Judge Wade McCree, while serving as the presiding judge in a felony child — support case against Robert King, maintained a romantic and sexual relationship with
the complaining witness against King.
Not exact matches
The Bible
witnesses to the struggle of the Hebrews in the wilderness where they were so preoccupied with the lack of creature comforts that they constantly
complained against God and Moses.
A minor complication is that the law defines the crime in terms of «
against the will of the
complaining witness, by force, threat, intimidation, or ruse», which could be interpreted as «any of these five reasons».
The act is accomplished
against the will of the
complaining witness by force, threat or intimidation, and
The Commonwealth need not demonstrate that the
complaining witness cried out or physically resisted the accused in order to convict the accused of an offense under this article, but the absence of such resistance may be considered when relevant to show that the act alleged was not
against the will of the
complaining witness.
If the statute said «
against the will of the
complaining witness by force, threat, intimidation, or ruse», it would mean «by force which is one of the following four».
Has the
complaining witness brought other charges
against other that were proven to be false?
The latest in the salacious saga of Michigan Judge Wade McCree has been making the law blog rounds this week (via Jonathan Turley, Above the Law), with the release of McCree's answer to the state Judicial Tenure Commission's complaint
against him over a series of alleged ethics violations related to his sexual relationship with a
complaining witness in a child support case.
You will likely believe that the
complaining witness has no case
against you, and you expect the prosecutor to see that too.
Proffitt's lawyer argued that allowing the
complaining witnesses to testify would add fuel to the fire
against Proffitt with his jury.