Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 19 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Victims’ advocate meets county attorney
Wes Bledsoe: Meeting was ‘very productive’
Published Monday, December 15, 2008
The founder and president of a nationally known nursing home watchdog group met with Freeborn County Attorney Craig Nelson on Friday to discuss the allegations of abuse at Good Samaritan Society of Albert Lea.
Wes Bledsoe, of nonprofit organization A Perfect Cause, described the gathering with Nelson and four members of his staff as “a very productive meeting.”
On Dec. 1, Nelson’s office filed charges with Freeborn County District Court against Albert Lea High School graduates Brianna Broitzman, 19, and Ashton Larson, 18, with more than 10 counts each, for allegations including criminal abuse of a vulnerable adult and assault in the fifth degree at the nursing home. Bledsoe, who is from Oklahoma, appeared on NBC’s “Today” show on Dec. 4 soon after the morning program aired a segment on the local case.
Four other juveniles were charged for mandated failure to report the suspected abuse. The teenagers are all now adults.
Wes Bledsoe
The abuse allegedly took place from January to May. The details of the allegations surfaced to the public when the Minnesota Department of Health release its findings in August. The report concluded four teenagers were involved in verbal, sexual and emotional abuse of 15 residents at the nursing home in Albert Lea. The residents suffered from mental degradation conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.
Bledsoe, along with other community members, have questioned the strength of the charges and the possible sentences that have been filed. He said in an earlier interview he thinks someone who allegedly took part in verbal, sexual and emotional abuse should be charged with higher charges.
Hurdles with the case are that the reported victims cannot testify and there are no witnesses.
Nelson sent a copy of charging guidelines on Friday morning.
Craig Nelson
The guidelines include what a charging decision should include, what factors to consider when forming charges and what are inappropriate considerations for charges. The entire copy of the charging guidelines received by the Tribune is included as a sidebar to this story.
Bledsoe said he offered Nelson the option of meeting a world-renowned expert who has worked with the FBI and the Department of Justice on cases involving dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
Nelson seemed to be receptive to the offer, Bledsoe said.
The group talked about different Minnesota statutes.
The victims’ advocate said he is searching out information from current or former employees or from any other person who might be associated with the case. They can share that information with the Albert Lea Police Department, the Freeborn County Sheriff’s Office and the Attorney’s Office.
He’s looking for anyone who has copies of any alleged videos or photographs of the victims.
“There is absolute potential to modify the charges with any information we can further develop,” he said.
The Albert Lea Police Department and Freeborn County Sheriff’s Office can be reached at 377-5205.
Freeborn County Attorney’s Office charging guidelines:
- Prosecutorial discretion
If a citation is not initially issued by an officer, the decision to initiate criminal charges (or in a rare case to present a case to a grand jury), rests within the discretion of the County Attorney’s Office. By its very nature, the exercise of this discretion cannot be reduced to a formula. This discretion, however, should be exercised as fairly and uniformly as possible in accordance with the following guidelines.
- Propriety of the charges
The County Attorney’s Office should file only those charges which can be substantiated by available and admissible evidence at trial, but this office is not obligated and likely will not file all possible charges which might be supported by the available evidence. The charge or charges selected should adequately reflect the nature of the conduct in question and should be consistent with the interests of justice. (It is within the sole discretion of the county attorney to decide when it is necessary to seek the assistance of a grand jury in the charging process in all cases.)
- Upon receipt of a completed investigation report from the Albert Lea Police Department/Freeborn County Sheriff’s Office or the Minnesota State Patrol, the reports will be reviewed as promptly as possible by the County Attorney’s Office. A charging decision shall consist of the following:
a. A complaint shall be drafted. (Whether the complaint is a summons, warrant or order for detention is a factual determination also made by the County Attorney’s Office); or
b. The investigative agency shall be directed to issue a citation charging a particular offense(s); or
c. The investigator/investigation agency shall be asked to provide further investigation so a charging decision can be made; or
d. The investigating agency/LEC records shall be notified that no charges will be issued.
- Factors to consider
Factors which will be considered by the county attorney in making the charging decision shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Whether or not sufficient probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed and that a particular person committed the crime.
b. Whether or not all necessary evidence has been gathered.
c. Whether the investigation/arrest presents search and seizure or other constitutional concerns materially detrimental to a successful prosecution.
d. The probability of a conviction based upon a review of the evidence that can reasonably be presented at trial.
e. The characteristics of the offender (i.e. dangerousness, criminal history, the presence of obvious mitigating defenses, etc.)
f. The nature and circumstances of the offense and the sanctions or punishments that would most likely be imposed if a conviction is obtained.
g. The valid and substantiated interests of the victim(s).
h. Undue hardship or good faith reluctance of witnesses to testify.
i. Any mitigating or aggravating factual circumstances.
j. The deterrent value of the prosecution to the offender and to society in general;
k. Application of community standards.
l. A history of non-enforcement of the statute.
m. The cost of prosecution (time and money) and the ability of this office to support that cost in relation to the seriousness of the offense.
n. The availability of adequate civil remedies to a victim and whether a victim is “promoting” prosecution to accomplish primarily a civil or “collection goal.
o. The age of the offense (after reviewing the reasons for delay in investigation or prosecution).
p. The willingness of the accused to cooperate with law enforcement and aid in the apprehension and conviction of others, equally or more culpable.
s. The likelihood of prosecution by another criminal justice authority (jurisdiction/venue).
- Inappropriate considerations
a. The County Attorney’s Office should not charge more serious offenses only as a means to leverage the accused to plead guilty to lesser charges.
b. The County Attorney’s Office should not file charges for the purpose of obtaining from a defendant a release of potential civil claims against victims, witnesses or law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies or personnel.
c. The County Attorney’s Office should not consider any personal or political advantage a prosecution may bring.
d. The County Attorney’s Office shall not consider in any way the race, gender, social status, sexual orientation or the economic status of the accused, victim and/or witnesses when making the charging decision.
- Specific charging considerations
a. Misdemeanors: As a general rule, lesser included misdemeanor offenses should not be charged with felony counts.
b. Victims contact: In cases involving a crime against a person, the victim should be contacted. If the victim cannot be contacted prior to charging, efforts should be made to contact the victim as soon as possible. Upon contacting the victim, the prosecutor or his or her representative (the victim advocate) should discuss with the victim the general allegations, charges, court procedures and victim’s rights.
c. Statements of the suspect: Every effort should be made to obtain a statement from the suspect prior to charging. The requirements of State v. Scales must apply (i.e., all statements from a suspect must be recorded).
d. Forfeitures: When law enforcement has seized potentially forfeitable property, law enforcement should notify the County Attorney’s Office and separately request initiation of a civil forfeiture action or representation by the County Attorney’s Office at an administrative forfeiture proceeding, if any is requested.
e. Identification of victims and witnesses in charging instruments: Victims and witnesses shall be referred to by generic terms or initials rather than by their name(s). Sexual assault victims shall be referred to as “the victims” or initials rather than by name.
f. Firearms or where prior offenses have enhanced the offense: Whenever a firearm has been determined to have been used during the commission of a crime or where prior offenses have enhanced the offense, the charges shall reflect the appropriate mandatory minimum sentences under M.S. 609.11.
g. Drug testing: It is the policy of this office that drug cases shall be charged on the basis of positive field testing and weighing.
Dated: Nov. 13, 2003,
Craig S. Nelson
Freeborn County Attorney
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Was an attempt made to gather cell phone and computer records?
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The information below is excellent news:
»»...Bledsoe said he offered Nelson the option of meeting a world-renowned expert who has worked with the FBI and the Department of Justice on cases involving dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
Nelson seemed to be receptive to the offer, Bledsoe said...««
Is there a mechanism for cost-sharing with the state for experts, particularly since they declined to prosecute? Can any potential expert(s) cost be shared with Chippewa county in the Montevideo case? Still anxious to see that charges are filed in that case too...
Posted by algal (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a question... why would anyone else come forward at this time with new information when those who have so far are being prosecuted for failing to report? If anyone else comes up with new evidence, wouldn't they also be just as "guilty" as the minors that are being charged with failing to report and risk having charges brought against them as well? It seems to me that the charges against the minors would prevent any new information from coming to light. Maybe if those charges were dropped, more witnesses could come forward without fear of prosecution. Just a thought.
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ algal
Yes, if someone is a mandatory reporter, I can see where there might be hesitation...
But, if someone was just friends with one of the girls and not a CNA...
Or perhaps friends or family and was visiting the NH...
If someone can testify to something they heard discussed or saw on a cell phone or a My Space or Facebook page...
Heck, courage in coming forward might help a young person to decide to pursue law...
Posted by algal (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But that would just be rumors. Hard evidence would have more impact. Actual witness to the crimes. Hearsay doesn't get you very far in a court of law. Actual witnesses would be crazy to come forward now. They would (or should) get charged with a crime if the minors did.
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder...
Maybe there is someone in housekeeping? They, like everyone else have to maintain confidentiality, but are perhaps not mandatory reporters? Does anyone know?
Perhaps another resident who had a friend on the dementia ward, and at the time heard something, but thought their friend with dementia was just making something up? Someone's minister or priest was told something and again just dismissed it?
Posted by algal (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is still the possibilty of actual hard eveidence being lost forever by a co-worker who is afraid to come forward. They would be the ones who would have the most impact in a court of law. I think anyone who works at a nursing home (housekeeping included) would be considered a mandated reporter.
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@ algal
I found a link for the Minneapolis police which says this: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/c...
»»Mandated reporter. A professional or professional's delegate while engaged in: social services, law enforcement, education, medical examiner, health care, the care of vulnerable adults, or any employee of a facility licensed for care of vulnerable adults.««
Being a curious person, I wanted to actually see it in the statues. So far, this is what I've found:
626.5572, Subdivision 16: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stat...
»»Subd. 16.Mandated reporter."Mandated reporter" means a professional or professional's delegate while engaged in: (1) social services; (2) law enforcement; (3) education; (4) the care of vulnerable adults; (5) any of the occupations referred to in section 214.01, subdivision 2; (6) an employee of a rehabilitation facility certified by the commissioner of jobs and training for vocational rehabilitation; (7) an employee or person providing services in a facility as defined in subdivision 6; or (8) a person that performs the duties of the medical examiner or coroner.««
214.01, subdivision 2: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stat...
»»Subd. 2.Health-related licensing board."Health-related licensing board" means the Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators established pursuant to section 144A.19, the Office of Unlicensed Complementary and Alternative Health Care Practice established pursuant to section 146A.02, the Board of Medical Practice created pursuant to section 147.01, the Board of Nursing created pursuant to section 148.181, the Board of Chiropractic Examiners established pursuant to section 148.02, the Board of Optometry established pursuant to section 148.52, the Board of Physical Therapy established pursuant to section 148.67, the Board of Psychology established pursuant to section 148.90, the Board of Social Work pursuant to section 148D.025, the Board of Marriage and Family Therapy pursuant to section 148B.30, the Office of Mental Health Practice established pursuant to section 148B.61, the Board of Behavioral Health and Therapy established by section 148B.51, the Board of Dietetics and Nutrition Practice established under section 148.622, the Board of Dentistry established pursuant to section 150A.02, the Board of Pharmacy established pursuant to section 151.02, the Board of Podiatric Medicine established pursuant to section 153.02, and the Board of Veterinary Medicine established pursuant to section 156.01.««
Hmm... Housekeeping is not a direct care provider and someone who is not a licensed dietitian or aid, just a server...
Since I don't see it in the statues, perhaps there is some case law? Any legal eagles?
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's some more interesting links:
Minnesota’s Vulnerable Adult Act by Elder Care Right Alliance: http://www.eldercarerights.org/vertical/...
On Elder Law Prof's Blog, Minnesota Vulnerable Adults Act Coalition compiles elder abuse documents (21 documents), June 25, 2008: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/elder_l...
Posted by Cheyenne (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Housekeepers at Good Sam would be mandatory reporters because they are employee(s)of a facility that is licensed to care for vulnerable persons. This is covered in the first quotation nisperos made from the Minneapolis Police it is the last sentence of that quote.
Posted by algal (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well then, how do they expect any other employees to come forward with any evidence if they are sure to get charged with a crime? I don't think Mr Nelson thought this whole process out very well when he started filing charges on everyone. Even if the minors did have more evidence to bring forward, they're not about to do so now.
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@ Cheyenne....
Reason I looked up the actual state statues:
There may be additional local ordinances that are "in addition" to state law. (Hence what's on the "Minneapolis" police site).
OR
There may be case law or state regulation interpreting the statues which establishes this...
Maybe there's Federal law pertaining to nursing homes which covers this?
Just wanting to know the source... Maybe the press could track this down?
Here's another interesting link:
Center of Excellence in Elder Abuse and Neglect at the University of California, Irvine: http://www.centeronelderabuse.org/page.c...
Posted by nurse_irene (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Housekeeping staff are not mandated reporters. Most ancillary employees can and should, of course, report any abuse they witness because it is the right thing to do.
Abuse cases can proceed without direct witnesses. This is sometimes how child abuse cases are decided when the child is too young to testify on his own behalf.
Sometimes there is documentation in the medical record of changes in the patient's mental or emotional condition such as increased agitation, fearfulness or withdrawal that are the direct result of abuse. The same symptoms are seen in abused children. This is not likely to factor into this case, as the victim's cognitive and emotional status is too deteriorated (according to the Health Dept RN evaluation) to judge these types of changes.
Irene Burrows, RN
Seattle, WA
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 15, 2008 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Irene...
Posted by Sainteddaughter (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 12:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The hard evidence is in plain sight. Teenagers live on the internet and cell phones. It stands to reason they communicated and documented their "alleged" crimes via IM, text messaging, video and picture messaging and more. This stuff lives on the servers FOREVER, and can be retrieved easily.
The Mayor of Detroit was recently brought down by text-messaging. What's Nelson waiting for? Oh that's right, for this to go away.
Posted by ALYLESTUD (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
if a mandated reporter reports something he/she is free of prosecution. I work with vulnerable children and that what our training says.
Posted by algal (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ALYLESTUD - Yes, but these girls do not work at the NH anymore and haven’t for quite some time. Anything brought up at this time by a mandated reporter would have been witnessed quite a while ago. What would make the new witnesses exempt from charges any more than the minors charged with failure to report?
My point is that Mr Bledsoe is looking for any past and present employees to come forward with new evidence, yet when the four minors did so they were charges with crimes. They were not forced to do so. They were "invited" (according to the police report) to come in and report what they saw or heard. How is that any different from asking new witnesses to come in at this time?
Everyone has heard about this case, if they haven't come forward yet with new evidence, they would be just as guilty as the four minor girls.
Maybe this is the reason more people do not step forward and report abuse more often. I can see why perhaps these girls or any other witnesses would be afraid of coming forward more often. They're likely to get charged with some offense and treated as if they are just as guilty as if they were the alleged abusers themselves.
However, if any new mandated reporters do come forward at this time and they are not charged with failure to report, how can the prosecution justify the charges against the minors then? I guess it just doesn't make sense to me. I would like to see new witnesses come forward if they're out there. I just don't see why they would at this time.
I also believe that with all of the pictures of the girls that have been taken from their myspace and facebook pages and thrown around all over the internet, the so called videos and pictures would have surfaced by now if they truly existed. No one has come forward to say that they have seen any such videos. Maybe they just don’t exist.
Posted by rlwr51 (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If anyone has information / pictures it would be in their own best interest to turn them in. Even if they get in trouble for not reporting it right away. At least then it will be over with and they won't have to spend the rest of their lives with this on their mind. Being able to look in a mirror and not be ashamed to look yourself in the eye is worth a whole lot.It might take a lot of cougage, but in the end you will have something to be proud of yourself about.
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
National Center on Elder Abuse, U.S. Administration on Aging: http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/NCEAroot/Main_Si...
Elder Abuse In Residential Long-Term Care Facilities: What Is Known About Prevalence, Causes, And Prevention Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, Catherine Hawes, Ph.D., Professor Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Rural Public Health, Texas A&M University System Health Science Center, College Station, Texas. June 18, 2002: http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testi...
NURSING HOMES. More Can Be Done to Protect Residents from Abuse. GAO, March 2002: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02312.pdf
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
The Tribune encourages healthy, respectful dialogue in the spirit of community enlightenment. It's OK to disagree, but be courteous and civil. Name-calling, vulgarity and claims of criminality are subject to removal.
(Requires free registration.)