Hearsay would be if the witnesses testified that they heard someone else say she bragged. The witnesses testified that she bragged directly to them. That is not hearsay. Sadly, there are many, many others that heard this, but weren't aware of the trial.

OK FIRST LET ME SAY I DONT KNOW EITHER OF THEM BUT I JUST WONNA TALK ABOUT ONE THING HIM WHEN HE HITS PRISON (BEING I HAVE DONE BEEN THEIR AN DONE IT)AN THIS IS ALL I WONNA SAY I DONT CARE IF HE DID IT ARE NOT BUT IF YOU ARE A PERSON WHO THANKS THEIR IS A GOD YOU BETTER PRAY An pray hard cause im telling you in prison rape is no joke an they dont like rapist down their if he makes it threw this first 90 days down the road he might be ok ... but say what you wont but trust me when i say this ... he has a ruff road ahead of him down in prison forget about the appeal for awhile its gone be a long road just worry about him now an if you thank im just some dumb dude who has been in prison an all that my whole life thank that but im just telling you all who are close to this kid pray for the best

Noooooo "Imadeit." Why would we ever think that?

Don't they have study programs up in there?

these Tween posters are a testament to our educational system, are they not? I have a suggestion, instead of the ABCDF grading system, how about DUMBY?

"Your, yore, you're all idiots." (T.Floyd)

Tweens are children in between the stages of pre-adolescents and the teenage years. I'm sure that no one on here is between the ages of 8 and 12. Maybe you should make sure you know what you're talking about before you decide to throw out your popular culture terms and make degrading comments towards the education system. And your comment about grading, actually one of the DUMBER things I've seen anyone say.

Sorry, but from the writing styles and execution I thought you were all about 10 years old. I can only assume you are very familiar with the lower end of the current grading system. (see below)

And I do know what a "tween" is, that was my point and I'm not surprised you missed it.
"Your, yore, you're all idiots." (T.Floyd)

but some of us are NOT tweens, teens, or illiterate as you seem to believe we are.

Ahavah

"Despite treason after treason, and sabatoge after sabatoge, God's empire of light never falls into total eclipse. Satan wages a futile war."

I apologize if you felt included in my rant. I've noticed your comments seem to be among the more intelligent, however I can't say the same for most of your peers. Sorry you missed my point.
"I know Zach wouldn't, couldn't, didn't do this" is not a very good argument.
I haven't spoken to his innocence or guilt because I don't know the truth. I do feel there are two people who do and one of them is a liar.
"Your, yore, you're all idiots." (T.Floyd)

i meant to say this yesterday, but didn't get the chance-thanks TonyF...you may be the first person who's ever apologized to me on the blogs.

And you are right about that argument based simply on "what a great guy" he is, that's no argument at all.

Ahavah

"Despite treason after treason, and sabatoge after sabatoge, God's empire of light never falls into total eclipse. Satan wages a futile war."

Tony's Mom dropped him on his head when he was a baby.

Twice.

"Your, yore, you're all idiots." (T.Floyd)

"Twice" means "more than once".

rubs Tony's greasy head

You get a cookie.

but due to the brain damage I can't read or type "twice"(mommy typed it for me this time, then she dropped me again).

"Your, yore, you're all idiots." (T.Floyd)

Comes on down to da shower mains for a bumbel cluck ofs a good tymes main.... Imadeit, we do not have to think after reading your post. Next time in the joint man, do yourself a favor in bettween pressing weights, and trying to keep folks off of you, head on down to the library, on your way to the shower and check our the section titled English.....PEACE.... By the way dont forget the soap on a rope....

Who cares what an "awesome" person he is/was. He admitted to hurting a four year old little girl. FOUR years old. that is sick and wrong. Do you want a "man" like this running around with your children? I think not. Whether he is guilty or not of raping this girl i guess no one will ever truly know but it does not matter. He can serve this time for the four year child's life that will never be the same. Things like this haunt children for the rest of thier lifes. She may never have normal relationships with real men and when she does they will be anything but easy. He can spend the rest of his life in jail for scewing up the little child's so long ago. Who cares if this girl is lying or innocent. He is sick.

He was 14 years old and made a mistake- he admitted to it though, didn't he? You're more likely to lie at 14 than you are at 21. Zach has always been honest. Also, he was already punished for the crime he committed at 14 years old. How would you feel if your mother came into your house and grounded you again because of that one time you just had to sneak out of the house when you were 13.

You sound like one of the jurors. That attitude is exactly why this kid was convicted. It had nothing to do with the facts of the rape case. To some extent I agree Zack is a dirt bag chld molester. But he served his time for that and he shouldn't have to be punished for it twice. I don't really feel sorry for Zack. This story just scares me because basically it shows us how flawed our system is.

It's only going to get worse. PTC's own Matt Ramsey's "rape by phone" bill looks like it's going to get to the Governor's desk.

How about this scenario? A kid prank calls you on the phone at 2 in the morning. Irate, you tell the person to "go 'cheney' yourself". Guess what? Under Rep. Ramsey's legislation, you just "molested a child". Doesn't matter that you didn't know (or care) about the age of the caller. The law is the law. And Scott Ballard will have no choice but to prosecute you...and Judge Caldwell will have no choice but to sentence you.

let's be timely with our insults and colloquialisms. Instead of a "cheney", why don't you switch to a "biden". He throws the F bomb around with the grace and aplomb of a sailor...
swearing doesn't have to be partisan, does it?

Come on Sniff, laugh with me or at me... I think that I am a hoot...

I am thinking about having you charged with child molestion because my kid just read that over my shoulder. Wait a sec.. would they charge me or you for that? Its your comment but its my computer? Either way one one us will get 35 years even if there is no evidence.

Good point. Are court transcripts public record? This seems like an extreme miscarriage of justice.

This guy should win on appeal, unless there is some big evidence not reported here.

As I recall, transcripts are normally very expensive, typically only done for appeals and take weeks to create.

I can only imagine. I was in a car accident one time and it cost $350.00 to get copy of my hospital records.

It would be nice to see some actual facts on this.

In addition to real facts I would also like to see how many new users signed up within the 24hrs or so. I noticed one of the new users named their profile "Bullsh*T" Thats kind of awesome. I wonder if CAl will delete the whole comment or just write "edited" where the user ID is supposed to be.

There's a 330+ member facebook group that sprung up literally overnight to decry the Zach Higgins conviction, and they're urging people to post over here in a respectful manner.

Personally, I'd be interested in hearing what some of these jurors were thinking that compelled them to convict.

does anyone know what it is?

"Your, yore, you're all idiots." (T.Floyd)

the link is http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/wall.php?id=75985814761 and that group is now 536 members and growing all the time.

Ahavah

"Despite treason after treason, and sabatoge after sabatoge, God's empire of light never falls into total eclipse. Satan wages a futile war."

Facebook Link

536 members in two days....that's impressive.

I notice with my family and my church friends that the average teenager has over 300 "friends" on their Facebook. You throw in that network and the general population of Sandy Creek HS and vicinity-Northgate, etc--you can get a lot of members to a group very quickly. Of course, I am a member of several "groups" because friends hit me up from time to time. If it is not against my values, I will push the accept button relatively easily.

I tell you, though, this case looks very odd, I think the kid has a good chance on appeal, jury misconduct charges will be coming because people like to talk and justify themselves. Something is going to come out...

I think it's impressive bit of activism when you consider they are asking people to side with a convicted rapist, who has committed one of the most heinous crimes on the books, rape, a man who admittedly deflowered....took the virginity ... of one of our most precious commodities: white womanhood.

....and they got 500+ people to agree with their position in 48 hours.

I look around and see some of the older folks on this site nattering about "the law is the law" as if the law was some sacrosanct tenet that is universally applied...I listen to people making excuses (oh the judge....the prosecutor...the jury....were just doing their jobs so we can't blame them. And these young people flood in here and ask the question that nobody seems able to answer: if everyone was "doing their job", how the hell did the system render such an incredibly poor verdict?

Our system is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. A jury brings all kinds of baggage to its deliberations, as would a judge if it were a bench trial. But there isn't a better system generally speaking. I think that the punishment is not proportional to the punishment for similar crimes or comparable ones. Previous crimes, even if it weren't admissible in the trial must have played a role. What else can it be?

Now the teenagers are an interesting group. Generally they have a very wide circle of friends, but pretty shallow at that. That is why sexting is a problem because they have a different sense of it than adults. They have no problem throwing a "friend" into the lion's den. When a poll (regional I know) states that 50% of all teenages think that Rihanna is culpable in her assault then they are thinking differently than most adults.

Realizing that you are not a religious person, I still recommend a good book that details the thoughts of our youth. It is called Unchristian and it is a good read and has good insight.

i think you hit the nail on the head. while some of my contemporaries will rail against the judge, jury, DA, etc, i cannot bring myself to do so. all three of those parties were simply doing their respective jobs. your closing sentence basically sums up anything Zach's supporters have been trying to say, however improperly.

what truly puzzles me, however, is how the same judge ruled on a case just last week of a man who, thanks to irrefutable evidence was also convicted of rape(as well as burglary) and was sentenced to only 20 years. if, in fact, "the law is the law," then shouldn't it be applied equally to two people accused of the same crime?

Ahavah

"Despite treason after treason, and sabatoge after sabatoge, God's empire of light never falls into total eclipse. Satan wages a futile war."

Wow, thats a lot for something like this. Whats really amazing is I don't think its a popularity thing. I've noticed in a few of the posting that a lot of these kids don't even like Zack. They just think this thing is flat out wrong.

The State of Georgia has changed many of their laws regarding sexual crimes. In most cases they have made it easier to prosecute offenders and I feel rightfully so. These charges against this young man are MANDATORY and offer NO PAROLE. Yes, now days rape cases often carry harsher penalties than murder cases. I'm not sure that's fair. Now I am all for locking up sexual predators for a long time because most solid research shows that these types of offenders are rarely rehabilitated but here you have a case of teenage "He said - She said" and these unconscionable penalties are applied, just as if this were a violent rape offense. Just doesn't seem right but I don't think the judge had any leeway in the sentencing (other than throwing out the jury verdict and finding the defendant innocent). I wish the politicians making laws would not tie the hands of judges. They are the ones elected/appointed to make these decisions.
I understand why the judge would allow the past case to introduced in trying to establish a pattern but this case was tried solely on the previous case (in which the young man served his time) and not on the merits of the present case. However, I feel like only the record of the past case should have been used. Instead, DA Ballard used graphic details of the past case to scare that jury and paint the defendant as a dangerous predator. I guess his job is to get convictions so he did his job with very little evidence.
It also seems like the defense attorney did not do a good job of preparing a defense. Thinking that throwing four or five teenagers and young adults on the stand was not enough to sway a jury. Why was there no psychiatrist on the stand to testify that their was no pattern to the defendant's behavior? I also understand that there were several other character witnesses who were either not made aware of the trial or were out of town. Maybe flying in a few witnesses and putting 15 - 20 people on the stand testifying that the girl had bragged about the incident would have been more impressive.
I hope the attorney for the appeal prepares a little better.

maybe she isn't you

I'm not sure that the suffrage movement would agree with your definition of rape requiring resistance from the woman. This used to be the law and they fought hard to change it. When women resist rape they generally receive much greater injury than if they give in. Date rape is a good example. Please, please never become a judge, I fear for my wife's safety under your watch. Or do you still believe women should stay at home with the kids where they belong?

and I am in law school, so who knows... I may very well be a judge someday.

YIKES!

I realize rape doesn't require resistance on the woman's part...That probably just came out wrong. It's how I see it going down if someone tried to rape me. But the point I'm trying to make is that I'm sick and tired of girls saying they were 'raped' when really they just got talked into it. Innocent men suffer unfairly as a result, and this case is only one example. You don't have to be rude or condescending. It's incredibly immature of you.

I think all the regular members of this website need to go through sensitivity training. You are all very mean, hurtful and incredibly immature. I realize that all of you are over the age of thirty and a lot of you are probably in your mid-50's but please; grow up and stop making such mean and rude comments. I am going to go cry now... Excuse me, I have to go. Boo who. Boo who.

Yes!

Like many who have posted, I have known both the accuser and convicted for many years. But unlike many, I have to agree with you, Cut: rape victims will do the strangest things.

While I don't have an opinion on whether or not Zach is guilty, I can't help but notice that 90% of the people posting won't even consider for a second that he may be guilty.

I am very embarrassed by my peers (I recognize many of the posters) and I urge them to take a more unbiased, mature approach to this issue.

i do agree with the statement that rape victims often act strangely and there is not a defining behavior, merely things that usually occur. if we were simply dealing with someone who didn't report a rape and then went on to be promiscuous, i would have some iota of doubt. however, given the circumstances that not only did she not report the alleged crime, she told an ex-boyfriend about the relationship, never claiming that it was non-consensual, she bragged to several friends about sleeping with him and only told her parents during an argument about her then(maybe current, i don't know) boyfriend. Given that information, no, i don't consider for a minute that he is guilty, and i don't feel that disagreeing with sentencing an innocent 21 year old to spend most of his life in jail for something he didn't do is an immature approach. Biased, perhaps, but that is the nature of life-we're all biased in some way.

Ahavah

"Despite treason after treason, and sabatoge after sabatoge, God's empire of light never falls into total eclipse. Satan wages a futile war."

Yes, her story is nearly impossible to believe. And yes, 35 years is an unbelievably long time for a crime that has little evidence.

I just feel that many (but not all) of the people crying out that Zach is innocent are appearing a little immature. If you want your friend to get the justice he is due, please go about it correctly. Write news stations, newspapers, don't slander the girl and call her names (that isn't helping).

i agree with you that slandering the girl is not the answer, and it's certainly no one's place.

but i don't believe for a moment that asserting and defending someone's innocence is immature. perhaps their means are, but not their intent.

and for the future, no matter what side you're on, can we all be civil to each other and be adults? thanks...

Ahavah

"Despite treason after treason, and sabatoge after sabatoge, God's empire of light never falls into total eclipse. Satan wages a futile war."

I totally agree. Basically 'ditto' to everything you said.

Certain testimony is allowed during different stages of a trial.

During Bond Hearings and in Grand Jury, hearsay and "gut-feelings" are allowed as testimony. This is because the victim is not allowed to testify for herself in those proceedings. That said, hearsay and "gut-feelings" are not allowed in the actual trial.
There would be no need to have the Detective talk on the stand if the victim was going to testify on her behalf.

The Jury felt (as did I) that the defense's "witnesses" were not credible. Two of them were friends of the rapist since Kindergarten and only knew the victim since 9th grade. None of them directly heard the victim "bragging" about having sex with the rapist(or was present during the conversation leading up to that remark). THAT is border-line hearsay. The only witness which testified to speaking to the victim said that the victim made a quick laugh. Could it be possible that someone could misinterpret her quick laugh as joking or bragging when it was actually a nervous, let's-change-the-subject-laugh?

You are so wrong. Were you there? Because if you did hear the witnesses testimonies (INCLUDING MINE LET ME ADD...), then you would know that YES, I did only know {{{EDITED}}} since 9th grade (BECAUSE THATS WHEN SHE TRANSFERRED TO SANDY CREEK!), but I was great friends with her. We were in a class together, in the same friend group, the same grade, and we were best friends on the swim team. She told me a lot. I wouldn't call Zach a friend. We've known each other for a long time, but we were in different grades and had few friends in common. You are very ignorant if you think that the duration of a friendship is reflective of the depth of that friendship. {{{EDITED}}} and I were good friends in high school. Maybe you should get the transcripts from the trial so you can learn something "LetMeEducateYou".....

Here's a fact-
The jury obviously didn't believe you.

You're right...which is why this is ridiculous. {{{EDITED}}} is a liar. You are obviously related to her, which is the only reason you are so upset. Everyone knows she is lying BUT YOU!

Why would I be upset about the verdict?

In the interest of full disclosure, would you mind telling us why you were attending the trial? From your comments, it would seem that you have more than a passing interest in promoting the victim's side of the story. A relative of yours, perhaps?

I'm not necessarily promoting the victim's side, but the State's official ruling.

The fact that Zach is now a convicted rapist is not an opinion, but a legal actuality.

He was found guilty in a unanimous decision by a jury of his peers.
They only deliberated for a little longer than an hour.
That goes to show that there was no wavering minds. They all were convinced that he was guilty. They even had an entire night to sleep on their decision.

Thanks for clearing that up, Judge Caldwell.

I thought that might be you.

Would you care to discuss your rationale for the 35 year sentence?

Obviously LetMeEducateYou is either Scott Ballard or one of his lackeys...it was not Caldwell that used inflammatory and prejudicial rantings during his summation to fire up the jury to convict....it was Ballard, who also came under fire during the recent election season for being soft on sex crimes. Good job Ballard, scratch another notch in your gun.
If you readers are not happy with our current "justice" in Fayette County, be sure to register to vote and join me in voting him out next time.
In most counties and states, this flimsy case would not have made it past the magistrate judge...but since all you need is a high school diploma to be a magistrate, and a cheap badge to be a cop, you can flex your muscles, hoodwink a jury, and claim to be tough on crime so you can get reelected....the problem with that is the people you are manipulating have family and friends who vote and pay taxes and MANY of us are fed up with the police state Fayette is becoming. As a friend of mine who is a federal investigator residing on the north side said, "they just do it differently down there....that's why I live up here...."
God protect our children from the bullies with badges that we have allowed to infiltrate our criminal justice system...

I'm not Judge Caldwell, but I can tell you where 35 years came from.

The state legislators around the country have set into place something called mandatory minimums.
For the offense of rape, the 2005 range was "no less than 25, no more than life."
For the offense of aggravated sodomy, the 2005 range was "no less than 10."

Judge Caldwell is bound by these mandatory minimums imposed on him and gave Mr. Higgins the least amount of time he could- 35 years (25 for rape + 10 for agg. sodomy).

And I suppose your, whoops, I mean "Judge Caldwell"'s hands were tied so he couldn't impose a concurrent sentence (25 years total), and was forced to impose consecutive sentences?

Tiffeyy wrote- "If Higgins raped girls I'm beyond positive I would've been raped.."

WOW! Is that your actual argument?!

If you pass a murder on the street and he doesn't shoot you, does he cease to be a murderer anymore?
If you go to school with a child molester teacher and he doesn't molest you, does that mean he's cured?

I don't know if you've ever known anyone who was being accused of something that you are absolutely positive they aren't capable of doing but I'm in that situation now and I can say yes, that is my argument. If he was a serial rapist then I'm sure that myself along with several other women would have been victims; I have my story and reasons on why I believe this and they are sound.

that did stuff that I never would have thought them capable of. I find this an odd argument if he was guilty of assaulting a 4 year old in the past. I am not stating that previous acts automatically make him guilty of future acts. But I would state with certainty that if he did it once, he has the "capability" of doing it again. It is a bad argument to hang your hat on

I guess when it comes to this you have an advantage if you don't know Zach because you don't know his character so you can make your decision based on the limited facts that are being presented through newspaper articles. I can't believe it and I won't. Be it a bad argument or not, I never said I was any good at debating or putting my thoughts into a literary form, I will hang my hat on it.

I mean, seriously, do you believe in your heart that he isn't capable of molesting a 4 year old? Well, oviously he was. Maybe I am an odd sort of person...I believe that more people are capable of raping an adult (or almost an adult) than molesting a 4 year old. But who am I? I sounds like an odd case and an odd verdict with much conflicting testimony. The miscarriage of justice will reside in that, and not in the character that he may possess.

Please don't assume you know the details of his previous arrest. Look at Georgia state law for all the things you can be charged with child molestation for doing.If he'd committed some heinous act before, I guarantee he'd have endured a longer sentence and probation, even if he was a minor.

Either way, he is NOT on trial for an earlier offense here. To do so would be the principle of double jeopardy.

Ahavah

"Despite treason after treason, and sabatoge after sabatoge, God's empire of light never falls into total eclipse. Satan wages a futile war."

I agree he should not have been tried for a previous offense. But lets not all jump up and down saying he is innocent because he is just such a peach of a human being. I view the "molestion" of a 4 year old to be a more evil act than a nonviolent rape (if that was what actually happened) between young adults of a comparable age. And I don't think that God's empire of light consists of such evil acts. He is pretty specific on how we are to live, sexually speaking. It certainly does not include this

please don't misunderstand me. Zach isn't innocent simply because of his character; he is innocent based on the evidence.

And(since you pulled my signature into this) because He gave us free will, God's empire of light DOES include evil. But it's God's, as the ruler of that empire, task to judge whatever happened before.

Ahavah

"Despite treason after treason, and sabatoge after sabatoge, God's empire of light never falls into total eclipse. Satan wages a futile war."

I would stake my belief in him based on the evidence alone. I agree that God is the ultimate judge, but I wouldn't want this young man to babysit any young children. I think that is prudent. That to me is good judgment and I cannot take character defenses seriously.

I can understand where you come from when you say that you wouldn't let him babysit children and that is completely understandable given past circumstances; I also respect that you can't take me believing he is innocent based on his character but if there were sufficient evidence to prove that he was guilty then my character defense wouldn't be relevent, really.

If he is innocent, may there be justice

Honestly I can't say what I believe about him when he was fourteen years old because I didn't know him then but the man I know now wouldn't molest a 4 year old and most certainly wouldn't rape a girl. I don't need anyone's permission to believe in my heart that Zach is innocent and I don't need to explain my reasons.

I don't believe that Zack raped this girl either. There are not any fact to support her claim. It has nothing to do with Zack's character. Zack molested a 4 year old kid. That is a fact. But that doesn't mean its ok to sentence people to 35 years for a crime they didn't commit just because they have a bad criminal history.

he didn't do it tiff. you and i both know that. i'm not even friends with him and know he didn't do it. for the 8 months that me and the "victim" dated she never once told me that it was rape.

Thank you for supporting Zach. I will stand my ground and help defend Zach's innocence. If she was raped her whole demeanor would change; she wouldn't date anyone for a really long time, she wouldn't trust guys, she would be edgy and jumpy and I highly doubt she would talk about the experience with anyone- even claiming that it was consensual to pretend it didn't happen would be out of the question. So, I thank you again =]

Well he may have been at work and he may have not been. We wouldn't know because she couldn't REMEMBER what day it was? Friday, Saturday, or Sunday?! I think if I got raped I would REMEMBER WHAT DAY IT WAS! What an idiot girl...

Her dad is not and cop and has never been a Sheriff.
Stop trying to make this into some sort of conspiracy theory.

The father is a civil engineer, just ask the victim's ex-boyfriend (he posted somewhere on this page).