Mark Mitchell Reportedly Not Being Charged in Sexual-Abuse Claims

Categories: Law and Order
mark-mitchell.JPG
Mark Mitchell
The Yavapai County Attorney has reportedly decided to not file charges against Tempe Mayor-elect Mark Mitchell in the case involving the woman who recently came forward claiming Mitchell sexually abused her as a kid.

The case -- initially reported to Phoenix police -- was forwarded to the Yavapai County Attorney's Office since Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery had publicly supported Michael Monti, Mitchell's opponent in the mayoral race.

Mitchell's accuser claimed the incidents occurred in 1983 -- when she was 10, and Mitchell was 13 or 14 -- and she just brought it up to the cops a couple months ago.

The Arizona Republic's reporting Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk sent Montgomery a letter explaining why Mitchell isn't being charged, due to not meeting the standards to charge him, and also the fact that the laws from that time don't support charges either. (We'll let you know what the letter says when we get it, during government hours and whatnot.)

According to the police report, the woman "expressed that this has been eating at her for years and it has gotten worse lately due to the public exposure of Mitchell at this time as he is a current Tempe City Councilman who is a mayoral candidate for the City of Tempe."

Mitchell, on the other hand, thought it was probably campaign move carried out by Monti supporters.

Her story, according to the report, is that she was sexually abused by Mitchell when she was 10 years old, when Mitchell was her neighbor and babysitter.

She gave four accounts to police, although the specific actions are redacted in the report.

The final account the woman gave included asking her mother "about how a person gets pregnant, due to her fear of being pregnant after Mitchell had (redacted) with her in the shed," the report states.

The woman's mother told police she didn't remember her daughter telling her anything about this, but remembered at one point Mitchell "was never allowed at their house again."

She didn't remember why Mitchell was banned from the house, but said neither Child Protective Services nor the police was called.

The mother also told police she didn't remember having her 10-year-old daughter asking how someone gets pregnant.

The woman's brother told police that "he did not think he was aware that anything had happened to his sister until he was an adult."

One of the incidents the woman described to police involved her brother, in which she claimed Mitchell called him into the room "to get him to join in" some activity that's also redacted from the report. Her brother didn't recall that incident to police.

On April 5, the woman ended up talking to Mitchell in person, saying she was "bothered" by what happened when they were kids, and told Mitchell he was her "first," the report says.

"Mitchell said they were young and exploring and he was sorry she felt the way she did," the report states. "He said he would talk to her more of she wanted to."

Later that day, the woman called Mitchell to talk more. They debated what age Mitchell was when it happened -- the woman contended he was 15, Mitchell said 12 -- and the rest of the conversation was very similar to the account of the talk they had earlier in the day.

According to the police report, police contacted Mitchell on April 10 to request an interview with him, and the report states Mitchell claimed he didn't know who the woman was.

Mitchell denied the allegations, and there never looked like a very high likelihood of him being charged.

According to the unofficial results, Mitchell beat Monti in the mayoral race by 139 votes.


My Voice Nation Help
8 comments
Truconserv
Truconserv

So long as Shane Wikfors is the AZGOP communications director, you can expect more sleaze like this in the future.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

So statute of limitations wasn't the reason for pursuing charges? Sounds like at least one truconserv was wrong despite all his weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Truconserv
Truconserv

If the allegations never meet the charging standard, then the Statute of Limitations is never even examined.

You're complete failure to understand the criminal law workflow is astounding!

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

If what you are saying were true, then Shiela Polk would have no reason to provide more than one reason for not pursuing prosecution. She illustrates at least two reasons why prosecution was declined. In fact, one of the reasons used had to do with what state law was at the time of the alleged offense and that the alleged charges did not meet the criteria fr an offense at the time the offense was alleged. Absolutely nothing was said by Polk reference the statute of limitations because it had not been exceeded. Had it been exceeded as you assert, it would have been an immediate game stopper and certainly would have been a viable and unarguable reason for not pursuing charges. Admit you are wrong rather than resorting to name calling like a five year old. You must specialize in plea agreements because youre inept at making a viable argument.

D-FenceMaster
D-FenceMaster

There is another way to look at this.

Yes, the "workflow" has the SoL examination late in the process, not upfront. The REASON for this is that any prosecutor worth her salt will never conceed the SoL is controlling.

Just as a litigator can find ways around the Statute on Frauds or the Hearsay Rule, prosecutors hate to let the SoL stand in the way of their cases.

You virtually never read of a prosecutor declining cases due to SoL when others excuses exist. The last thing she wants is to have that press release thrown in her face at a later date by some other defendant.

Truconserv
Truconserv

All you're doing is reinforcing that you don't know the workflow for criminal law.

This is how the system works.  Sorry that you don't like it, sorry that you're angry because life doesn't support your delusions and that everything seems so unfair.

Sorrier, still, that you are such a loser.

Truconserv
Truconserv

ROTFLMAO!

You're an idiot.

Just because one cause wasn't listed doesn't mean it wouldn't have prevailed.

No wonder you hate the PNT, it actually requires intelligence to read.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...