Thursday, April 18, 2013


I did not see the prosecution's case, so I cannot comment on the credibility of the child.  But I saw the defense.   Look, defense counsel have to deal with the hand they are dealt.  But I did not believe a word this man said.  Had he said he was a man, I would have demanded genetic testing.  I will get to his testimony, but first the character witnesses.

People do not get it - you know no one - I met with many of the parents of the children molested by priests - even  after in some cases the priest would confess the parents would still  not believe their child.  I get these witnesses are  friends with convict Lyne, but  again you -  and I mean all of my readers - when it comes to your children you know no one.

This man by his own admission was taking the little girl into his private bedroom to brush her hair.  He did it more than once.  Character witness after character witness testified they would have no problem leaving their children with convict Lyne.  It sickened me to hear just how stupid parents can be.

A Rancho Valley police officer and his wife testified that convict Lyne would never do what he was accused of doing.  You would think a police officer would know better, but he didn't - you never even really know your friends.  The last question the DA asked the police officer caused his face to turn white - I immediately turned to the jury to see if they saw his reaction - they did.

The question, "would it surprise you to learn that three different people as eye witnesses testified to defendant Lyne's improper conduct with  this child?"  The man's face turned white and the jury saw it.  At that moment I believe his friend knew Lynn was guilty.

Convict Lyne's testimony was just bizarre.  His attorney over did it thereby making the testimony just not credible.  He had his client paint a fairy tale - and a fairy tale it was.  When he first started to date his wife out of respect for her parents they always had an escort.  Out of respect for her parents he planned a big event in Monterrey to ask for permission from her father to marry her.

Here was the problem - he had already asked his wife to marry her long before he went to the father - so the respect claim was all lies.  Also, if you are so traditional and respectful do you have a civil wedding?  Not in Mexico - but that is what he did.  He was later forced into church wedding. This is his testimony - well not the forced part - but a second wedding in a church.

He tried to paint a picture of being a tight family that did everything together all of the time.  But yet he trained as a truck driver which took him away from home 6  days a week. 

The DA failed to pick up on any of these inconsistencies in his story or cross examine him on how you can be traditional but have a civil wedding.  Or how can you say you asked for permission to marry your wife, out of respect, when by his own admission he had already asked her to marry her?  You could tell the jury was not buying any of it.

The story was just bizarre - the girl is a family member brought from Mexico to start school here,  That was the claim.  Another lie not picked up by the DA.  Almost immediately after the little girl arrived the rest of the family arrived - mother - father and siblings.  The game plan from the beginning was to bring the entire family to live in Lyne's home - it had nothing to do with giving the little girl a chance at an education.

The jury was clearly frustrated with the DA.  The judge made clear that all of the photos of the wedding and family functions were going to get in.  But every time the defense tendered a photo the DA stood up and objected.  You could see the jury getting frustrated.  It is almost impossible to reverse a judge on an evidentiary issue.  In a billion years an appellate court is not going to reverse a judge because he allowed a jury to see family pictures as part of character evidence for the defendant.  So why object?  It never works and only irritates the jury.  DA's need to learn to not object to just appear important - it does not help and only makes the jury mad.

In the end if the jury had any doubt about the little girl's testimony, that doubt faded when the defense counsel had his client tell is fairy tale story.

Here is the actual press release.

"Daniel Lyne, 34, took advantage of the trust a young child has with family. Lyne began to abuse a close relative in Brownsville when she was just six years old. The abuse went unreported until she made an outcry about an incident to a nurse during a routine physical three years later.

A jury in the 445th state District Court found Lyne, 34, guilty Tuesday of indecency with a child – a second-degree felony – and sentenced him Wednesday to four years in jail for the abuse that began in August 2007.

Family members had previously witnessed Lyne with the victim in compromising situations, but never reported or acted out in disbelief that he had bad intentions with her.

“Parents need to remain extra vigilant when it comes to their children regardless of who is around,” District Attorney Luis V. Saenz said. “It is very unfortunate that a family member would take advantage of this child’s innocence and his family’s trust.”

Assistant District Attorneys Korina Barraza and Edna Dinsdale prosecuted the case."

No comments: