Hide Article Text (OCR)
jury expected to begin deliberationsBy JOE KONZ Staf writerThe defense, relying on the cross examination of prosecution witnesses and the testimony of the defendant, rested its case this morning in the statutory rape trial of John A. Rife.Rife, of Wilton, is charged in connection with an-incident involving a 12-year-old Wilton girl during the early morning hours of June 1 of this year.The jury was expected to receive its instructions and begin deliberations with the opening of this afternoon’s session. The state had rested its case earlier in the morning.According to testimony offered Tuesday afternoon and this morning, Rife, 19, had tjeen told by the girl’s mother to stay away from her daughter. The warning was given on May 31, several hours before the alleged rape occurred.The girl, who testified Tuesday afternoon, said she had sexual intercourse with Rife while in his car. The car was parked near the agriculture building on the city’s south side.During her testimony, the girl hestitated on questions concerning the sex act and, at time, quietly muffled her answers in between tears. The questions were asked by both attorneys —Muscatine County Attorney David Newell and defense attorney David L. Scicszinski — with explanations to the girl that her answers were needed to satisfy the requirements of the law.Rife testified that on May 31, he was told by the girl's mother not to see the girl anymore and he agreed. However, he stopped his car and picked her up while she was walking downtown late that night.The girl, who lives with her grandparents and aunt only two blocks from Rife, said John” had been her boyfriend” since about September of 1976 except during a period when the two had broken up.A few hours after the rape allegedly occurred, the girl’s mother, who wanted to press charges against Rife, was advised by law enforcement officers to lake the girl to Muscatine General Hospital (MGH) for an examination.On that morning, Rife initially was arrested by Dwayne Rogers, a Wilton police officer, and charged with contributing to the deliquency of a minor because he had kept the girl out after Wilton's 9:30 p.m curfew.After a preliminary investigation, Muscatine County Sheriff’s officers the following day lodged the rape charge againstRife, according to Ronald Hazen.Hazen, an investigator with the sheriff's department,, testified during this morning's session.While the girl testified she and Rife had sexual intercourse, Rife testified today the sexual activity in the car fell short of intercourse.To ascertain which version was correct, Seieszinski 'and Newell repeatedly questioned the girl and Rife about whether the girl’s jeans had been removed (as was listed in the girl’s signed statement), pulled down (as the girl testified Tuesday) or simply unfastened (as Rife testified today).In return for their persistence, the two lawyers received as many different answers as there were questions asked.Dr. Arthur P. Schneider, the state’s first witness Tuesday, conducted the medical examination at the hospital.Schneider testified the 12-year-old girl'appeared to be a tearful female at the hospital.But durihg the examination, Schneider said he did not see any signs of' trauma or physical injury on the girl. The signs are those looked for by physicians while examining a victim of a suspected rape.The doctor, who had been working at the Muscatine Community. Health Center (out of the University of Iowa Hospital,Department of Family Practice), said a “wet mount test was conducted during tine girl’s examination to determine the presence of sperm in the girl’s vagina.However, when Newell asked Schneider to confirm the results of the test, Seieszinski objected to the lack of foundation established in the testimony. Since the doctor did not actually conduct the test, the prosecution would be admitting heresay evidence, the Wilton lawyer said.At the direction of presiding Judge L.D. Carstensen, the. lawyers argued the objectibn in the judge's chambers for about 10 minutes before returning to open court where Carstensen announced the objection had been sustained.At today's session, Newell tried to question a witness whom he believed conducted the test. But the woman, Lynn Banwart, could not recall being on duty that night nor could she remember who prepared the specimen or gave it to her.After those answers, Seieszinski again lodged an objection, this time to Banwart answering any questions about the results of the test because the foundation for the chain of possession of the specimen had not been established through Newell’s questioning.Again, Carstensen ruled in favor of the objection.
Newspaper Details
Muscatine Wednesday Muscatine Journal
Muscatine, Iowa, US
Wed, Nov 23, 1977
Page 30
Full Page
Clipped by
Anonymous
NA, 05 Mar 2025
Other Publications Near Muscatine, Iowa
Muscatine Journal and News Tribune
New Indexed Atlas of Muscatine County Iowa
Atlas of Muscatine County Iowa
Muscatine Daily Journal
Muscatine Weekly Journal
