In 2012, the state board that disciplines doctors in the State of Connecticut cited "overwhelming'' forensic evidence on Tuesday as it revoked the license of Dr. Edwin Njoku of East Hartford, charged with rape of his female patience.
Dr, Njoku’s lawyer, Mr. Richard Brown, argued for the Medical Examining Board to postpone action until after the criminal case – but board members said Njoku never formally invoked his right to ask for a postponement. Instead, the board noted, Njoku went ahead with a hearing. In other words, the Board relied on a technicality – that the doctor never “formally” invoked his right to ask for a postponement. Also, the board spoke of overwhelming forensic evidence, which might have just been a matter of opinion for a board that had made up its mind.
If it ended here, this would have been a simple case of another Nigerian doctor found to have violated the rules of medical profession and probably acted stupidly too. But the case has another twist to it.
In August of 2013, the court acquitted Dr. Njoku of rape, but found him guilty of lesser offenses. That means that the board might have been hasty and rushed to reach its findings of “overwhelming” forensic evidence. Note hat they did not find his sperms inside her, as the woman’s allegations might have suggested.
It is important to note that given the fact that the board’s decision is based on a lower standard of proof (clear and convince evidence) rather that the standard for criminal conviction (beyond reasonable doubt), it is possible for the board to find him guilty, even though the criminal court would not.
Yet something remains disturbing about this case. The Board's decision most likely affected his criminal trial. He was acquitted of the rape charge, which the Board based its decision on. Doctor's fluids and DNA are easily transferable to their patients. It is likely that great injustice was done to this doctor. It is that he had something going with the woman. He probably jilted her and she cried rape. Note that his semen was never found inside of her.
Note that her testimony was disproved by science. "During a seven-day trial that included tears, angry words and sexually graphic dialogue, the patient testified that Njoku got on top of her as she lay on an examination table and raped her." But his sperms were not found in her. And if she lied in key area, why would the jury believe her?
This was a trial with many twists. “The verdict suggested that jurors believed that Njoku put his mouth on the woman's breast in an East Hartford exam room on Oct. 22, 2011.” Dr. Njoku “testified that it was the woman who made sexual advances, reaching into his pants and grabbing him”. His lawyers “painted a picture of an accuser with mental problems and a drug dependency”. “Njoku's DNA was in dried saliva found on the woman. His DNA also was found in semen stains on the jeans the woman was wearing, but none was found inside her body”.
The trial and verdict were further complicated by the rules of evidence that apply in the State of Connecticut.
"And it was very difficult to explain to [Dr. Njoku] why the state was permitted to bring in [other] accusers of his but why he couldn't bring up other facts and factoids about the alleged victim in this case," according to his lawyer. “Another hurdle for the defense was a state law that prohibits the jury from hearing information about other people with whom the patient might have had sex before the alleged rape. The DNA of at least two people besides Njoku was found on the woman, Pattis said in court when the jury wasn't in the room.”
The trial was also full of some drama and theatrics. For instance, the lawyer to the doctor had to lie on the table and the floor of the courtroom to demonstrate to the jury that the story of the rape victim could not have been possible.
Also, there is a lesson to learn – obstruction of justice could be a serious charge. There was evidence that the doctor send a pastor to talk to the victim for her to drop the charges. So, normally, an accused person may not communicate with the complainant once a charge has been filed.
But the bigger lesson here is the wisdom and ethics of doctors avoiding all forms of sexual contact with their patients. If a patient grabs you, make a big issue out of it. Report to the police immediately before she does.
Also note that once the jury read the verdict, the judge increased the bail bond of the doctor, meaning that he was taken back into custody until he would pay the new bail bond. For lawyers reading this report, I would explain that. The bail set before the trial was low and designed to make sure that the doctor would not be in detention during his trial in accordance with the presumption of innocence. But once found guilty, though not sentenced, two things occurred in the process. First, the risk that he would flee is greater. Second, having been convicted, he is no longer presumed innocent and his detention henceforth would not offend the presumption of innocence.
No comments:
Post a Comment