Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 8 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Lawyer questions probable cause in Larson case
County attorney offers additional pieces of evidence
Published Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The lawyer for 19-year-old Ashton Larson, one of two young women charged as adults in the case of alleged abuse at Good Samaritan Society of Albert Lea, is still questioning whether there is probable cause to move his client’s case to trial.
During what was a reopened contested omnibus hearing in Freeborn County District Court on Tuesday, the young woman’s lawyer, Evan Larson, indicated that depending on evidence, he will not pursue the issue of whether his client’s charges should have been filed in juvenile court, as argued in August. He will instead focus on the issue of probable cause.
This comes after earlier this month, Freeborn County Attorney Craig Nelson amended the charges to include the time frame dating back to Jan. 14, 2008, for the alleged incidents. Ashton Larson’s birthday is Jan. 14, and during 2008, this is when she turned 18.
The amendment counters the juvenile question.
Ashton Larson
To speak to the probable cause issue, Nelson offered two more pieces of evidence in court on Tuesday, including time records at Good Samaritan Society related to Ashton Larson and others relevant in the case, along with a series of various reports collected by the detective in the case.
The evidence comes in addition to the 10 exhibits already entered to the court: The initial report by an officer with the Albert Lea Police Department, reports of Albert Lea detective Deb Flatness, a DVD of the interview between Ashton Larson, Flatness and Deputy Bob Kindler on May 6, 2008, reports of Kindler, a copy of Ashton Larson’s personnel record from Good Samaritan Society, the abuse and neglect policy of the nursing home, the interview data sheet by Minnesota Department of Health investigator Jolene Bertelsen, a cassette tape of the interview between Bertelsen and Ashton Larson, the public Department of Health report, and a diagram of bedrooms and nursing stations at Good Samaritan Society.
No testimony was given.
Freeborn County District Court Judge Steve Schwab said Evan Larson and Nelson now have until the end of the business day Oct. 26 to submit written memorandums with their arguments regarding this issue.
Then Schwab will take the matter under advisement.
Ashton Larson faces two counts of assault in the fifth degree of a caregiver to a vulnerable adult, one count of criminal abuse of a vulnerable adult, four counts of criminal abuse of a vulnerable adult with sexual contact, two counts of disorderly conduct by a caregiver and one count of mandated reporter failure to report.
Co-defendant Brianna Broitzman, who faces similar charges, is scheduled for trial in April 2010.
Charges in the case came in December after an investigation into the allegations of abuse by local and Minnesota Department of Health officials; however, details of the allegations surfaced August 2008 after the release of the Department of Health’s report.
The report concluded four teenagers were involved in verbal, sexual and emotional abuse of 15 residents at the nursing home in Albert Lea from January through May 2008. The residents suffered from mental degradation conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by bongers45 (anonymous) on September 30, 2009 at 8:43 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by Jake (anonymous) on September 30, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just amazing how long this can take when attorneys get involved. She admitted to doing this in a recorded interview. What other evidence is needed? The words came out of her mouth, she can't take that back. Get it over with already.
Posted by standingby (anonymous) on September 30, 2009 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Had this case involved males, they would be convicted as sex offenders and sitting in prison by now! Amazing huh!
Posted by bongers45 (anonymous) on September 30, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
standingby,
you are right. If it were males involved they would be just as you said. And I am a woman saying this, but its so true
Posted by snowbird1 (anonymous) on September 30, 2009 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We all know this will go on & on and eventually will end with neither one of them being accountable for their actions. Standingby is right males would have been prosecuted in no longer than a month. And they call this justice.
Posted by taxpayer (anonymous) on September 30, 2009 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is such a sad situation. Not for the accused, I could care less about them, but for the victims and their families. It looks like all we can hope for now if they are not justifiabily punished, which they probably will not be, is that this story will be heard by enough people that their reputations will follow them throught their entire lives and this event will haunt them for a long, long time to come.
Posted by wingo (anonymous) on September 30, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't care how old they were at the time of the alledged crime, they should have ALL been charged as adults. If they aren't adults, maybe the hiring age should be made higher! They all had training and know right from wrong. ENOUGH SAID!!!!!
Posted by chrish (anonymous) on September 30, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point. What is the criteria for charging someone as a juvenille or an adult?
Any criminal attorneys reading this that can answer that question?
I also agree with standingby on the gender issue. Men and women should be treated equally in terms of criminal prosecution. Look at cases where an adult female engages with a minor male. Not looked on as harshly as if an adult male engaged with a minor female. If we want true gender equality, all needs to be fair.
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.)