posted earlier in the citizen:

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.

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. 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 willingly 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.

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.”

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.

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).