I am writing in response to the press release/“letter to the editor” submitted by Scott Ballard and published by The Citizen on May 27.
The press release clearly demonstrates many of the reasons why I am running for district attorney. The Griffin Judicial Circuit requires competent leadership, aggressive prosecution of crimes, and efficient and effective utilization of resources. The Griffin Judicial Circuit deserves proven experience to protect our communities.
My opponent focuses on his “hometown” when he speaks about guarding what’s “ours.” When I use the term, “ours,” I am referring to the entire judicial circuit, which includes Fayette, Pike, Spalding and Upson counties. The district attorney’s office is supposed to represent victims of crimes in each of these counties, not just the DA’s “hometown” of “Fayette.”
Currently, there is not even an assistant district attorney assigned full time to Pike County, and moreover, the budget for this office has continued to increase despite a lack of service from the district attorney’s office to this community.
If elected as district attorney, I will provide competent, efficient, and effective leadership and prosecute crimes throughout the entire Griffin Judicial Circuit, because what happens in one of these counties affects the entire circuit.
I have 12 years of prosecutorial experience to do this. I have tried literally hundreds of cases as a prosecutor, and trained new assistant district attorneys with respect to the same.
My opponent attempts to rely on his years of courtroom experience; however, he has had only 3.5 years experience as a prosecutor, and his lack of prosecutorial experience is quite evident. His prior “courtroom” experience was spent defending the very same criminals he now claims he will prosecute, including child molesters.
In fact, in November 1993, Scott Ballard stated in response to a child molester case he lost as a defense attorney, “I expect the attitude will continue to be always believe the child. And that’s a dangerous attitude.” (AJC 5/6/93). Thus, in 1993, Ballard stated it was dangerous to believe children who cry out against their molesters.
Ballard may argue that was his position in 1993, but that his opinion is different as a district attorney. But his actions have clearly demonstrated his opinion remains the same.
Ballard admits in his press release that in 2005, while working as the district attorney for this circuit, he testified as a “character” witness for Jeffrey Allen, a man convicted of molesting five young girls.
Ballard attempts to explain his inappropriate conduct by asserting: 1) Allen was in his bible study; 2) the conviction was over 10 years earlier; 3) Allen was just drinking when he got into the trouble that resulted in his probation on the child molestation cases being revoked; and, 4) that Ballard was allegedly under a subpoena to testify on behalf of Allen and that he will show it to us if we ask him to.
None of these alleged “explanations” justifies his conduct as an elected official, the district attorney, a position entrusted to uphold the laws of this state and representing the members of this community.
In response to each of these issues, I state:
1) Allen was a convicted sex offender and was at a strip club in Atlanta, Ga., on the night he engaged in conduct that resulted in his probation being revoked on the child molestation charges. This conduct was a violation of his probation.
2) The fact that Allen’s conviction for child molestation was over 10 years old is insignificant. I can assure you after working with child victims over the years, such scars do not fade with time. Moreover, Ballard fails to tell you that in 2004, he defended Allen on multiple charges of obscene phone calls.
3) Allen was drinking alcohol. This was also a violation of his probation. Not only was Allen intoxicated after returning from a strip club in Atlanta in violation of his probation, but Allen could not pay for the taxi he took back to Fayetteville. That was a violation of his probation because he committed a new crime, theft of services. Thereafter, Allen fought with police when the cab driver called for help. That was yet another violation of his probation because he committed a new crime, felony obstruction of a police officer.
4) Ballard initially asserted he voluntarily testified as a character witness on behalf of convicted child molester Allen because Allen was in his bible study; now he asserts that he was under subpoena and if anyone wants to see it he will show it. People asked to see it in 2005. It never appeared.
The evasiveness of this response is suspect at best, especially in light of the AJC article dated July 12, 2005, wherein the attorney representing Allen told the AJC, “If Ballard had not willing appeared, (I) would have served him with a subpoena.” Thus, this article indicates that Allen’s attorney did not issue a subpoena prior to Ballard’s testimony. Perhaps my opponent has obtained a “subpoena” to show prospective voters now.
Ballard also fails to share with voters the fact that he accepted a campaign donation in the 2004 election from Jeffrey Allen’s mother in the amount of $1,000. The articles and Ballard’s testimony are available for voters to view on my website, www.rudjardhayes.com.
Moreover, by now asserting that he was allegedly under subpoena, my opponent clearly underestimates the intelligence of the voters in this community. Prosecutors may seek assistance from the Attorney General’s office to have subpoenas quashed. Ballard never sought this remedy.
Additionally, as noted above, there was a conflict of interest in testifying on behalf of Allen because of the outstanding felony warrants on Allen in Fayette County; Ballard disregarded this conflict.
Finally, Ballard testified as a “character” witness for Allen, which means he went for the purpose of saying Allen was a good person. No attorney ever puts a character witness on the stand without knowing what the witness will say.
Thus, Allen’s attorney was aware that Ballard would testify under oath that Allen was “a good man” that got into trouble when he was drinking and that Allen was someone “we should take a chance on.” Notably, the court specifically asked Ballard if he knew whether Allen was drinking when he molested the five girls. Ballard answered, “I don’t know.” (See my website).
I would never testify on behalf a child molester, regardless of the date of the conviction. I have had the honor and privilege to study, train, and teach all over the country regarding the prosecution of child sex offenders. I have used this training to successfully prosecute crimes against children in this circuit.
My opponent correctly notes that my case load with respect to crimes against children while working in this circuit was typically more than double his or any other assistant district attorney. The reason is simple.
I have experience in prosecuting these kinds of cases – effectively. This experience is necessary. The headlines are filled with evidence that child predator cases are being leniently prosecuted and/or incorrectly prosecuted under Ballard’s direction.
Just weeks ago, the final of four people originally charged with child molestation plead guilty to cruelty to children in Fayette County.
Based on the indictments in the case on file in the Fayette County Clerk of Court’s office, four individuals were charged with child molestation after the two women, Barchi and Graham, engaged in sexual conduct in the presence of a young child, while two males, Burns (the child’s father) and Graffeo, encouraged and photographed the sexual activity.
Each of these defendants received extremely lenient treatment. The district attorney’s office allowed Graffeo to plead to cruelty to children with a five-year prison sentence.
Burns, who was slated to testify against the two women, was also permitted to plea to cruelty to children charges, but he received five years probation and 120 days in a diversion center.
The two females, Barchi and Graham (the ones who engaged in the sexual conduct in the presence of the 3-year-old child), were permitted to plea to cruelty to children charges, and each received one-year probation, and 90 days and 60 days, respectively, in a diversion center.
As if that were not enough, Graham was given first offender status, which means if she successfully completes her probation period, she will not have a conviction on her record.
Is that aggressive? The evidence in this case consisted of, among other things, pictures clearly showing adults engaged in overt sexual activity with a small child watching. The Official Code of Georgia 16-6-4 clearly indicates that the commission of an immoral or indecent act committed in the presence of a child under the age of 16 years is child molestation.
The district attorney’s office has been quoted as saying, “We felt the facts lent themselves more to a cruelty to children charge.” Why?
At least two of these defendants admittedly participated in sexual conduct in the presence of a child, and the conduct was photographed. Moreover, if the district attorney’s office thought this, then why weren’t the cases indicted as “cruelty” charges to begin with?
The answer can be found in other failed child predator cases in this circuit. Consider the recent valiant efforts of Peachtree City’s Internet predator team. Scott Selfe was one of the individuals charged as a result of his attempt to engage in pornographic communications with a police officer thought to be a minor.
In January 2008, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed Selfe’s conviction for child pornography because the indictment, as worded, did not support the conviction. As a result, there are 20-plus more child predator convictions at risk of being overturned. (See, Selfe v. State 2008 GACA A07A2162).
It is evident why Ballard did not resurrect his prior campaign slogan, “Ready for Trial.” He isn’t.
My opponent also states that he has prosecuted people for lying on affidavits to get their children into Fayette schools. In June 2006, he promised to prosecute these cases. In November 2006, he dismissed the first two (Denise and Michelle Slay).
The pattern continues. Another school fraud case was dismissed in March 2008 (King).
This trend is extremely dangerous in light of the fact that the state’s largest failing school system (Clayton County) is next door to this circuit. We must see aggressive prosecution of these cases, not merely statements that the DA “intends” to prosecute these cases.
I am pursuing the position of district attorney for the Griffin Judicial Circuit to ensure our entire community, which includes our children, our schools, our businesses, in all four counties are protected.
I find it unacceptable to have cases dismissed because of a late review of the evidence, an unprepared district attorney’s office, and/or because cases were indicted incorrectly.
I invite voters to research the issues and I ask for your support on July 15, 2008.
Rudjard Hayes
Candidate for district attorney
www.rudjardhayes.com