing pre- and post-trial. Judge Yeotis released
each before any post-conviction claims could ever be perfected because
Hetherington quickly ran out of money to pay each in turn.
The divorce court must have had the parties' financial
statements. His ex-wife, who was represented, could have disputed his.
Hetherington is in a "Catch-22" conundrum on parole. For a long
time, he wouldn't "show remorse." He believes himself innocent. Now that the
Board has informed him that he must or he will "max out", he has tried to
conform. The parole board then turns around and rejects his compliance as
insincere. The Board and the prison administration won't put him in a treatment
program, which dims his chances for early release although his behavior record
is exemplary. That is one issue that Singer and other would like you to
consider, whether he has served his time and could be released on a state writ
of mandamus. The cases are not on point and the law is confused.
The trial Court prevented Hetherington from impeaching his
wife's credibility. She had filed rape charges twice only to withdraw them.
In Perkins v. Perkins, 424 Mich. 302, 307; 379 N.W.2d 390 (1986)
the Michigan's Supreme Court notes an exception in MCL 750.520j(1); MSA
28.788(101)(1). Subsection (b) of the latter allows the admission of evidence
that is material to prove that semen recovered from the complainant and her
resulting physical condition was the result of someone other than the defendant.
It found further that evidence of prior sexual encounter between the complainant
and the defendant probative of the defendant's version that the events on the
night in question were consensual, id at 308. People v. Hackett, 421 Mich. 1,
338, 347-348; 365 N.W.2d 120 (1984) Also see Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 14, 111
S.Ct. 1743; 114 L.Ed.2d 205 (1991), and People v. Arenda, 416 Mich. 1, 10-11;
330 N.W.2d 814 (1982).
The Court imposed a sentence of 15 to 30 years. He was convicted
in 1986. He began his sentence credited with one year for time served in jail
prior to trial and without benefit of attorney. This sentence may be so grossly
disproportionate and as so tainted by reactions to Hetherington's refusal to
accept the plea bargain as to offend fundamental rights. The absence of prior
offenses and the plea-bargain offer implicitly acknowledge that petitioner
represented no danger to society.
Petitioner admitted having sex with his wife. She came to his
mother's home and entered his bedroom uninvited although she has told the press
that she opposes his release now out of fear. [See Man Jailed In Spousal Rape
Gains Support To Be Freed]. Surely, one plausible explanation is that she was
trying to set him up for just such a charge as CSC because she had lost custody
of the children. Statistics show that charges of spousal and child rape increase
exponentially during divorce litigation, especially-as here-where custody is
dispute.
In February 2006, this case received some additional attention with the publication of a column by
Phyllis Schlafly on the matter. Please click here to read that column.
This case is on-going.
There is a
dispute between National Coalition of Free Men and the Michigan Clerk of the
Court's Office. NCFM had intended to purchase an official transcript that could
be used for appeals. The copy of the transcript received by NCFM lacked the
proper seals and NCFM was unable to obtain a receipt from the court itemizing
just what had been purchased. William Hetherington did not receive an official
transcript from the justice system until he had been in prison for twelve (12)
years.
|
The Case of William
Hetherington
