Nathaniel Grady - Prosecutor Misconduct

Grady, Nathaniel; child sex abuse; NRE: no crime, child sex abuse hysteria, prosecutor misconduct, police officer misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

Suggestibility issues

[506:22]; Bronx Cty. Ct. 4/30/86; motion to vacate denied;

"I am satisfied, having presided over this thirteen week trial, that there has not been the conviction of an innocent man ...Rather, [Grady's] guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

"[T]he inconsistencies and confusion complained of by [Grady] can be attributed to the ages of the six victims and the nature of the crimes to which they were subjected."

[The 'judge' who made this ruling was Bernard J. Fried. ]

[Let's actually think about the above statement for a moment: This judge is saying that, in a child sex abuse case, no matter what the alleged victims' inconsistencies, it's okay to go ahead and convict him anyway -- and to also sustain that conviction. If that's the case, why even bother with trials and appeals?]

846 F.2d 862; 2nd Cir. 5/13/88; writ denied

"Reverend Nathaniel Grady...was convicted of nineteen sex offenses against minors arising out of his [supposed] sexual abuse of several children at a day care center in the Bronx.

"During the pretrial investigation, four of the children identified [Grady's] photograph in procedures that [he] later characterized as suggestive... The children's testimony was replete with contradictions and recantations. This, according to the district court, was attributable to their continued fear of [Grady]."

[So, here, we have a federal judge saying that any and all testimonial problems in such cases can simply be attributed to the supposed victims' fear of the alleged perpetrator. Once again, actual trials and appellate review would seem to be superfluous.]

931 F.Supp. 1048; S.D.N.Y. 6/24/96; writ granted, due to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel

[Appellate counsel failed to raise the issue of the indictment being duplicitous; i.e., two or more counts were functionally indistinguishable from one another, which meant not only that it was much more difficult to mount a defense, but also, that Grady could have received multiple convictions for any given act

"In late April of 1984, one of the children at the day care center reported to his mother that he had experiencd sexual contact between himself and an adult male...The FBI conducted thirty days of video surveillance of the classroom and other areas within the day care center, [but] no evidence of sexual misconduct or abuse was discovered from the surveillance...No teacher or other adult witness testified that they witnessed any of acts related by the children."

NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"In 1984, Rev. Nathaniel Grady, the chaplain for the Yonkers police department, was indicted on charges of abusing six children, ages three and four, over a period of several months in 1983 at the Westchester-Tremont Day Care Center in the Bronx, New York.

"The day care center rented space in the Westchester United Methodist Church, where the 43-year-old Grady preached. The indictment listed 42 counts of rape, sodomy and sex abuse."

"On January 20, 1986, after six days of deliberation, a jury convcted him of 19 counts of rape, sodomy and sexual abuse of five children. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison."

"Meanwhile, in 1994, an investigation of sex abuse cases in New York City by CBS News raised questions about whether any of the abuse had happened and whether the allegations were the result of coercive and suggestive questioning by law enforcement and state child care investigators. The CBS investigation showed that each of the children had been questioned more than 80 times before trial. At one point, one of the children identified the trial judge as his molester."

"On September 27, 1997, the Appellate Division...overturned the conviction and the charges were dismissed. Grady later filed a claim for compensation with the New York Court of Claims, but the claim was dismissed."

 

Perversion of Justice

Is deliberately finding someone guilty of things he did not do ever justified? If we convict people for acts of child sexual abuse that never happened, does that somehow 'make up' for all the past abuse that went completely unpunished? Is it okay to pervert justice in order to punish people wrongly perceived as perverts?

Learn More