The Criminal Charges against Keenya

 charges - 36 total

 requests for discovery-particulars 

The criminal case against Keenya involve her two grandchildren (a girl and a boy, her younger cousin), each a child of Keenya's own two daughters who had abandoned them. Actually, the criminal case flowed from the underlying two Juvenile Court cases, one case for each grand-child. Custody of the grandchildren were given to Keenya by CSB.

In January 1997, Children's Services Bureau (CSB) removed the grandchildren from Keenya's home, purportedly on a complaint by Dr David Cragar Minor to whom Keenya had taken the children regards their previously diagnosed and documented health issues. The children had been seen by other doctors but Keenya sought another opinion on the treatment the children were receiving - thus is how she came to Dr. Minor, a self-styled expert on ADD/ADHD in children. I will discuss Dr Minor at length in other articles but want to note that Dr Minor's medical license was subsequently revoked by the Ohio Medical Board.

The Juvenile Court proceedings were held to determine what course of action was in the best interest of the children: reunite them with their mothers, place them in foster care, or return them to their grandmother Keenya Curry. The Juvenile Cases concluded, in essence, noting that 'no abuse' had occurrred; principles involved in making this decision were the Juvenile Court Judge, CSB caseworkers and psychologists, Prosecuting Attoney, and Dr Minor. (it is then puzzling, at best, that later Dr Minor would be cited as the chief accuser in the criminal case).

Along about Septemer 2007, there was a change of magistrates in the Juvenile Court (a magistrate assists the Judge and may act on behalf of the Judge in designated matters). With this change of magistrates, the criminal case was launched against Keenya Curry. It was, in fact, this new magistrate who personally referred the case for criminal investigation in citing new 'revelations' which the girl grandchild has related in the interim since it had been earlier adjudged that no abuse had occurred. Criminal charges were filed in November 1997.

It is noteworthy that CSB maintained sole control over the grandchildren from the time they were removed from Keenya's home in January 1997 through the time that Keenya was sentenced in August 1998. Furthermore, there was no independent evaluation of the testimony by anyone (including Keenya's attorney) and no Evidentiary Hearing was ever requested by the defense attorney. What we are left with, and what is the basis of the charges against Keenya, is whatever the Prosecutor says it was.

In December 1997, 6 counts were filed alleging felony Kidnapping and Endangering of Children. As is customary, the charges are broad and lack specificity as to alleged acts and dates of such acts. Trial was scheduled for February 1998 was subsequently changed to 16 Jul 1998.

In March 1998, Keenya's attorney James Reed filed Demand for Discovery and, Motions for Bills of Particular. The Bills of Particular are intented to force the Prosecutor to make specific their allegations as to acts and times. The Judge failed to rule on this Motion, as she is required to do.

About April 1998, the Prosecutor made an offer to Attorney Reed (we know this because of a letter from the Prosecutor to Mr. Reed asking for his response). Mr. Reed did not inform Keenya of this offer until 07 Jul 1998 when he advised her he had rejected the offer because he knew she 'wouldn't go for it.". Per Reed, the offer was that, if Keenya pleaded guilty to the (2) counts of Kidnapping, the Prosecutor would drop the remaining (4) counts of Endangering Children. The maximum Keenya could have received for these Kidnapping charges was 20 years combined.

In June 1998, the Prosecutor retaliated for Reed's refusal of the initial offer by filing an additional 30 counts.

In the interim, Keenya could not get Reed to respond to her requests (wouldn't return phone calls) to know what was going on with her case. About 23 Jun 1998, I advised Keenya to send a fax to Reed asking to meet with him and discuss his defense strategy for the impending trial on 16 July 1998. On 07 July 1998, Reed responded by telephone asking Keenya to meet him at the Courhouse - which she did along with a friend.

At this meeting, Reed told Keenya, in addition the the initial offer which he had rejected, he had just had a 'chance encounter' with the Prosecutor who offered a new and final offer: plead guilty to (5) counts of Endangering Children and the State would drop the other (31) counts and, not seek the maximum. If she continued to refuse to accept a plea then, the Prosecutor would continue to file more charges 'even if they totalled 1,000'. Additionally, if Keenya accepted the plea then she would most likely receive probation but not more than (1) year because she had no prior criminal convictions.

One big 'however', the Judge doesn't have to accept the plea agreement between Keenya and the Prosecutor! So, is this really an agreement? Keenya gives up her Constitutional Protections for what? No guarantees?

Reed recommended Keenya take the plea because: he had been prevented from seeing the evidence against her and thus, could not mount a defense. And, he said, he was afraid that if she didn't take the plea, her 'butt would spend the rest of' her life in jail.

Keenya had 15 minutes to make a decision. Realizing she had no choice she reluctantly agreed to the plea. Thereafter, that same day, a Plea Hearing was held. I think it pretty much evident that the Defense Attorney Reed, the Prosecutor, and the Judge, had this entire affair very well scripted and coordinated: Reed got his client to the courthouse (under pretense of discussing his defense strategy), he just happed to have had 'a chance encounter' with the Prosecutor who offered a new plea, and the Judge just happended to be waiting in the courtroom into which Keenya was whisked before she could change her mind.

As you can read in Transcript of Plea Hearing, the Prosecutor reneged immediately on the plea agreement by stating to the Judge that the State would be seeking the maximum. What was Keenya's attorney's response? Not one objection.

The rest, is as they say, 'history'. Did Keenya get what she was promised and agreed to? Does 25 years without chance of parole seem as if she did?

P.S. - To read about a prime example of prosecutorial power run amuck, see the below link about the Wenatchee (Wasington) sex abuse (of children) scandal that ruined many lives.

"The Power to Harm" - http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/powertoharm/

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)