-2

According to The Daily Beast Hillary Clinton's first case as a lawyer involved the defense of someone accused of rape.

Is there any evidence (e. g. publicly available court proceedings) that can refute or confirm this statement?

Update 1: Here you can find Archived documents from the Washington County, Arkansas Circuit Court detail a 1975 case in which Hillary Rodham was the defense attorney for an alleged child rapist.. It would be interesting to know whether these documents are real.

DJClayworth
  • 57,419
  • 26
  • 209
  • 195

2 Answers2

18

It is correct that she represented a rapist. The characterization how she got on that case, what she did, and what she was saying on tape is completely and intentionally wrong, though.

  1. Clinton was assigned by the judge to defend after the indigent defendant stated the wish for a female defense attorney. Clinton was recommended by the prosecutor, and then tried to beg off the case, which was not allowed.
  2. Since she was the defense attorney, it was her job to question evidence and mount a vigorous defense. Acting as if she did something wrong in getting evidence excluded is completely backwards. It would have been immoral and unethical for her NOT to get evidence excluded if there was an issue with it.
  3. The police/forensics laboratory accidentally destroyed the DNA evidence that linked the defendant to the case. Clinton didn't have it "excluded," it no longer existed. What court in the free world would allow evidence that had been destroyed to be included in a criminal trial?

Investigators mishandled evidence of Taylor's bloody underwear, cutting out the stain that contained semen for testing, and then losing it.

Washtington Post: Fact Check About Hillary Clinton and the Kathy Shelton Rape Case

  1. Did Clinton believe the person committed the crime? Not sure why that's relevant. She wasn't the judge. She wasn't on the jury. She was the defending attorney, and was legally and ethically obligated to give him the best defense she was capable of.
  2. Did she brag about getting the evidence excluded? She talked about it, because she was asked. Is that "bragging?"
  3. Did Clinton laugh in an interview? Yes, she laughed, but it was more an ironic laugh of disbelief as she detailed about how everything that SHOULD have worked against the defendant wound up turning around and working in his favor. The DNA evidence getting destroyed by the lab. She had her client take a polygraph, and he passed it. She laughed as she recounted that, while saying that this caused her to question the credibility of polygraph tests, in general.
  4. Does any of that matter? She didn't get her client acquitted, he pled guilty to a lesser crime, which is how most cases are handled.
  5. Doesn't the lesser crime conviction show she did him a great service? Again, she was supposed to serve to the best of her ability, but, no. The mother of the victim was aggressively pushing for a plea deal, to close the books on the incident and to avoid them having to go through a trial.

If you want to look at the most narrow of answers, the answer is "yes." If you are looking to confirm whether the characterizations of this case are in any way accurate. Then I've laid out some more details for you.

Snopes article about the claims

GWU's Jonathan Turley's legal blog about the claims

PoloHoleSet
  • 9,608
  • 3
  • 34
  • 41
  • 1
    "destroyed the DNA evidence" When was the first time DNA evidence was used in a criminal case? This was 1975. – DavePhD Feb 21 '17 at 19:40
  • 2
    @DavePhD - That's how it was referred to in the links. If I call it something different than what is sourced, the history of pendantics here tells me I'd get called out for it - "that's not what your linked article says!". Whether or not they had the capability of testing it back then, it still IS DNA evidence - hair, blood, stained clothing - all of these items have been tested years after the fact in other cases, which is not possible now with it all destroyed. The DNA evidence was destroyed, whether they could test it as such back then, or not. – PoloHoleSet Feb 21 '17 at 19:48
  • 2
    Please add some excerpt from the websites, it seems that a lot of what you say is not easily inferable from the evidence. – Sklivvz Feb 21 '17 at 21:13
  • @Sklivvz - It's all contained in the two references, explicitly. Do I need to state something, and then quote someone stating the exact same thing? What do you think is missing? The references are there to look at, everything I say is in them. – PoloHoleSet Feb 21 '17 at 22:07
  • @PoloHoleSet the blog says "She also seems to suggest that Taylor was saved by the fact that the crime lab accidentally destroyed DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime." But if you listen to the tapes, she never says "accidently destroyed", never says "DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime". The case file says there was "a test for human blood" performed on the defendant's underpants. The prosecution had a 15 year old witness that saw Taylor rape the 12 year old. The victim and the 15 year old's testimony connected Taylor to the crime, not DNA evidence. – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 03:11
  • This answer seems to be addressing a lot of claims not mentioned in the question. This is partly the question's fault - it picks a very uncontroversial aspect of the linked article - but possibly also because you're just reiterating other people's analysis of the case, rather than answering specific claims with primary or secondary sources. Hence DavePhD now discussing whether you're answering a claim that was never made about DNA. – IMSoP Feb 22 '17 at 12:51
  • 1
    @DavePhD - You seem to be acting as if the tapes of Clinton talking are the only record there is. If the lab accidentally destroyed the evidence, and Clinton doesn't say so on the tape, it didn't happen? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. If you read the links, which also look into the police records, court transcripts, newspaper reporting of the events, they talk about those events. For instance, the 15 year old did not "see Taylor rape the 12 year old." – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 14:26
  • @IMSoP - Yes. I cover that topic in my answer actually.... did you miss that part? The claims referenced by the question make those claims. The claims referenced by the question exist to bring up these issues. You'll notice I specifically address the narrow scope of the question, and give reasons why I also included the broader scope. Is there a reason why you ignored that when commenting? It seems like you are pointing out something that was already noted in the answer. – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 14:28
  • @PoloHoleSet "Moments later, he [the 15 year old] said he left and Taylor approached the truck, climbing on top of the girl. The girl let out a scream, according to the police report, and he claims to have seen Taylor hitching up his pants." http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/for-young-hillary-clinton-rape-case-caused-clash-of-ideals-1.12431056 – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 14:34
  • @PoloHoleSet The problem is that by doing so, you're making up your own questions to answer. It's not very clear which are specific claims made by the article linked in the question (but not quoted here), which are claims from elsewhere that Snopes or Turley address, and which are just your commentary (e.g. "does any of that matter?"). The result is an answer with a lot of top level information, but not much in-depth evidence for any of the specific points. – IMSoP Feb 22 '17 at 14:41
  • @PoloHoleSet Toxicologist Berwin L. Monroe tested the defendant's underpants for human blood. You don't have any legitimate basis for saying whether or not the judge would have allowed Monroe to testify to the effect "I tested the underpants and they contained human blood." – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 14:42
  • @PoloHoleSet In sharp contrast to your personsal commentary about what courts in the free world allow, attorney Norma Chase with 38 years of experience, wrote "She never sought to exclude any forensic evidence, **nor would the discarding of the tested portion of the undershorts have been grounds for an order doing so.** This mistake was something about which to cross-examine the toxicologist had the case gone to trial, and something about which to argue to a jury." https://chaseplace.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/what-happened-that-night-and-what-happened-in-court/ – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 15:07
  • 1
    @DavePhD - you realize that what Norma Chase is saying is that Clinton never sought to exclude any forensic evidence, right? The fact is, despite your claim that we are not talking about "DNA evidence" what was lost by the lab was DNA evidence. They cut out a stained portion of the bloody underwear to test for semen, and then lost the part they cut out for testing. Since it was never tested, there was no evidence to exclude there, apparently. Go back to my point #3 - "Clinton didn't have it excluded, it no longer existed" - your Norma Chase quote confirms what I said, she didn't exclude it.. – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 15:25
  • @DavePhD - so, please explain how that's a sharp contrast to what I wrote? From Norma Chase's Twitte account - "No evidence was excluded. Crime lab discarded some, not HRC's doing." - which is exactly the point you seem to be refuting. – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 15:27
  • @PoloHoleSet Like I said above, toxicologist Berwin L. Monroe tested the defendant's underpants. – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 15:28
  • @DavePhD - but was unable to test for anything especially relevant to a rape case - because that portion was destroyed. My fundamental point, that you refuted, remains intact - DNA evidence was lost/destroyed by the lab, and Clinton didn't have to exclude it. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make about testing the underpants, but not the portion they specifically cut out for relevant testing. Victim's blood does not link to defendant. Semen might. – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 15:35
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/54068/discussion-between-poloholeset-and-davephd). – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 15:39
  • @PoloHoleSet The portion was tested and consumed in the testing and/or otherwise discarded. There was no concept of "DNA evidence" at the time. Human blood or human blood of a certain blood type on the defendant's underpants was relevant evidence and was all that was scientifically possible at the time. Berwin L. Monroe would have testified concerning the blood test results. – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 15:48
  • No, that's not what happened. They lost the important portion they wanted to test. See the additional information in the added link. The specific portion that was going to be tested for semen. Again, I'm not claiming they were testing it for specific DNA matching. Semen is DNA evidence. They wanted to test it. Nowhere in any of my posts do I claim they were doing "DNA testing," specifically. The fact that they had greater limitations on what kinds of testing they could do on the DNA evidence does not change either of those facts. – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 15:52
  • @PoloHoleSet Semen on his own underpants isn't very conclusive of a crime. The state tested what they wanted to test. Defense wanted to test independently. 9 June 1975 judge said defense could test independently only if prosecution agreed to a plan that does not interrupt the prosecution's custody of the objects. Then Hillary says she took the remaining portion of the underpants to another expert and there wasn't enough blood to independently test. I don't see any reference saying that the prosecution didn't test what they wanted to test. – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 16:12
  • @DavePhD - "Semen on his own underpants" - the semen stain was from HER underpants. "there wasn't enough blood to independently test" - that's because they cut out the swatch with what the prosecutor said was blood AND semen, tested a piece of it, and lost the part that was cut out. Clinton was unable to independently test it because they LOST it. Look at every press account and examination of the case. This is completely consistent across all accounts. – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 16:31
  • @PoloHoleSet Which reference discusses semen on "her" underpants? The court case file says only the defendant's underpants were being relied upon as evidence. – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 16:36
  • @DavePhD - you are right, defendant's underpants, not victims. Semen mixed with victim's blood would be very damning, however. – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 17:00
  • @DavePhd - If the evidence is lost, which it was, they aren't going to be able to introduce unverifiable testimony about tests on it. – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 17:05
  • @PoloHoleSet That's not what attorney Norma Chase, who has 38 years of experience and appeared before the US Supreme Court, says, "She never sought to exclude any forensic evidence, **nor would the discarding of the tested portion of the undershorts have been grounds for an order doing so.** This mistake was something about which to cross-examine the toxicologist had the case gone to trial, and something about which to argue to a jury." https://chaseplace.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/what-happened-that-night-and-what-happened-in-court/ – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 17:09
  • @DavePhd - there are plenty of cases where evidence was excluded for these reasons, so I'd have to say she is wrong about this. Destruction, like this, does not allow for a defendant to perform allowed discovery (independently verify results), or to challenge the testimony. Here is an attorney talking about how they got exactly such a suppression ruling on a case, so saying that it would not happen is clearly inaccurate - http://www.ramsayresults.com/destruction-of-evidence-a-post-script-to-our-freedom-through-independence-blog-series – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 18:29
  • @PoloHoleSet The Supreme Court unanimously held " The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require that law enforcement agencies preserve breath samples in order to introduce the results of breath analysis tests at trial, and thus, here, the State's failure to preserve breath samples for respondents did not constitute a violation of the Federal Constitution" https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/479/ – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 18:37
  • @DavePhD - since we're not talking about breath samples here (plus citing a 1984 ruling as applies to a 1975 case means... what?), perhaps you should read the REASONS for the ruling. (a) The breath samples were "for the limited purpose of providing raw data for the intoxilyzer." Does not apply. (b) "The constitutional duty to preserve is limited to evidence that might be expected to play a role in the suspects defense." Did not apply in the cited ruling, certainly applies to this case. Not a relevant citation. – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 19:31
  • @PoloHoleSet In the Talyor case, defense would have needed to show that there was "a calculated effort to circumvent the due process requirement". And yes, "a" does apply because sampled portion of the underwear provided raw data for the toxicologist's testing. – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 19:46
  • @DavePhD - No, the evidence was the underwear. The underwear didn't only exist for the purpose of creating a test result. No, due process isn't only violated by intent. There are a number of tests, all of which fail here (there was no other way for the defense to contest the test results, for example, without testing themselves). – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 20:39
  • While I admire your tenacity, please remember your initial argument - that DNA evidence was not lost/destroyed. It was. You are also claiming that had no bearing on the case. It did. All parties involved agree with this. If you want to contest the characterizations of Clinton, and every press report about it, please show some quote from a judge or a prosecutor that Clinton's characterization - that her inability to get independent verification provided her a lever for plea negotiations - is not true. If that were not the case, someone involved with it would have said so, right? – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 20:43
  • You are also citing court rulings that didn't happen for 10, 15, 20 or 30 years after the case. Rulings by a more conservative court decades after this case do not necessarily reflect the accepted understanding of the law at the time of the case. – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 20:44
  • @PoloHoleSet you're entitled to your opinion of what courts in the free world would due. I agree with Norma Chase's analysis. I disagree with use of the word "lost". A certain amount of material is needed to conduct the blood test. There needs to be consideration of how possible it would have been to perform the test and preserve the material, as well as what the normal procedure concerning such samples was at the time. Any more discussion is more suited for lawSE than here because of the hypothetical nature. – DavePhD Feb 22 '17 at 21:19
  • @DavidPhD - Agreed, "a certain amount" is used for testing. They used up some, and did not preserve the rest. If you look at legal requirements in preservation of evidence, "using it all" is not a valid reason, because the defense needs to be able to independently confirm or refute testing results. I disagree with your characterization of this. Nowhere, in any of the materials associated with this claim, is the assertion that the materials were not available because the testing consumed all that was available. Every account refers to this as an error in handling of evidence. – PoloHoleSet Feb 22 '17 at 22:09
  • @DavePhD Again, this whole discussion appears to be *about a different question from the one at the top of the page*. Why not ask that question, clarify the claim that's being addressed, and then write competing answers, with evidence? Comments are not a good format for in-depth analyses of either the claims or the evidence. – IMSoP Feb 23 '17 at 12:54
  • @IMSoP A moderator deleted part of the OP concerning physical evidence, after PoloHole answered. There is no record of the toxicologists results, so the phrase in this answer "the DNA evidence that linked the defendant to the case" is inappropriate. We don't know whether the state destroyed any portion of the underwear beyond what was necessary for conducting the blood test. We don't know if the toxicologist deviated from standard procedure in any way by only returning the underwear minus a cut out portion. (continued below) – DavePhD Feb 23 '17 at 13:53
  • @IMSoP (continued from above) Someone could ask on lawSE whether in 1975 Arkansas a state toxicologist would be permitted to testify about his results without saving enough material for independent testing by the defense, but without the exact circumstances it is a very hypothetical question. We only have Rodham's vague description of the underwear being returned, minus a portion, in an interview years after the case. There is nothing at all about a missing portion in the court case file itself. – DavePhD Feb 23 '17 at 13:58
  • @DavePhD OK, I was unaware of the previous version of the question. However, this discussion is still going well beyond what comments should be for. Why not just say "that claim is no longer in the question, so doesn't need to be addressed", rather than getting into a debate about the facts themselves? – IMSoP Feb 23 '17 at 14:02
  • @IMSoP I respect that Polo answered before the moderator changed the question. I just disagree with parts of points 3 and 6 in this answer. – DavePhD Feb 23 '17 at 14:14
  • @DavePhD - Why would there be in the court case file itself? The case was pleaded out, before formal testimony was ever given. What's available is also incomplete, because a flood destroyed record archives. http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/for-young-hillary-clinton-rape-case-caused-clash-of-ideals-1.12431056Again, you are applying an arbitrary standard. We only have Clinton's account? No, others have been asked about it, including the DA at the time, Gibson, and no one has disputed her accounts. They had every opportunity to. So why shouldn't we accept her version? – PoloHoleSet Feb 23 '17 at 14:16
  • Is my answer more broad than the question, as it stands now? Yes. Did I ignore the original question? No, I dealt with that a couple times in my answer. If this makes my answer superfluous, I'd ask what is notable about the claim in question? Does anyone dispute that Clinton defended a rapist? No. Is it notable that someone running a free legal aid clinic might defend a criminal defendant? No. If my answer is superfluous, then the question is not asking about a notable claim and should be closed. If there is anything notable about the claim, it would be on matters I addressed. – PoloHoleSet Feb 23 '17 at 14:23
  • @PoloHoleSet Which other person or document has information concerning the cut out portion of the underwear? What is your basis for saying "the DNA evidence that linked the defendant to the case"? How do you know that DNA evidence linked the defendant to the case if there are no test results preserved and no DNA testing at the time? How do you know that DNA was destroyed "accidentally"? – DavePhD Feb 23 '17 at 14:36
  • @PoloHoleSet Yes, I think this is a bad question, and I have repeatedly suggested that one or more new questions be opened with more substantial claims, so that they can be answered in the proper format. I have already downvoted the question, as have 9 other users; I do not have the reputation to vote for closure, or see if anyone else has. It seems like the "DNA evidence" claim itself would have scope for a full Question and Answer, into which this discussion could be summarised. – IMSoP Feb 23 '17 at 14:50
  • If a moderator wants to nuke all comments below the one from Sklivvz, I'm fine with that. It turned into a more personal back and forth that resisted being moved to chat. – PoloHoleSet Feb 23 '17 at 14:55
  • @IMSoP It's hard to make an on-topic question about the DNA evidence because I only see one blog that mentions "DNA evidence" and it is in a sentence that begins "She seems to suggest". – DavePhD Feb 23 '17 at 15:13
  • I can talk about all the things that are DNA evidence without using the term "DNA evidence." – PoloHoleSet Feb 23 '17 at 15:24
8

There are additional hand written court documents uploaded by Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post that corroborate the court documents in the OP.

Hillary Rodham represented Thomas Alfred Taylor against the State of Arkansas's charges of rape in the first degree in May of 1975.

Charges were reduced to unlawful fondling of a minor child under age 14 in exchange for a guilty plea.

DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464