Appeals Court Finds Judge Richard Perkins Guilty of Misconduct
Posted on August 24, 2013
5
Caroline Rice Wins Appeal
Appeals Court Criticizes Judge Richard Perkins
For Bias, Unfair Trial, Serious Mistakes
In an opinion released Monday, August 19, 2013, the
Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that Caroline Rice
had been wrongly convicted of depriving and
interfering with the custody of her child. The appeals
court reversed the convictions of Caroline because
of “the cumulative effect of various evidentiary
rulings, an erroneous jury instruction, and
prejudicial judicial conduct deprived appellant of her
due process right to a fair trial.” [What happens
next? See the note at end of this blog.] The decision
was by a panel of three judges that ruled 2-1 in
Caroline’s favor.
In an earlier divorce case against her ex-husband, a
very wealthy stock broker, a Hennepin County
district court awarded Caroline custody of her two
oldest daughters, but awarded custody of her
youngest children, a girl and two boys, to her ex-husband. (At the time, the oldest girls had
experienced abuse by their father.) Caroline lost her
appeal in that case. Later, an order for protection
was issued that prohibited Caroline from having any
contact with any of her three youngest children. On
October 31, 2010, the girl who was in her father’s
custody, then 13 years old, ran from her father’s
home in Minnesota to Michigan near the border with
Canada. The girl, A.R., was with her mother for a
day. Caroline was arrested in Michigan after she
crossed the border back into the United States. She
was put in jail in Michigan. After weeks in jail there,
she was released and returned to Minnesota where
she was arrested and put in jail in Carver County for
about two months. In the trial before Judge Perkins,
Caroline asserted the defense that she had a
reasonable basis for trying to protect her child from
abuse by her father. She submitted 273 pages of
evidence of past abuse by A.R’s father but judge
Perkins ruled this evidence was not relevant
because it was evidence of abuse by the father two
or more years before the dates of the crimes she
was being tried for. Judge Perkins also excluded
medical evidence of abuse because Carver County
police concluded that the claims of abuse were
unfounded.
Caroline tried to submit evidence that A.R. almost
died because her father failed to send her to a
dentist for a root canal operation to treat an infected
tooth but Judge Perkins would not allow that
evidence. Caroline’s two oldest daughters, L.R. and
K.R. testified that they had been abused by their
father, that K.R. had been dragged down a flight of
stairs by her ankles by her father, but Judge Perkins
later told the jury no evidence of child abuse had
been submitted. During the trial, the Carver County
prosecutor, Peter Ivy, raised numerous objections
during Caroline’s opening statement which Judge
Perkins allowed. Mr. Ivy complained that he was
disadvantaged because “it appears I am beating up
on Ms. Rice, denying her the right to counsel.”
(Caroline had to be her own lawyer because the
lawyers she retained were afraid of Judge Perkins.
They knew that he was biased against Caroline and
were afraid Judge Perkins would damage their
careers.) Judge Perkins warned Caroline:
“And I’m telling you now very clearly on
the record that I intend to be much
more proactive in stepping in and
stopping you on your lines of
questioning. I’m going to do that
because I believe if I don’t do that that
is a great prejudice to the state
because, in fact, it does look like they’re
beating up on you, that they are
stacking the deck against you. That’s
not the case. So I’m going to be more
active in that so that if anybody is
going to be looking like a bully in this
proceeding. If you will, in the eyes of
the jury, it’s going to be me. So we can
continue to try to maintain a level
playing field to you that is fair to you as
well as the state.”
During Caroline’s questioning of her witnesses,
Judge Perkins began interrupting even though there
was no objection by the prosecutor, Mr. Ivy. Judge
Perkins interrupted Caroline’s direct examination of
L.R. more than 90 times and interrupted Caroline’s
direct examination of A.R. at least 45 times. Mr. Ivy
occasionally raised objections which Judge Perkins
upheld, but the majority of evidentiary rulings during
Caroline’s questioning were by Judge Perkins sui
sponte. Judge Perkins continued to do this when
Caroline questioned her ex-husband and asked him
if he ever sedated her daughter A.R. Judge Perkins
told Caroline: “Ms. Rice, you cannot continue to lob
hand grenades.” He continued saying that may not
“just lob hand grenades out there . . . . I don’t know
what they are, they’re not questions . . . .You
continue to ask questions that are not germane to
these proceedings . . . . You ask those questions of
witnesses where it doesn’t fit.” Caroline later asked
L.R. “Did you ever see your dad hit or hurt A.R.?”
After allowing an objection that the question
“assumes facts not in evidence”, Judge Perkins said
“You’re not going to answer that . . . ” Judge Perkins
then said to Caroline: “do you have any basis for
lobbing that one out there. Do you have any factual
basis for . . . asking that question?” Judge Perkins
then continued: “Don’t start asking another
question. You throw something out there and you
just leave it hanging. . . . Throwing out an allegation
about dad having harmed [L.R.] and/or [A.R.] . . .
There is no foundation laid here.”
Caroline asked a later witness: “Have the children
ever reported to you that anyone else has ever hit or
hurt them?” Despite L.R.’s earlier testimony, Judge
Perkins said: “Excuse me, there is no testimony that
anyone has hit or hurt them except for the specific
instances you’ve talked about and there is no
person identified in those instances. So you’re
suggesting that B.R. [Caroline’s ex-husband] has hit
or hurt them. That’s not in evidence. You may want
to rethink that question.” Caroline replied that her
daughter’s testimony provided that evidence, to
which Judge Perkins replied: “I’ve not heard any
such testimony because they haven’t been on the
stand. . . .[K.R. - Caroline’s oldest daughter] has not
been on the stand.” Judge Perkins added that there
was “no testimony that B.R. hurt or hit them.”
The daughter [A.R] who had run to her mother in
Michigan testified that two restraining orders had
been taken out in the past against her father
“because he hurt me.” Her testimony about these
incidents was brief and was punctuated by frequent
interruptions by Judge .R. Perkins. A.R. was having
trouble remembering details about each incident,
leading Judge Perkins to cut off questioning about
these incidents because A.R. had “provided the
answers she has available by her own recall.”
The Appeals Court ruled that it was wrong for Judge
Perkins to rule that evidence of earlier abuse was
irrelevant because there was no requirement that
evidence of abuse had to be recent. The Appeals
Court said Caroline had a reasonable basis to
believe her child needed protection. As to the
evidence of abuse the police said was unfounded,
the Appeals Court said it was not a good reason for
excluding it because “the jury could have believed
it.” Similarly, Judge Perkins was wrong to assume
that because the social workers had rejected
Caroline’s accusations of abuse there was no
foundation for her affirmative defense. While the
social worker’s opinions may have been permissible
evidence, the ultimate question of whether
Caroline’s belief that she needed to protect her child
“was a jury question.” The Appeals Court concluded
that Judge Perkins did not act impartially and had
denied Caroline the right to present a complete
defense. The Appeals Court said: “several of [Judge
Perkins] comments made while raising or
sustaining objections appeared to attack
[Caroline’s] credibility, her evidence, or her theory of
the case.” The Appeals Court went on to say Judge
Perkins may not “reflect upon the character of the
witness for truthfulness, or suggest that his
testimony was untrue or unworthy of belief.”
What did Caroline “win”?
The Appeals Curt reversed the convictions of
Caroline by Judge Perkins and said she could have
a new trial – before the same biased judge, with the
same unprincipled prosecutor, Peter Ivy, in the same
court. And Carolyn will have to try the case herself
again unless she can come up with tens of
thousands of dollars to pay a lawyer and persuade
the lawyer to risk his/her career by going before a
biased judge who is determined to destroy Caroline.
The truth is that Caroline is a broken woman. Her
family was destroyed, her oldest daughter is
dependant on her ex-husband, one of her sons is
believed to be on drugs and the other son is
pursuing a professional hockey career instead of
going to college. The sons are being trained to be
abusers like their father. Her daughter A.R. is a sad,
thin, depressed girl now about 16 years old who is
not allowed to have any contact with Caroline. Only
L.R. is succeeding and she is totally alienated from
her father. She is the one who turned down a
scholarship to attend West Point because she would
not serve a country that had treated her family so
shabbily. The probability is that prosecutor Ivy will
not try the case again, Caroline will not or cannot
defend it, and the matter will be left unresolved.
Caroline will not get justice. Four of her children will
become damaged members of society.
Written by Dale Nathan
651-454-0506
DaleNathan@usfamily.net
Rice Appeal decision is public record obtainable online. A link will be posted shortly.
Appeals Court Criticizes Judge Richard Perkins
For Bias, Unfair Trial, Serious Mistakes
In an opinion released Monday, August 19, 2013, the
Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that Caroline Rice
had been wrongly convicted of depriving and
interfering with the custody of her child. The appeals
court reversed the convictions of Caroline because
of “the cumulative effect of various evidentiary
rulings, an erroneous jury instruction, and
prejudicial judicial conduct deprived appellant of her
due process right to a fair trial.” [What happens
next? See the note at end of this blog.] The decision
was by a panel of three judges that ruled 2-1 in
Caroline’s favor.
In an earlier divorce case against her ex-husband, a
very wealthy stock broker, a Hennepin County
district court awarded Caroline custody of her two
oldest daughters, but awarded custody of her
youngest children, a girl and two boys, to her ex-husband. (At the time, the oldest girls had
experienced abuse by their father.) Caroline lost her
appeal in that case. Later, an order for protection
was issued that prohibited Caroline from having any
contact with any of her three youngest children. On
October 31, 2010, the girl who was in her father’s
custody, then 13 years old, ran from her father’s
home in Minnesota to Michigan near the border with
Canada. The girl, A.R., was with her mother for a
day. Caroline was arrested in Michigan after she
crossed the border back into the United States. She
was put in jail in Michigan. After weeks in jail there,
she was released and returned to Minnesota where
she was arrested and put in jail in Carver County for
about two months. In the trial before Judge Perkins,
Caroline asserted the defense that she had a
reasonable basis for trying to protect her child from
abuse by her father. She submitted 273 pages of
evidence of past abuse by A.R’s father but judge
Perkins ruled this evidence was not relevant
because it was evidence of abuse by the father two
or more years before the dates of the crimes she
was being tried for. Judge Perkins also excluded
medical evidence of abuse because Carver County
police concluded that the claims of abuse were
unfounded.
Caroline tried to submit evidence that A.R. almost
died because her father failed to send her to a
dentist for a root canal operation to treat an infected
tooth but Judge Perkins would not allow that
evidence. Caroline’s two oldest daughters, L.R. and
K.R. testified that they had been abused by their
father, that K.R. had been dragged down a flight of
stairs by her ankles by her father, but Judge Perkins
later told the jury no evidence of child abuse had
been submitted. During the trial, the Carver County
prosecutor, Peter Ivy, raised numerous objections
during Caroline’s opening statement which Judge
Perkins allowed. Mr. Ivy complained that he was
disadvantaged because “it appears I am beating up
on Ms. Rice, denying her the right to counsel.”
(Caroline had to be her own lawyer because the
lawyers she retained were afraid of Judge Perkins.
They knew that he was biased against Caroline and
were afraid Judge Perkins would damage their
careers.) Judge Perkins warned Caroline:
“And I’m telling you now very clearly on
the record that I intend to be much
more proactive in stepping in and
stopping you on your lines of
questioning. I’m going to do that
because I believe if I don’t do that that
is a great prejudice to the state
because, in fact, it does look like they’re
beating up on you, that they are
stacking the deck against you. That’s
not the case. So I’m going to be more
active in that so that if anybody is
going to be looking like a bully in this
proceeding. If you will, in the eyes of
the jury, it’s going to be me. So we can
continue to try to maintain a level
playing field to you that is fair to you as
well as the state.”
During Caroline’s questioning of her witnesses,
Judge Perkins began interrupting even though there
was no objection by the prosecutor, Mr. Ivy. Judge
Perkins interrupted Caroline’s direct examination of
L.R. more than 90 times and interrupted Caroline’s
direct examination of A.R. at least 45 times. Mr. Ivy
occasionally raised objections which Judge Perkins
upheld, but the majority of evidentiary rulings during
Caroline’s questioning were by Judge Perkins sui
sponte. Judge Perkins continued to do this when
Caroline questioned her ex-husband and asked him
if he ever sedated her daughter A.R. Judge Perkins
told Caroline: “Ms. Rice, you cannot continue to lob
hand grenades.” He continued saying that may not
“just lob hand grenades out there . . . . I don’t know
what they are, they’re not questions . . . .You
continue to ask questions that are not germane to
these proceedings . . . . You ask those questions of
witnesses where it doesn’t fit.” Caroline later asked
L.R. “Did you ever see your dad hit or hurt A.R.?”
After allowing an objection that the question
“assumes facts not in evidence”, Judge Perkins said
“You’re not going to answer that . . . ” Judge Perkins
then said to Caroline: “do you have any basis for
lobbing that one out there. Do you have any factual
basis for . . . asking that question?” Judge Perkins
then continued: “Don’t start asking another
question. You throw something out there and you
just leave it hanging. . . . Throwing out an allegation
about dad having harmed [L.R.] and/or [A.R.] . . .
There is no foundation laid here.”
Caroline asked a later witness: “Have the children
ever reported to you that anyone else has ever hit or
hurt them?” Despite L.R.’s earlier testimony, Judge
Perkins said: “Excuse me, there is no testimony that
anyone has hit or hurt them except for the specific
instances you’ve talked about and there is no
person identified in those instances. So you’re
suggesting that B.R. [Caroline’s ex-husband] has hit
or hurt them. That’s not in evidence. You may want
to rethink that question.” Caroline replied that her
daughter’s testimony provided that evidence, to
which Judge Perkins replied: “I’ve not heard any
such testimony because they haven’t been on the
stand. . . .[K.R. - Caroline’s oldest daughter] has not
been on the stand.” Judge Perkins added that there
was “no testimony that B.R. hurt or hit them.”
The daughter [A.R] who had run to her mother in
Michigan testified that two restraining orders had
been taken out in the past against her father
“because he hurt me.” Her testimony about these
incidents was brief and was punctuated by frequent
interruptions by Judge .R. Perkins. A.R. was having
trouble remembering details about each incident,
leading Judge Perkins to cut off questioning about
these incidents because A.R. had “provided the
answers she has available by her own recall.”
The Appeals Court ruled that it was wrong for Judge
Perkins to rule that evidence of earlier abuse was
irrelevant because there was no requirement that
evidence of abuse had to be recent. The Appeals
Court said Caroline had a reasonable basis to
believe her child needed protection. As to the
evidence of abuse the police said was unfounded,
the Appeals Court said it was not a good reason for
excluding it because “the jury could have believed
it.” Similarly, Judge Perkins was wrong to assume
that because the social workers had rejected
Caroline’s accusations of abuse there was no
foundation for her affirmative defense. While the
social worker’s opinions may have been permissible
evidence, the ultimate question of whether
Caroline’s belief that she needed to protect her child
“was a jury question.” The Appeals Court concluded
that Judge Perkins did not act impartially and had
denied Caroline the right to present a complete
defense. The Appeals Court said: “several of [Judge
Perkins] comments made while raising or
sustaining objections appeared to attack
[Caroline’s] credibility, her evidence, or her theory of
the case.” The Appeals Court went on to say Judge
Perkins may not “reflect upon the character of the
witness for truthfulness, or suggest that his
testimony was untrue or unworthy of belief.”
What did Caroline “win”?
The Appeals Curt reversed the convictions of
Caroline by Judge Perkins and said she could have
a new trial – before the same biased judge, with the
same unprincipled prosecutor, Peter Ivy, in the same
court. And Carolyn will have to try the case herself
again unless she can come up with tens of
thousands of dollars to pay a lawyer and persuade
the lawyer to risk his/her career by going before a
biased judge who is determined to destroy Caroline.
The truth is that Caroline is a broken woman. Her
family was destroyed, her oldest daughter is
dependant on her ex-husband, one of her sons is
believed to be on drugs and the other son is
pursuing a professional hockey career instead of
going to college. The sons are being trained to be
abusers like their father. Her daughter A.R. is a sad,
thin, depressed girl now about 16 years old who is
not allowed to have any contact with Caroline. Only
L.R. is succeeding and she is totally alienated from
her father. She is the one who turned down a
scholarship to attend West Point because she would
not serve a country that had treated her family so
shabbily. The probability is that prosecutor Ivy will
not try the case again, Caroline will not or cannot
defend it, and the matter will be left unresolved.
Caroline will not get justice. Four of her children will
become damaged members of society.
Written by Dale Nathan
651-454-0506
DaleNathan@usfamily.net
Rice Appeal decision is public record obtainable online. A link will be posted shortly.
