According to the officer’s narrative, the female reported that the male squeezed her throat to the point that she couldn’t breathe and sexually assaulted her.  The defendant admitted to police that, after the female told him no, he grabbed her by the throat area and engaged in sexual conduct with her.  [The affidavit with more detail can be found below.] 

As the assigned deputy prosecutor, I filed multiple charges including Rape and Criminal Confinement.  This case went to jury trial. 

Prior to interviewing the defendant, the police officer had read the defendant his rights – rights that we all know from TV (“you have the right to remain silent . . .”).  The defendant said he understood his rights and agreed to speak with the officer.  At trial, however, Judge Verkamp decided that jurors would not get to watch the video of what the defendant admitted to doing. 

What happened?  If the police read the defendant his rights and the defendant agreed to talk, why didn’t Judge Verkamp allow jurors to watch what the defendant had told police? 

Well, when he talked with the defendant, the officer downplayed the seriousness of the crime he was investigating; he also told the defendant that he was being “detained” rather than saying he was “under arrest.”  What the officer did was allowed under Indiana law.  Nevertheless, Judge Verkamp decided that the defendant didn’t properly waive his rights. 

To be clear, the law did not require Judge Verkamp to exclude (“suppress”) the video of the defendant’s interview.  But Judge Verkamp used his discretion and decided that jurors would not get to watch it. 

The jurors returned verdicts of not guilty.  But they never had the chance to see what the defendant admitted to doing. 

Some will read this post, scratch their heads, and wonder why Judge Verkamp would rule this way.  But that’s the point. 

This case is another example of why I’m putting myself and my family through the stress of a political campaign.  I believe we need change in Dubois Circuit Court. 

If you believe voters should know how Judge Verkamp used his discretion in this case, feel free to share. 

If you want to look more closely at this case, 19C01-2208-F3-000803, you will find documentation below.