By Kathy Laird
CCN Correspondent
David Vreeland, 51, currently being held at the Crawford County Justice Center is facing one count of rape and one count of gross sexual imposition. Vreeland’s attorney, Andy Motter, asserted that the alleged victims in this case had been coached regarding their testimony.
In a hearing in early March, Motter requested the court pay a professional service fee for a forensic psychologist to determine if the children had been coached.
Prosecutor Ryan Hoovler objected to the motion, saying that at least one victim in the case had made a complaint before about Vreeland, so that victim has a vaster knowledge of the legal system accounting for her verbiage.
In a lengthy, but explanatory, answer, Common Pleas Court Judge Sean Leuthold denied the request made by Motter.
Leuthold cited two core objectives the court had to address. First, the value of expert assistance to the defendant’s proper representation at trial, and second, the availability of alternative devices that fulfill the same functions as the expert assistance sought.
“The defense has not cited a great deal of value that the expert would add in this case,” Leuthold ruled, “Counsel for the defense has articulated a variety of ways in which the testimony of the child witnesses could be subject to cross examination. It is not clear that the expert would provide any significant additional value at trial.”
Leuthold went on to say he observed some leading questions in one part of the video, and references to prior conversations. Leuthold determined that the alleged discrepancies do not rise to the level of taint, but simply a function of different amounts of information given for different interviewers. Leuthold commented that the statements in question go to one victim’s familiarity with the process from the prior allegations of sexual abuse that were not charged.
“The ultimate truth or falsity of the statements is a matter for cross examination. The defense will have the opportunity to confront and cross examine,” Leuthold said. “An expert will not be necessary for this issue.”
In addressing the second objective, which is the availability of alternative devices that fulfill the same functions as an expert witness, Leuthold again addressed if a real need was met and determined it was not.
“The greatest asset the defendant has is his counsel,” Leuthold said.
Noting that the defendant was appointed attorney Motter to represent him, Leuthold ruled that Motter has decades of experience with criminal law and has articulated that knowledge and experience in this case.
“He is capable of cross examination and making arguments to a jury. Counsel is one of the greatest protections of due process and will fulfill the same functions as the expert would,” Leuthold said.
Leuthold reminded all parties that the jury is tasked with weighting the truthfulness of testimony. The jury will determine after examination and cross-examination if the children are telling the truth.
“The jury is capable of weighing testimony and an expert is unnecessary to supplement that function in this matter,” Leuthold said.
He said counsel has the right to subpoena and question any child welfare employees and the children’s services caseworker with the assistance of an expert, since that is where Motter alleges the coaching took place.
“If there is any other party who has been alleged to have fabricated these allegations, the defense can subpoena and question them at trial as well,” Leuthold said. “No expert is necessary to do this.”