CALVIN DAY TRIAL UPDATE: WAS INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM THE GRAND JURY?

Dr. Calvin Day had one case of alleged sexual assault dismissed on December 18, 2015, yet he has an additional “copycat” allegation that has not been adjudicated as yet. Flabbergasted and bewildered is the typical reaction that has occurred by those who have examined the evidence against the second accuser’s allegation. Although it has often been said that even a ham sandwich can be indicted, in this second case there was not enough evidence to indict any type of sandwich; even a potato chip would have been “no billed”. In grand jury proceedings, prosecutors are apparently given carte blanche and are under no legal obligation to provide the grand jury with any evidence favorable to the defense. In view of other evidence of an apparent personal vendetta in Dr. Day’s case, it is reasonable to question whether the assistant DA purposely withheld information from the grand jury for personal reasons to secure an indictment in the instance of the copycat allegation.
Susan Reed’s Assistant District Attorney(s) appear(s) not to have informed the Grand Jury the following facts:

  1. There was an eyewitness medical assistant who testified that she was in the exam room the entire time with the second accuser and that the alleged assault did not occur. The police detective assigned to Dr. Day’s case questioned this eye witness, yet for some reason this witness did not appear before the grand jury.
  2. The second accuser admitted that she returned to see Dr. Day for an office visit after the alleged assault. On this basis alone the case would have surely been discarded.  Returning to the alleged assaulter for a doctor visit after the alleged assault is compelling evidence of a fabrication.
  3. Police had made notes in the case file documenting that alleged telephone calls from Dr. Day to the second accuser did not exist. This second accuser testified that Dr. Day called her personal cell phone 3 to four times within 4 to 6 weeks after the alleged assault, yet no such calls were found in the phone records.
  4. The second accuser had made a significant change in her description of the alleged assault. In her first statement to police the second accuser said the assault occurred at the beginning of the office visit and that she then stayed for her treatment. In subsequent statements and testimonies this second accuser then moved the allegation to the end of the office visit, apparently, after being told that staying in the room for treatment afterwards made her accusation unbelievable.
  5. The second accuser’s complaint came in classic “copycat” fashion, on the heels of a carefully choreographed negative media event and she appears to have tailored her complaint to attempt to match the primary accuser’s complaint. The second accuser filed her claim a year and a half after the alleged event, and then only after Dr. Day was made to appear guilty as he was paraded in handcuffs in front of 900,000 viewers accompanied by solicitations from police spokespersons that there were “other women” when in fact there were no other allegations at the time that these solicitations were made

Since the 5/11/2011 indictment (yes, Dr. Day has been in virtual incarceration for over four years now), Dr. Day’s attorney Michael McCrum has accumulated a mountain of additional evidence against the second accuser including

  • evidence of a financial motive,
  • evidence that the second accuser appears to have engaged in other questionable activities for financial gain,
  • evidence that she appears to have a criminal record, and
  • evidence that seems to indicate that she has engaged in other criminal activity.

In addition to the all of the aforementioned evidence, this second accuser testified in Dr. Day’s trial and also before the Medical Board.  She was decimated in both cross examinations to such an extent that both times upon being dismissed from the stand most everyone was looking at each other as if they dumbfounded at her apparent disingenuous testimony.

If the special prosecutors are scratching their heads in bewilderment as to how Dr. Day was indicted on this second accuser allegation given the evidence to the contrary, they might find the answer in the grand jury records that undoubtedly show that multiple lines of significant exculpatory evidence was withheld. Indeed, the grand jury transcripts would make a most interesting read. Too bad the public has no access to them.

As a footnote, it is noteworthy that the press has now replaced the more accurate term “copycat allegation” with the more prejudicial term “similar case”. “Similar” is prejudicial because it implies a presumption of guilt (i.e., “there he goes again”) and ignores the timing of second accuser’s complaint which is consistent with classic “copycat” behavior. If the press is insistent on using “similar” then in keeping with fair and balanced reporting guidelines they are obligated to use “copycat” side by side with “similar”. Likewise “case” is more prejudicial than the more accurate term “allegation”.  “Case” has a broader meaning and implies that the details in the case files of the primary and second accuser are similar, when in fact there are many significant dissimilarities. Allegation on the other hand has a narrower meaning and in the instance of the second accuser is far more accurate.

Because directly petitioning the media appears to have failed, perhaps Catholic Mass intentions calling for fairness in reporting are worth a try.