|
 TRIAL SUMMARY
STATE OF GEORGIA v. ERIK A. COOPER
Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia
Charges: Child Molestation (Felony / 9 Counts)
By DOUGLAS N. PETERS
Attorney at Law and Co-Defense Counsel for Erik A. Cooper
The Law Firm of Peters, Roberts, Borsuk & Rubin, P.A.
The Defendant was a 34 year old, single, male who had served as a foster parent in Gwinnett County for approximately two years. The State indicted the Defendant in a nine count indictment alleging that he had molested six victims by various acts of rubbing their backs, buttocks, and genital areas. All six victims testified in the trial against the Defendant as well as three additional alleged victims testifying as similar transaction witnesses. The State claimed the offenses occurred over approximately a year and a half period of time and involved all male children from three separate families. The State contended that the alleged victims, though coming from three independent family groups came forward and gave strikingly similar accounts of the Defendant's crimes committed upon them and therefore they all tended to corroborate one another.
The theory of defense in the trial was that the Department of Family and Children Services had a vendetta against the Defendant and that the Detectives in charge of the investigation in Gwinnett County were prejudicial and biased against the Defendant and had violated the proper protocols in their interviews of the alleged victims. The Defendant took the stand and testified in his defense and explained that he had only become a foster parent as a pre-requisite of being able to adopt some of the boys in his care. He explained that the Gwinnett County Department of Family and Children Services had internal guidelines that would not allow a single male parent to adopt. Defendant was unwilling to accept their rule and had filed an adoption petition to adopt several of the boys that had been in his care. The Defendant further testified to his ongoing confrontations and litigation with the Department of Family and Children Services involving his complaints of their negligence and lack of proper care of children in their custody. He claimed that in response DFACS had intimidated and influenced the natural parents of the boys in question into influencing their young boys to make the allegations filed against the Defendant.
Following the Defendant's testimony, the defense presented numerous good character witnesses for the Defendant, many of which were former foster parents themselves. To further corroborate the Defendant's testimony, the defense called his former attorney who had represented him in the adoption proceedings against DFACS. The attorney testified to the numerous confrontations between the Defendant and DFACS and stated that in his opinion that "DFACS felt that they owned the children in their foster care" and that they were determined to stop the Defendant in his adoption quest. Defense counsel also coordinated with the Defendant's former attorney in obtaining extensive discovery that had been obtained through interrogatories and depositions and was able to effectively utilize those documents in the cross examination of representatives of DFACS in the trial in which they were forced to admit their strong feelings against the Defendant.
Of the nine alleged victims that testified, most had been interviewed by parents, detectives, DFACS case workers, and psychologists for the State. On average there were at least three interviews of each alleged victim. The State was selective in which recorded interviews they played to the jury; and, in some instances, chose only to play certain portions of the interviews that they did play. In the Defendant's case, defense counsel insisted on playing tapes which had been omitted in the State's case, and also had the jury to follow the interviews in written transcripts prepared by the defense. The defense presented expert testimony from Dr. Terrence Campbell, a psychologist who had reviewed the interviews of all the children in the case. He gave extensive testimony regarding the obvious bias of the interviewers, their use of leading and repeated questions, the repetitive interviews of the children, and their use of peer pressure in the interviews of the children. The defense argued that the above had resulted in a series of interviews with each child that began with the children stating that the Defendant had not done anything inappropriate, and ended with the allegations in the indictment.
The defense also presented expert testimony through Dr. Jim Powell, a psychologist who gave extensive testimony regarding the conduct and behavior of the alleged victims in the case. Dr. Powell testified that the alleged victims in many instances had continued throughout the year and a half to want to be with the Defendant, were not afraid to go with him alone on trips, at no time appeared to withdraw from him or express fear of him, and stated many times their love for the Defendant and desire to be adopted by him. Dr. Powell testified that this conduct and behavior was not the conduct and behavior that would be expected or that would be typical of a child subjected to the claims in the case. The case was tried for two and a half weeks and the jury returned verdicts of not guilty on all counts.
|
|
