The Salina Journal from Salina, Kansas on January 17, 1986 · Page 3
Get access to this page with a Free Trial

The Salina Journal from Salina, Kansas · Page 3

Publication:
Location:
Salina, Kansas
Issue Date:
Friday, January 17, 1986
Page:
Page 3
Start Free Trial
Cancel

Local/Kansas The Salina Journal Friday, January 17,1986 Page 3 Jury to continue deliberations today By CAROL LICHTI Staff Writer A Saline County jury will attempt to decide today whether to believe the testimony of a Sauna man who said a woman he never had met before invited him off the street and. into her apartment. Nathan L. Haggard, 25, 1227 N. Ninth, is accused of breaking into the woman's apartment Sept. 6, raping her and robbing her of $12. Testimony in the trial on charges of aggravated burglary, rape, aggravated sodomy and robbery concluded Thursday. The jury of seven women and five men is. scheduled to resume deliberations today. Jurors discussed the case for almost three hours Thursday and, at one point, asked that the victim's testimony be read to them. Haggard testified Thursday he was walking home at about 1 a.m. Sept. 6 when he heard someone yell, "Hey, come here," and saw a person waving to him. He went over and talked to the woman for a few moments before she invited nun inside, he said. < The defendant testified that the woman initiated sexual relations with him and that she consented to ,the sexual acts that occurred during the six hours he spent with her. Haggard explained to the jury why he took the woman's driver's license, $12 and a personal letter. She was concerned, he said, that he would not come back to see her that night. "I'll take these three to prove to you I'll come back," he said he told the woman. Haggard said the window in the woman's apartment, through which she testified he entered, was big enough for him crawl through. But he said it would have been difficult for him to enter her apartment that way. During cross examination by Saline County Attorney Mickey Mosier, Haggard said it was not unusual for strange women to proposition him on the street. He said it had happened three previous times; however, he admitted that in one of those instances the woman reported he had raped her. He was not convicted of the accusations. In testimony Wednesday, the victim said Haggard crawled through her window at about 2:45 a.m. and threatened her and her daughter after she screamed. She also said she tried to befriend Haggard and asked him to come back so she could have the police there to arrest him. In closing statements, Haggard's attorney, Public Defender George Robertson, argued that the decaying wood in the window through which the woman said Haggard climbed would not have supported his weight. He also said that the size of the window would have made it impossible for Haggard to climb through the way the woman described. Robertson also tried to discredit the woman's testimony by saying that if the woman had been choked as she described bruises or red marks should have been found on her body. Her scream did not wake upxher sleeping daughter and was heard by no one, he said. He also stressed that some of what the woman said did not agree with what she had told police and that she did not remember other things she had said. Robertson told the jury the woman's attempts to befriend Haggard were "reverse psychology" and so effective was her act that she suffered no bruises and Haggard agreed to come back. However, Mosier said, "there is no requirement that a woman must fight her assailant. There is no requirement she must sustain physical injury or be bruised." The woman was overcome by force and fear, he said. She did the proper thing by trying to befriend Haggard and not risking a severe beating or injury to her daughter. Mosier said that the woman "would have no reason to go through such grief and face such insinuations if she didn't want her assailant caught and prosecuted." He referred to Haggard as "an egotistical rapist who was easily deceived by a woman who decided the only way to get through this thing was to convince him that he is the greatest thing going." Phelps' firm responds to complaint from judges TOPEKA (AP) — The Phelps- Chartered law firm Thursday asked a three-judge panel to throw out a complaint lodged against the firm by nine federal judges in Kansas. In an 18-page motion filed with the U.S. District Court here, the Phelps family asked that the complaint be stricken from the record "as if it never existed." "They say we attack judges for the simple purpose of attacking judges and that isn't true," said Margie Phelps, spokeswoman for the firm and one of seven members of the family named in the judges' complaint. Phelps said she was unable to adequately construct and lay out her arguments in support of the motion to strike because she is bound by federal law which prohibits discussion of judicial complaints. On Dec. 16, a three-judge panel issued an order giving the Phelps family lawyers 30 days to respond to the complaint filed by the Kansas judges. In the complaint, the judges alleged that the Phelps firm had "impugned the integrity" of the federal court by knowingly making false and intemperate accusations" against its member. The complaints charged the Phelps had attempted "a vicious pattern of intimidation" against the federal court system in the state. The nine judges accused the Phelps of making reckless allegations against the court. Screenings help detect problems early By JILL CASEY Staff Writer Miranda — Mandy for short — furrowed her brow in concentration Thursday as she sat attentively in a soundproof room listening through her headphones to an audiologist. Audiologist Allan White gradually turned down the sound as he asked her to pick out the toothbrush, ice cream cone, hot dog, fire truck, sailboat and bathtub from pictures spread on a desk in front of her. Physicians and specialists have been peering into Miranda's ears and testing her reactions to sound since she was an infant, and Thursday she and her mom received some good news. "Her hearing is excellent in both ears," was the word from White, an audiologist with the Central Kansas Cooperative in Education. "Good!" said her mom, Jennice Martin. "You can hear even if you sometimes act like you can't." Miranda, now two years and eight months old, was one of about 29 children under the age of five who participated in a screening clinic at the Central Kansas Cooperative in Education, 3023 Canterbury. On hand to help with the screening were hearing and vision specialists, speech and language therapists and experts in cognitive and motor development. Jane Martin, the interagency coordinator for the cooperative, orchestrates the .clinics by bringing the specialists together. She draws the specialists from the cooperative staff, St. John's Infant Stimulation program, the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services, the Saline County Health Department and the health departments of surrounding counties. The goal, she said, is to discover problems early so they can be evaluated and treated early. Advocates of preschool handicapped services say the detection and treatment of disorders early in life can decrease the handicapped person's need for services later. Screening clinics for preschool children have been man- dated by the Kansas Legislature and are provided to parents at no cost. Providing services for preschool handicapped children, who now must wait until they enter public schools to receive state-funded services, is a goal of some people, including members of Miranda walks a line daring a motor skills test. Caring Parents, a Salina organization of parents of handicapped children. They've joined forces with agencies that provide those services to lobby legislators with the proposal. If the Legislature doesn't find some way to appropriate more funds to the agencies that provide for the handicapped, screening clinics will serve little purpose, Jane Martin said. "It's not very ethical to be identifying these children and then not being able to refer them anywhere," she said. The children participating in Thursday's clinic were being checked because someone had noticed they weren't developing as they should. The clinics are conducted three times a year and usually are booked solid through referral and by word-of-mouth, without formal publicity. "Most of the kids have been referred for some reason," said Annamae Johnson, a Central Kansas Cooperative in Education social worker. "Perhaps a nursery school teacher noticed some kind of delay." Sometimes the cooperative talks with the children's parents because the child was believed to be at high risk at birth, judging from tests administered to infants born at Asbury Hospital. Miranda was at risk of inheriting a hearing disorder that has afflicted several women on her father's side of the family, said Jennice Martin. She was plagued by ear infections as an infant and some specialists thought she might have the disorder when she failed to react to loud noises. "I just told them she's used to her brother being loud, so the noise didn't faze her," Jennice Martin said jokingly. But Thursday, audiologist White erased the last trace of doubt with his prognosis. "I turned it way down, to five decibels," White said, "and she heard me just fine." If children are believed to have a disorder after they've participated in the screening, Jane Martin said, their parents will be referred to an agency or specialist for further evaluation. Ptiofoc oy Ctwf OiwMWff Miranda Martin listens with headphones daring a test while she sits on her mother Jennice's lap hi the sound booth. Corrections department says jail standards helpcounties By FRED JOHNSON Harris News Service Attacks on the physical structure of several county jails have forced the Kansas Sheriffs Association to petition the state Department of Corrections for leniency. Association member sheriffs who supervise jails that cannot meet new state standards want inspectors to be understanding buildings. Last in a series when touring their The trouble is the new edition of Kansas Advisory Jail Standards issued by the corrections department. Many sheriffs say the new standards are a gyp. They claim their jails, many of them new or recently remodeled, were in compliance until the state changed the rules for the 1985 annual inspections. The jails, sheriffs say, met standards when they were built and should be judged under those standards. Corrections department officials say the sheriffs might be overreacting, but sheriffs fear critical remarks from inspectors could be used against them if a prisoner files a lawsuit charging overcrowding. Sheriffs also say voters tend to think their tax dollars have been wasted when a new jail is cited for inadequate floor space or some other structural deficiency. Corrections officials and the sheriffs'board will meet today in Topeka to discuss the conflict, although none of the jails cited for inadequate space is in danger of being closed. Only the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, State Fire Marshal and district court judges have authority to close county jails to protect the health and safety of the staff or inmates. Corrections officials say there is little they can do to pacify the angry sheriffs other than to assure them their jails are not obsolete. "We're not saying the jails are in any worse shape than they were in 1984," says Roger Werholtz, director of the department' inspection service. "We're just saying the standards have changed. I wish the inspection reports weren't seen as punitive because they aren't supposed to be." Werholtz said the Kansas Advisory Jail Standards were written by the American Correctional Association, a national organization of corrections professionals. They were based on court decisions and prevailing attitudes on modern correctional practices. They are, as the title suggests, "advisory," he said. "They probably are idealistic," he said. "If you could have everything you wanted, this is what you would have." The state began inspecting county jails in 1975, by order of the Legislature, and adopted a set of uniform standards in 1978. The American Correctional Association standards were adopted in 1984 and used for the first time during 1985 inspections of the state's 90 jails, 18 lockups (72-hour holding facilities) and 25 holding cells (6-hour facili- ties). There were considerable changes in what was considered good correctional practice between 1978 and 1984, Werholtz says. Despite the sheriffs' displeasure with the report cards on their jails, most of the county jails are in pretty good shape, "although there are a couple nasty ones out there," he says. Sheriffs with more modern jails complain about the new standards, but some of the older jails did not meet the floor space requirement under the old standards — 52 square feet for each prisoner. When inspectors find a deficiency they Officials eager to curb jail problems By JIM BOLE Staff Writer Community representatives are eager to prevent anticipated problems with the Saline County Jail, according to the consensus of local officials and other people -attending a seminar on Thursday. The daylong seminar was conducted by two independent jail consultants as part of a two-day visit to help officials meet the needs of local corrections programs and the Saline County Jail. A study committee would include many of the groups and agencies represented at the seminar. It will be formed by early spring, to come up with solutions to possible problems, said County Commissioner Roy Allen. About 20 people representing the Saline County Commission, the sheriff's de- partment, district court, the League of Women Voters of Salina, Catholic Charities and Sauna's police department and city commission were at the seminar. Also attending were officials from the Kansas Department of Corrections, U.S. Marshal's Service, the Kansas Highway Patrol and the local office of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. Paul Kastompes, one of the jail consultants, said it was the first time he had seen such a large and diverse group of community representatives trying to solve problems. "Usually people want us to come after they (are) having problems with their jails," Katsompes said. Sheriff Darrell Wilson, who arranged the consultants' free visit, said the seminar allowed local people involved in corrections programs to exchange ideas. The group agreed that the jail eventually must be replaced or undergo a major overhaul, and discussed ways to approach the anticipated problems, Wilson said. After receiving a final report from the consultants, a committee will be formed, and will report its findings to the county commission, Wilson said. The consultants inspected the jail and talked to officials in the criminal justice system on Monday. The consultants' general conclusion was that the jail was adequate, but problems will occur because it barely is passing annual state inspections. They also said the sheriff's department was doing a good job of keeping the jail adequate for current needs. label it urgent, necessary or desirable, Wer- holtz says. Only those labeled urgent are recognized as a threat to the health and safety of staff and inmates. The law then requires action by the jail's advisory committee, which consists of the judicial district's administrative judge, county attorney and chairman of the county commission. If the committee agrees with the corrections department report, it must state its planned corrections. If the committee disagrees, it must report why it disagrees and rejects further action. The corrections department, Werholtz says, has no authority to overrule the advisory committee or initiate further action. During 1984 inspections, the state found "urgent" deficiencies in 35 county jails. Thirty made the necessary corrections and averted meetings of the jail advisory committees. Committee meetings were conducted in five counties, including Shawnee, where a new jail is being built under court supervision. Prisoners filed a class action suit against Shawnee County in the late 1970s, charging cruel and unusual punishment by overcrowding. The county entered into a consent decree and agreed to build a new jail. Specifications were drafted and construction scheduled, but a later county commission tried to change the specifications and cut back on funding for the new jail, claiming it would exceed minimum standards. The court ultimately ruled the county was bound to the original plans and could not make substantial changes. "The Kansas Advisory Jail Standards are designed to keep counties out of just such situations," Werholtz said.

What members have found on this page

Get access to Newspapers.com

  • The largest online newspaper archive
  • 11,100+ newspapers from the 1700s–2000s
  • Millions of additional pages added every month

Try it free