A prosecutor in the Durham district attorney’s office was vindictive in seeking a number of felony charges against a man after he would not enter a plea to a lesser crime last year and, as a result, he will not face the harsher charges, Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson ruled Friday.

Lawyers for the man described a chilling scenario of jockeying about the case as it neared a trial last year, including a day their client was given about four hours to decide on a plea or face a potential sentence of life in prison.Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline tried earlier to remove Hudson from hearing the allegations, but a judge dismissed her efforts, allowing Hudson to preside over the morning hearing.The man is accused of molesting his 5-year-old stepson in Durham about 30 years ago, an allegation in which the accuser’s “repressed memory” of the incident recently surfaced and is central to the case.The man was arrested in December 2009. The News & Observer is not identifying the man in order to protect the identity of his stepson, its normal policy in cases involving sexual-abuse allegations.On a Saturday in mid-August last year, about 40 hours before the trial was to begin, assistant Durham prosecutor Angela Garcia-Lamarca told the man’s lawyers that he could plead guilty to a charge of taking indecent liberties with a child and receive a sentence of probation, avoiding any jail time. He had until the end of the day to decide, or he would be indicted on new charges that included a first-degree sex offense – a crime with a punishment of mandatory life in prison.Kerry Sutton, a Durham attorney for the man, said her client had always indicated he would always plead not guilty to charges about the alleged crime even as the district attorney’s office made plea offers; a judge set the case for trial after accepting his not guilty plea.When he wouldn’t accept the last-minute offer in August, Sutton said, the DA’s office acted with vindictiveness in seeking stiffer charges.“It was, bam, here’s your life sentence charge,” Sutton told Hudson.Under sentencing rules that would have applied to the charge, the man eventually would be eligible for parole even with a life sentence.Garcia-Lamarca resigned from the DA’s office last month. She was present in the courtroom Friday but did not speak. Hudson said he will enter a written order that she violated ethics rules for lawyers. She declined comment.Another Durham prosecutor, Roger Echols, defended the actions as lawful and part of the legal give-and-take of plea bargaining. One record indicates that the man’s lawyers were actively seeking a plea offer on the eve of trial; the lawyers said it was prompted by the prosecution, however.Echols said the state had done nothing wrong in the case and gave a notice of appeal.Hudson also ruled Friday that prosecutors had not complied with a required exchange of information between the sides, known as discovery. Despite rules that require the state to share its information with a defendant, the state did not inform the man’s lawyers about a possible expert witness on repressed memory as it should have, Hudson ruled.But Hudson did not agree with the man’s lawyers that the case should be tossed out entirely. They had sought a complete dismissal under a claim that he had not received a speedy trial. They also wanted Hudson to order the state to pay $67,000 in attorney fees they said have been incurred because of improper actions by the state. Hudson denied that request.Hudson reset the case to the posture it was in last summer, to a time “before the vindictiveness occurred,” he said. That means the man will face only the indecent liberties charge.

via

Chiding Cline’s former assistant, judge resets sex-offender case – Twisted Truth – NewsObserver.com.