Scrutiny forces request for special prosecutor in girl's rape claim against teen in Missouri
MARYVILLE, Mo. — A northwest Missouri prosecutor said on Wednesday that he's asking for a special prosecutor to look at the case of a 14-year-old girl who says she was plied with alcohol and raped by a 17-year-old acquaintance.
The announcement from Nodaway County prosecutor Robert Rice occurred amid increased scrutiny recently over how he handled the case.
Melinda Coleman, the mother of 14-year-old Daisy Coleman, claims justice was denied when Rice dropped felony charges against the boy in March 2012, two months after Coleman found her daughter passed out on the family's front porch in below-freezing temperatures. The mother also has said the family had to move from the small town of Maryville because of harassment over the allegations.
The county sheriff and Rice have insisted their investigation collapsed after the Colemans became uncooperative with investigators and refused to answer questions. Coleman says she and her daughter did cooperate and that investigators didn't do enough to push the case forward.
Rice stood behind his earlier statements at a news conference Wednesday but said he was asking a court to appoint a special prosecutor because of publicity surrounding the case and recent media stories questioning the integrity of the justice system in the county. Rice said the special prosecutor will investigate the case and decide whether charges will be refiled.
The incident happened in January 2012, after Daisy and a 13-year-old friend left the Colemans' house in the middle of the night to meet some boys.
Daisy's 13-year-old friend also said she was forced to have sex with a 15-year-old, while another 17-year-old allegedly recorded the incident on a cellphone. The 15-year-old was charged in the juvenile system. Charges against the 17-year-old who allegedly videotaped the incident were also dropped in March 2012.
Daisy said the boys gave her alcohol and she doesn't remember much of what happened next. The boys said the sex was consensual.
Rice has said there wasn't enough evidence to pursue the charges because the accusers had stopped cooperating and asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Rice said Wednesday that he had been concerned about the Colemans' decision and so he had asked that they assert their Fifth Amendment right under oath in a deposition. He said he could not release the deposition because it's a closed record.
Asked to speculate on the accusers' reasoning, Rice said, “I can't go into their minds. I don't know. I can tell you this: We were very careful, very deliberate to make sure that they recorded that there was no misunderstanding, that they understood that at that time when they invoked their Fifth Amendment right that by doing so was going to force the dismissal of the case, that they understood that.”
Melinda Coleman did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment after Rice's announcement. But earlier in the day, Coleman insisted she would help investigators in any way she could, even if the case never made it to trial.
“I think just having it looked at fairly and having other people know how much we were bullied goes a long way. Even if that's all that ever comes out of it,” she said. “That may be enough to move on and have some peace and some security.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Social Security’s $300M IT project doesn’t work
- Warrant issued in Calif. for tuberculosis patient
- American kids have false idea of their weight status, CDC says
- Outcry saves rare albino-mix redwood in Calif.
- House panel votes to sue Obama over health law implementation
- Mosquito virus makes its way from Caribbean
- Can Georgia GOP ‘outsider’ Perdue best Democrats’ Nunn?
- After 40 years, Wyo. fossil trove to get another look
- Man told transit police the Boston Marathon bomber ‘was my best friend’
- Mountaineer workers fear smoking ban will harm ‘livelihood’
- Ariz. inmate’s execution apparently botched