Roy Wilford Minton

Roy W. Minton's News Forum
Case No: 92-109CF
Date of the Crime: 12-25-1991, 3-20-1992, 4-24-1992
Date of Conviction: 4-19-1993
Sentence: Life imprisonment with a 25 year minimum mandatory, and five (5) years plus five (5) years imprisonment.
for three counts of sexual battery on a child under 12 (F.S.§ 794.011),
LEWD and Lascivious Conduct (F.S.§ 800.04) and False Imprisonment (F.S.§ 787.03(3)(a))
All sentences were ordered to run concurrent.

Roy Wilford Minton

possibly Innocent In Florida

Roy Wilford Minton
# 786933
Columbia Correctional Inst. Annex
216 SE Corrections Way
Lake City, FL 32025
USA

DOB 12-20-1968

THE CASE

Introduction

The alleged victim accused and the state charged that the defendent Roy W. Minton committed a criminal act upon the victim between December 25th, 1991 and January 2nd, 1992.
The timeline could have been rebutted.

On December 25, 1991 both the defendent and his wife Valerie Minton were off work and later had dinner at Wilford and Claudia Minton's residence. The alleged victim was never alone with the defendant on that Christmas day.

On December 26, 1991 the victim and her brother Lee spent the day at the Burkett residence - the victim's and her brother's biological paternal family and Valerie's ex-husband William Burkett. The defendant worked that day from 6:52 AM until 3:02 PM. The defendant's wife picked the children up at a Pic-N-Save store after 6:00 PM. The mother was present in the family residence thereafter and did not leave the victim and defendant alone.

On December 27, 1991 the defendant reported to his employment at 6:50 AM until 3:00 PM. Thereafter both remained home with the children (including defendant's and wife's own biological daughter).

On December 28, 1991 both the defendant and his wife were both in the residence. The defendant was sick. It was the wife's day off.
The defendant suffered a relapse from a previous illness on December 29, 1991. The defendant was not alone with the above mentioned children.

Defendant reported to work at 6:50 AM until 3:00 PM. Valerie was at the residence, further, the child was not alone with the defendant. Jeanette Mares was present in the residence from 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM attending to Angela (victim).
This occurred on December 30, 1991.

Valerie Minton remained home on December 31, 1991. The defendant worked from 6:50 AM until 3:00 PM. Thereafter the defendant and his wife had a party with guests present. Thus, the defendant was not alone with the alleged victim.

On January 1, 1992 the defendant reported to work from 6:50 AM until 3:00 PM. Valerie (his wife) worked from 12:00 PM until 9:00 PM. Again the defendant was not alone with the alleged victim.

It should be noted that from December 13, 1991 through January 2, 1992 Jeanette Mares was present with these children at all times when the mother (Valerie) was not present in the household. This person was present in the household due the children being released for the Christmas recess on December 20, 1991 and ended January 2, 1992. This was partly due to the work schedules of the defendant and his wife and to further insure direct supervision of the children. Although defendant may have been present at the residence a babysitter was needed so that the defendant could work uninterrupted on extensive home improvements. Because the sitter kept a vigilant eye upon the children at no time could the defendant have been alone with the alleged victim.

The alleged victim in this case also stated, and the state charged that the defendant committed a sexual act on the day she "was written up". The date of the "write up" was documented as March 21, 1992. One must wonder, how a child receives any type of disciplinary action from a school employee on Saturday.(See Exhibit A.) In regards of the fact that the alleged victim gave a specific time and date the state alleged on or about March 20, 1992. But the defendant's work schedule revealed that he was working at the time the victim says the acts occurred, 6:48 AM until 3:00 PM on March 20, 1992.
On March 21, 1992 the defendant worked from 6:50 AM to 11:00 AM. His wife remained home with the children.

The alleged victim in this case also alleged that the defendant committed sexual acts during the last week of April 1992.
On April 24, 1992 the defendant worked from 6:54 AM to 5:00 PM.

On April 25, 1992 the defendant worked from 6:58 AM to 2:00 PM. Angela (the alleged victim) was not at home. A friend, Bill (William) Cason, had dropped her off at her friend's house (Ginger) to spend the night.

On April 26, 1992 the defendant was off work. Valerie got off work at 5:00 PM. However, before arriving home the wife picked Angela (alleged victim) up from her friend's (Ginger) home, where she spent the previous night. Angela was picked up at approximately 5:00 PM and was accompanied by her friend, Ginger, and her mother to attend a birthday at the defendant's residence for her brother and sister, Sonya and Lee.

On April 27, 1992 the defendant worked from 6:45 AM to 8:00 PM. Valerie worked between these same hours and arrived home at 5:00 PM. The entire family went out to dinner.

On April 28, 1992 the defendant went to work from 6:45 AM till 4:00 PM. Again Valerie (wife) worked between these hours and arrived home before the defendant.

On April 29, 1992 the wife did not work (day off) while the defendant worked from 6:50 AM until 4:00 PM.

Based on the above facts it can be established that the defendant's work records show that he was working at the time that the alleged acts occurred. Alternatively, and in conjunction with the defendant's work records the wife's (Valerie) work records establish that the defendant was not alone with the alleged victim at any time. And finally the babysitter Jeanette Mares was present at any time that Valerie was not. Simply put the defendant never had any opportunity to commit any of the alleged sexual acts, because he was never alone with her. Additionally, Jeanette actually became a resident in this home, because her own mobile home was undergoing repairs to the floor area. Based upon the above facts it can and has been shown that counsel failed to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation for failing to obtain the defendant's work records as well as Valerie's to conclusively show that the defendant could not have committed the instant offenses.

Counsel also failed to obtain pertiment medical records and consult, depose and call for trial the defendant's physician. Before the alleged acts took place and well before the union of the defendant and his wife the defendant was treated for a veneral disease that resulted in surgery of the defendant's penis. At the completion of the surgery the defendant was left with a severely scarred and deformed sexual organ, the severity of which when erect causes an abnormal appearance. Indeed, an abnormality that would not be described by a child as "long and has a circle on top and it has a dot." To be sure the defendant and his wife could not have sex by conventional means. To eleminate discomfort special positions had to be instituted. This fact shows also that counsel failed to perform an adequate pretrial investigation where the physician and surgeons who treated the defendant could have testified to the above.

Counsel failed to also bring forth facts that would have shown the inconsistencies of the child's allegations:

First, the alleged victim alleged that the defendant made her stand upon rim of the tub (sketch - click here, pdf), hold on to the wall and spread her legs (Report of Ms. Monogue/ teacher). This scenario is virtually impossible. The alleged victim was 4'3'' at the time of alleged offenses. Thus in order for the victim to stand on the edge of the tube and lean against the wall the victim's genital area would exceed the edge of the tub by at least 24 inches. If the defendant then moved to the outer edge of the tub, the defendant would need a penis at least 2 foot long!

Another inconsistency is that the alleged victim stated and testified that the defendant "just put it in". This is easily refuted by the fact that in any circumstance without some type of lubrication the defendant faces the impossible task of just putting it in without a major resistance. This is true, and common sense dictates, that not even a sexually active and mature sexual partner could accomodate this task. To be sure this type of trauma would be readily apparent and cause more than the slight discomfort that the alleged victim says she experienced. Trial counsel failed to investigate these facts.

Counsel had he investigated would have discovered that the alleged victim's allegations were also inconsistent when all the facts are revealed. The alleged victim alleged that she was sodomized in both of the household bathrooms. The shower in the master bedroom could not be utilized some two months before the instant allegations were made. The master bedroom shower was not repaired until after April 6, 1992. The defendant had and still has the receipts where the necessary supplies were purchased from Corbetts Mobile Home Center, Inc. to make the repairs. This evidence would have discounted the allegations, because the victim alleged the penetration occurred on and after December 25, 1991 and January 2, 1992 in both the master bedroom shower and the main bathroom.

The other allegations involve oral contact in the living-room. The victim's allegations are seriously flawed.

Counsel also ignored evidence and testimony that the allegation of LEWO and lascivious conduct could not be true. Trial counsel was advised that the acts could not have taken place on the porch, because of the simple fact that the porch did not exist on the date. Specifically, the alleged victim stated that the abuse took place on the same day that she was disciplined at school. The date established was March 21, 1991, which happens to be on a Saturday.

Defendant avers that the porch was not accessible until April 1991. Based upon this information the alleged acts could not have been committed.

Trial counsel had this information available to him and was even offered to him in order to put forth a viable defense at trial. Trial counsel ignored the above facts and failed to perform even a cursory investigation in order to marshal out the facts. Based upon the above facts, and had they been presented at trial a likely probability exists that a different outcome would have been rendered with a not guilty verdict by the jury.

The defendant requested that postconviction counsel raise the instant claim. The request was not honored. The defendant has been adjudicated for crimes he did not commit. Had the above claim been raised it would have established the defendant's innocence. If the above claim is not heared it will result in a manifest injustice. The claim raised constitutes a constitutional issue that if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses.

Counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain an expert witness with expertise in child sexual abuse to refute the state's theory of prosecution.

The alleged victim in this case unequivocally alleged that the defendant penetrated her anus with his penis. There was no wavering. The child protection team doctor found an anus that was normal in all respects. Thus began the double speck and states everything is normal concerning the anus but suspicious findings surround the vaginal area (see Exhibit C (pdf)). The victim alleged no vaginal contact. There was nothing in this case to suggest that sexual abuse had occurred. To the contrary, ample evidence and facts clearly show a witch hunt instigated by an untruthful child.

Normal and non-specific genital findings include:
hymenal tags, hymenal bumpsor mounds, labial adhesions. cleft or notches in the anterior half of the hymen, vaginal discharge, genital or anal erythema, perianal skin tags, anal fissures, anal dilation with stool in ampulla.
So, if any of these findings are made it does not mean that sexual abuse occurred. Of course, as in the case here, if any of the above findings are made by C.P.T. makes a statement that although it does not prove sexual abuse occurred it still attempts to muddy the waters by stating it cannot rule out abuse due to time spans and proof may really be found.

As it would relate to the instant case there were no physical findings such as marked anal dilation nor anal scarring that would indicate or even be considered suspicious. To be sure, physical findings that are diagnostic of penetrating trauma would have shown evidence of acute laceration of ecchymosis of the hymen, or deep anal laceration. None of the findings were made, because the sexual assault never occurred. The examination doctor noted no evidence of bruising, fissuring, funneling or gaping that would suggest abuse. The above information was obtained from the Columbia Medical Journal Vol.46, No.3, pp.123-127.

In the injustice system reliance upon expert testimony is based upon the assumption that there is a real expertise so that as expert has knowledge that can assist the finder-of-fact in reaching the most accurate decision possible. If that expertise does not exist, there will be a large amount of incompetent and error ridden opinion offered to the courts under mantile of objective science. It may be that the most appropriate and helpful expert opinion is to show that there is no trustworthy evidence on either side. There is no virtue in attempting to maintain some sort of balance, saying "on the other hand...but on the other...", when there is data that demonstrates a given direction.

In dealing with child sexual abuse, there is a discernible tilt in the direction of supporting defense consideration of false positives and concern for false accusations.
An expert could have assisted the jury in this case in reaching an accurate decision had counsel attempted to obtain one. The record in this case is riddled with inconsistent and rebutable accusations that could have easily been put before the jury. Trial counsel needed only contact the Sexual Assault Resource Service, Linda Ledray, Ph.D. RN, FAAN to obtain an expert in the field of child sexual abuse who would have been available to testify. Other experts that would have been available to testify include Bays J., C Hadwick D: Medical Diagnosis of the Sexually Abused Child. Wall, K.R. and Ricci, L.R. The role of the nurse in the child sexual abuse examination, adolescent and pediatric gynecology (1994).

Also I would like to address the fact that not only was I denied my right to a fair trial and the right to due process of law as guaranteed by the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in many ways but the police reports never show any investigative work done by F.D.L.E. (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) to take D.N.A. samples from the alleged crime scene nor cloths worn by alleged victim and defendant as described by alleged victim in deposition. This is standard police procedure.
The F.D.L.E. is right in the same town as I was charged about four or five miles from the alleged crime scene.

April 17, 2006: Roy Wilford Minton has passed the polygraph test. Polygraph Report

Father, Uncles and Cousins of the Alleged Victim

William L. Burkett (victim's father) (pdf)

Testimony of Protective Investigator HRS, Mr. Box (pdf)

Henry Clayton Burkett (pdf)

Burkett (Florida DOC Inmate Information)
You also may click on the pictures to find further information at www.dc.state.fl.us

How you can help

I need a defense attorney, because my experience is that one is not taken seriously "pro se".

External Links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Oak%2C_Florida
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Live Oak, Suwannee County, Florida, USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suwannee_County%2C_Florida
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Suwannee County, Florida, USA

RSS Atom Newsgator Rojo Pluck