William Arnold, Jr - Inadequate Defense
Arnold, Jr., William; TN; NRE: perjury/false accusation, inadequate legal defense, prosecutor misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, knowingly permitting perjury, prosecutor lied in court
Suggestibility issues
2015 WL 99292; Ct. of Crim. Apps. of TN 1/7/15; affirmed
"The [supposed] victim, N.M., met [Arnold] through the Big Brothers Big Sisters program where he attended after-school camp and summer camp. [N.M.] and [Arnold] eventually did things together outside of the Boys and Girls Club like 'go eat and just like go to football games,' 'play laser tag,' and have 'fun.' [N.M.] often went with [Arnold] to [Arnold's] home."
"At the time [of one of the first alleged incidents, N.M.] was in the fifth grade. The victim described the incident as follows:
'[Arnold] used to get up and sit next to me on the couch next to the wall. And then eventually he told me to get up and then he started to rub my thigh and the inside.
'And then he eventually moved my head over to his lap and I didn't know what to do. So then he did it to me and then he looked at me like it was my turn and I did it to him and I started to choke and gag. So he eventually raised my head up. And that was the first time on the oral part.'
"[N.M.] explained that [Arnold] pulled down his pants and then 'touched [his] private part with [Arnold's] mouth.' When the incident concluded, [Arnold] told [N.M.] to go 'fix' himself, so [N.M.] went into the bathroom and pulled up his pants. When [N.M.] left the bathroom, [Arnold] 'pretended like nothing happened.' [Arnold] later drove [N.M.] home. During the ride, [Arnold] told [N.M.] that if he told anyone about the incident, 'no one' would believe him and that it was 'our little secret.'
"[N.M.] recalled another incident during which [Arnold] sat next to [N.M.] and put his hand onto [N.M.'s] lap before [Arnold] started rubbing the inside of [N.M.'s] thigh. [Arnold] then 'picked up his hand and moved [N.M.'s] hand over to his private part. And he started to rub it up and down while my hand was on it. And then -- and then he took [my] head while [Arnold] was rubbing it and [I] started to suck [his penis].'
"[N.M.] also described an incident occurring in the bonus room at [Arnold's] home during which [N.M.] was on the couch when [Arnold] told him to get up. According to [N.M.], [Arnold] turned him around and [Arnold] 'started to rub his [own] private part' before he pushed the victim down on the couch and started rubbing his 'behind.' [N.M.] stated that 'then [Arnold] started to like go in and out with his finger. And then he eventually stuck his private part in my behind. And then I began to cry. But it just seemed like he didn't care, because he kept on going.' [N.M.] described that he felt 'some wet and sticky stuff or something like that,' before [Arnold] 'pushed [N.M.] off of him.' [Arnold] eventually took [N.M.] home. During the car ride [Arnold] told [N.M.] that if he told anyone about what happened, people would think he was 'gay.'
"[N.M.] described in detail at least one other incident of anal sex during which [Arnold] and [N.M.] were sitting in the bonus room of [Arnold's] home. [Arnold] smiled at [N.M.] and told him to 'get up' before bending [N.M.] over the arm of the couch. [Arnold] pulled [N.M.'s] pants down, rubbed [N.M.'s] behind with his hand, 'put his finger in the hole,' and then inserted his penis into [N.M.'s] anus. [N.M.] stated that he started to 'cry again, because I didn't know why I was letting him do it.'
"[N.M.] described at least one incident during which [Arnold] masturbated [N.M.] to the point of ejaculation. [N.M.] testified he felt 'confused' because some of the things that [Arnold] did to him felt 'good,' but he wondered why the two could not have a 'normal mentor relationship.'
"[N.M.] testified that...Arnold and his wife were going through a divorce. He testified that things got 'worse,' and the abuse occurred more frequently in the car than at [Arnold's] home during this time.
"During the summer of 2010, [Arnold] asked to take a break from the mentor relationship. [N.M.] was both 'hurt and relieved.' The break lasted for approximately a month before the relationship started back again. The first outing after the break was to a golf event. [N.M.] stated that he notified his mom in 'August, September' that he wanted to discontinue the mentor relationship because it 'wasn't right.'
[N.M.] did not tell his mother, S.B., about the abuse until several months later when they 'got into an argument' about [N.M.'s] sexual communication with a boy over the internet. [N.M.'s] mother gave him a 'whupping' and asked him several questions about whether anyone, including [Arnold], had ever touched him inappropriately. [N.M.] did not answer her directly but eventually nodded his head and started to cry when she asked if 'William' touched him. In response, [N.M.'s] mother got out the Bible, asking [N.M.] to place his hand on the Bible and swear that [Arnold] touched him. S.B. called the police."
"As part of the medical examination, [N.M.] was questioned about his history. When asked if he had any sexual contact with peers, [N.M.] replied that he had had sexual contact only with 'the person that touched me.' According to...the nurse practitioner who completed the medical examination, [N.M.'s] exam was 'totally normal,' and there was 'no sign of acute or chronic trauma to the anal-genital area."
"At trial, [N.M.] explained that in 2011, after the mentor relationship with [Arnold] ended, he met his mother's boyfriend's brother, W.C.L. The two engaged in a sexual relationship that lasted several months. According to [N.M.], it 'just felt right.' Additonally, he wanted to 'feel good with [W.C.L.] because of things he learned from [Arnold].'"
"During cross-examination of [N.M.], counsel for [Arnold] pointed out several inconsistencies in [N.M.'s] testimony with regard to the years during which certain events occurred. Counsel specifically noted that [N.M.] stated in his forensic interview that he had anal sex with W.C.L., whereas at trial [N.M.] stated that they did not engage in anal sex. [N.M.] insisted that his relationship with W.C.L. started after his relationship with [Arnold] ended. Additionally, [N.M.] insisted that he met [Arnold] when he was in fifth grade, in 2008-2009. [N.M.] also acknowledged that his mother filed a civil suit naming both [Arnold] and the Boys and Girls Club as parties."
"At the conclusion of the trial counsel for [Arnold] moved for a judgment of acquittal. After having argument on the matter, the trial court granted the motion as to the instances of aggravated sexual battery that were alleged to have taken place in [Arnold's] car. The trial court found that these events were physically impossible given the testimony at trial as to the size of the victim, the fact that he was wearing a seatbelt, and the layout of the interior of the vehicle."
"After a hearing, the trial court denied [Arnold's] additional motion for judgment of acquittal with regard to the remaining convictions."
"[In a pre-trial motion], the defense sought to introduce evidence of specific instances of sexual conduct by [N.M.] 'for the purpose of showing the motive of [N.M.] to lie about the true identity of the person with whom he had sexual relations, and in order to show that his knowledge of sexual matters was acquired from a third person with whom he had sexual relations, and homosexual pornographic material.' The defense sought to introduce the following: (1) a 'Metro School Record' from February 21, 2003, wherein [N.M.] 'fondled another child's penis in class and later lied to the teacher about who initiated the contact'; (2) testimony from W.C.L., a minor, about the homosexual relationship he had with the victim; and (3) records from Vanderbilt Medical Center from July 21, 2011, and March 7, 2012, to show [N.M.] had knowledge of sexual matters 'based upon homosexual pornography, sexual relationship with...male peers, frequent masturbation causing medical diagnosis of "Dysuria".'
"At the hearing on the motion, [N.M.] testified that between March and June of 2011, he had a consensual 'sexual relationship' with W.C.L., the brother of his mother's ex-boyfriend. At the time, W.C.L. was sixteen years of age, and [N.M.] was thirteen years of age. The relationship included 'masturbation' and fellatio.
"[N.M.] testified that he first told someone about [Arnold] in November of 2010 and testified that he did not meet W.C.L. until sometime around Christmas of 2010. [He] also testified that he met W.C.L. several months after his mother started dating [D.L.], which would have been in 2009. [He] testified that he did not know W.C.L. 'at the time [he] told [his] mother about [Arnold's] touching [him].'"
2020 WL 569928; Ct. of Crim. Apps. of TN 2/5/20; reversed, due to ineffective assistance of counsel
"W.C.L. had told the Department of Children's Services (DCS) and the Franklin Police Department that the sexual contact between him and [N.M.] occurred in 2010."
"[N.M.] testified that he first met W.C.L. and the rest of D.L.'s family in January 2011, even though D.L. began dating his mother and moved in with them in 2009."
"[N.M.] denied telling Detective Mack of the Franklin Police Department or the forensic interviewer at Our Kids Center that he had oral sex with W.C.L., even though video recordings of [N.M.'s] interviews with these individuals showed otherwise, and [N.M.] insisted that he did not have anal sex with W.C.L."
"When defense counsel asked whether the sexual contact between him [N.M.] and W.C.L. could have actually taken place in 2010 rather than 2011, [N.M.] said, 'No, it happened in 2011.'
"During [an August, 2011 forensic] interview, [N.M.]...stated that his sexual contact with W.C.L....occurred three to four months prior. He later said that his sexual contact with W.C.L. occurred in May 2011..."
"[N.M.] claimed during the civil disposition that [Arnold] had chest hair and no tattoos, when in reality, [Arnold] had never been able to grow chest hair and had several large tattoos on his left arm and both legs, which indicated that [N.M.] had never seen [Arnold] with his clothing removed. In addition...[N.M.] during his civil desposition provided a date for the last incident of sexual abuse that was different than the date [N.M.] had provided at trial."
"[D]uring [N.M.'s] desposition in the civil case, [N.M.] admitted that he met W.C.L. in the summer of 2009 or 2010, which was wholly inconsistent with [N.M.'s] testimony at [Arnold's] criminal trial that he met W.C.L. in 2011, after he disclosed that [Arnold] sexually abused him."
"[N.M.] disclosed during the deposition that his mother clled him a 'f[----]t' [presumably, 'faggot' ] when she discovered that he was viewing homosexual pornography on his cell phone or when his mother discovered that he was talking to a guy."
"Dr. Barbara Allen Ziv, an expert in forensic psychiatry...performed a forensic evaluation of [N.M.]...She noted that [N.M.] was very forthcoming regarding his coming to terms with his homosexuality and the fact that his mother, who was volatile and violent, believed that homosexuality was a sin."
"She stated that [N.M.'s] psychiatric records made it clear that no one ever confronted [him] about his 'ever-changing stories' about what happened with [Arnold].'
"Dr. Ziv said that [N.M.] was very familiar with sexual acts at a very young age. She said that there was an incident in kindergarten when [N.M.] touched the penis of another boy in class. [N.M.] also told Dr. Ziv about occasions in grade school when he and another boy would 'surreptitiously rub each other's genitals on each other's clothes until they got caught.' Dr. Ziv said [N.M.'s] mother admitted to a psychiatrist that [N.M.] had been viewing pornography since he was ten years old. During Dr. Ziv's interview with [N.M.], [he] disclosed that he knew he was homosexual from a very young age and struggled with this knowledge because his mother believed homosexuality was a sin. She explained that [N.M.'s] psychiatric records showed that [his] mother kicked [him] out of her house several times because of [his] homosexuality."
[W.C.L. and Arnold share the same first name (William). Dr. Ziv believed that when N.M.'s mother confronted him about who had taught him such things, N.M.'s response of 'William' was actually referring to W.C.L., not Arnold; and then, he just went along with it when his mother -- and everyone else -- drew the (wrong) conclusion about which William he was referring to.]
"Dr. Ziv...asserted that [N.M.] never told 'the same story twice,' which was 'the hallmark of a non-credible witness.'"
"Dr. Ziv...noted...that [N.M.'s] mother had stated that she wished she had two of [N.M.'s] brothers rather than [N.M.], and that [N.M.'s] mother had refused to take [him] to the hospital after he took an overdose of drugs."
from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):
"Before charges were initiated, NM's mother filed a $3 million lawsuit against Arnold and Big Brothers Big Sisters."
"At a [post-conviction] hearing in March 2018, Arnold's defense attorney, Patrick McNally, called Donald Dawson, the former director of the Tennessee Post-Conviction Defender's Office, to testify as an expert relating to the defense claim of prosecutorial misconduct during the closing arguments of Arnold's trial. Dawson said there were several instance of misconduct: the prosecutor, during her argument, sat in the witness chair and mocked Arnold's testimony, described Arnold as a wolf in sheep's clothing, improperly bolstered NM's testimony by saying he had been 'honest,' and urged the jury to convict Arnold to help NM heal from the experience. In addition, the prosecution told the jury that there was no other way that NM knew about sexual matters other than from sex with Arnold,* when in fact the prosecution knew there was evidence (not presented at trial) that NM engaged in sexual acts with WCL."
[* Much the same occurred in the Alberto Ramos case in New York State. (Another similarity with that case is that, if not for the alleged victim's family's civil suit, reversal of the criminal conviction might never have happened.)]
"Dawson said the defense attorney's failure to object to the closing arguments or ask for a mistrial had denied Arnold's constitutional right to a fair trial."
"In February of 2010, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals...granted Arnold a new trial...The court characterized the prosecution arguments variously as 'exceedingly improper,' 'overwhelmingly inflammatory,' and 'knowingly false.'"
"On June 29, 2010, the [DA's] Office told Criminal Court Presiding Judge Joe P. Binkley that it was dismissing the case."
[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]