Facebook Twitter



I was repulsed and saddened by Brian West's article titled "W.V. girl's testimony could be suppressed," in the Deseret News, Sept. 14, concerning the hearing of Michael Wayne Yoder, accused of child molestation and kidnapping.

I am convinced the writers of the Constitution had the rights of innocent citizens in mind when amendments against illegal search and seizure were written and that their intention was never to provide the guilty a means of escape from the consequences of breaking the law. Unfortunately, this fact must not often be discussed in this nation's law schools.Certainly, if attorneys believe their clients to be innocent, they must attempt everything possible to secure a fair trial or acquittal, especially if their clients' rights have been violated.

Given the findings in this case, such a belief would seem ridiculous. Although I believe Yoder's attorneys think they are protecting the Constitution and providing their client with the best legal counsel possible, they could not be more mistaken. Both the good of the public and Yoder would best be served with his speedy conviction, his removal from society and his enrollment in sex-offender rehabilitation.

I was also shocked at the delay of nearly three months anticipated before the judge in this case will respond to the defense motion before the bench.

The fact that this motion should require any deliberation at all suggests that something is terribly wrong, not only with the system, but also perhaps with those who sit in positions of judgeship and are paid by us, the taxpayers.

My congratulations to the police involved in this case for saving the innocent girl's life. Even if the unthinkable should happen and the judge should rule in the favor of the defense, these officers can sleep at night knowing what good they have done.

Can the defense attorneys and judge in the case say the same? I wonder.

D. Harris

Salt Lake City