OIDV Project Of Michigan - Officer Involved Domestic Violence Project Of Michigan: Sheriff William Hackel CSC conviction

In October 1999, Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel was investigated for raping an acquaintance during a Michigan law enforcement convention. Sheriff Hackel maintained that the sex was consensual.

In November 1999, Sheriff William Hackel was charged with rape, after he failed a polygraph exam.

During his trial in April 2000, Sheriff Hackel falsely maintained that the sex had been consensual. The jury convicted Hackel of rape.

In May 2000, Sheriff Hackel was sentenced to at least 3 years in prison for the October 1999 rape. He served 5 years and was released in 2005.

In June 2000, Sheriff Hackel filed an appeal on his rape conviction...He was still falsely claiming that the sex had been consensual. Hackel's appeal was denied.

In 2007, the Detroit US Federal Court turned down Sheriff Hackel's request for a new trial on his rape conviction. Hackel was still maintaining that the sex had been consensual.

Sheriff William Hackel has been throwing the words "consensual sex" around for years. In 1991, when male jail inmates broke into the female inmate section of the jail, the male inmates did not rape the women: "There's no question that they had sex," Hackel said, "It was consensual".

Although former Sheriff William Hackel is a convicted and registered sex offender, he was hired as the head of security for the Detroit Masonic Temple.
?

Accusations fly in Detroit Masonic Temple lawsuits
Aug. 26, 2013 - 7:00 AM
Written by Eric D. Lawrence
Detroit Free Press Staff Writer http://www.tennessean.com/article/C4/20130826/NEWS01/308260041/Masonic-Temple-lawsuit-Detroit

An ugly legal battle that pits the owners of the Detroit Masonic Temple against the building’s former management company has thrust the iconic landmark into the spotlight in the last year, ensnaring several prominent businesspeople in the case and prompting embarrassing headlines for the 87-year-old facility.

The Masonic Temple Association, which owns the Masonic Temple, booted the management company, Halberd Holdings, out of the facility last year. The association claims, among other things, that Halberd was ruining the temple’s reputation by not paying its bills and hiring felons, such as former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel, who was convicted in 2000 of two counts of criminal sexual conduct and is a registered sex offender, as head of security.

The financial issues led DTE Energy to threaten last year to shut off the entertainment venue’s power, because of a more than $300,000 overdue bill, and required rocker Jack White’s intervention to save the temple from tax foreclosure.

Dueling lawsuits were launched beginning in November, when the association sued Halberd in Wayne County Circuit Court on allegations that included breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Halberd filed a countersuit in January, making its own claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. But Halberd also claims it has an ownership stake in the Masonic and wants a judge to force the association to negotiate a purchase agreement with the company.

Jason Abel, the attorney representing the Masonic Temple Association, dismissed Halberd’s claims as bogus.

"I think all of their claims are egregious and without merit. The fact that they’re contending that they have any right to take ownership of the Masonic Temple is wholly baseless," Abel said. "The Masonic Temple is an important fixture in the Detroit community, and it’s unfortunate that certain individuals are trying to undermine its effective operation in an attempt to obtain monies that they’re not entitled to."

Abel filed a motion in Wayne County Circuit Court asking that sanctions be imposed against Halberd and its law firm, Norman Yatooma and Associates, citing delays in turning over documents as part of the discovery process. During a court hearing Friday, the firm was given 30 days to turn over documents. Yatooma, perhaps best known for his spirited advocacy on behalf of the family of slain stripper Tamara Greene, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Severed ties
The legal case represents a dramatic undoing of a relationship that was supposed to provide stability to the Masonic Temple’s operations but instead ended up in court. The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and touted as the largest Masonic temple in the world.

Halberd, hired in 2011, is accused of having accrued more than $1.2 million in debt related to expenses tied to the Masonic Temple the month before it was booted from the facility, but Masonic officials paint the facility’s current finances as stable.

Halberd, which denied many of the allegations in the initial suit, says in its countersuit that the Masonic owed $900,000 when Halberd took over management and that the company was brought in both to pay down the debt and develop new business for the temple. It says Halberd was entitled to manage the temple for two years, which should have given it until this coming fall.

In addition, Halberd claims that when it was locked out of the temple, the company lost access to production equipment and other items as well as $50,000 in cash in a safe on the premises. Halberd says the equipment is worth $2 million, but Masonic officials say it is worth a fraction of that.

The legal case also hasensnared several prominent individuals, including former Detroit Lions star Mel Farr and Donald Foss, the founder of Southfield-based Credit Acceptance Corp. Both men had ties they have since severed to Halberd — Farr as a named investing member and Foss through another company called Longstock III.

Foss, who was listed by Forbes Magazine among America’s wealthiest people in the 1990s, withdrew Longstock III from Halberd in March 2012.

The date of Farr’s separation from Halberd is unclear. In a brief phone conversation, Farr said he would need to check with some people before he could talk but then did not respond to follow-up requests for comment.

Halberd’s remaining investing membersaccording to court records are attorney Michael J. Smith, who has an office in Mt. Clemens, and Matthew Mazer, a New York filmmaker. In a copy of an April 2012 e-mail sent from Farr to Smith, he lashes out, saying he felt like he had been taken for a fool.

"I want my ... money back," according to Farr’s e-mail. "I want the management of the MTA (the association) to know exactly how you and Matt took them, and the investor I brought to the table, on this horrific ride."

It’s unclear how Smith and Mazer are connected, and neither responded to multiple requests for comment.

Mazer’s Internet Movie Database page credits him with being a producer and writer on "Buried Prayers" in 2010 and "Keepers of Eden" in 2007, and it lists him as co-executive producer on the 1994 animated film, "The Swan Princess." Mazer’s personal life was in the news after his nanny, Patricia Francois, sued him in 2009, saying he had attacked her for telling him to stop berating his daughter about her preparation for a holiday skit. Mazer filed a counterclaim, alleging an assault by Francois, who was eventually awarded almost $14,000 as well as attorney fees for the assault and associated overtime claims.

The case, according to various news outlets, sparked a protest outside Mazer’s Manhattan apartment over the treatment of domestic workers.

A list of accusationsHalberd’s claims to an ownership stake in the Masonic Temple rest on whether it is allowed to assume the role of Longstock III. The Masonic Temple Association and Longstock III had held out the possibility that the Masonic could eventually have been sold to Longstock III under certain conditions. That never happened, and Halberd, which was only the management company, announced that it was stepping into Longstock III’s shoes after Foss pulled Longstock out of Halberd. But Masonic officials say such a sale is off the table when it comes to Halberd.

Halberd had set up its own company, Detroit Masonic Temple Theatre Co., to manage the Masonic, which the association claims was not authorized and was designed to shield Halberd from its creditors. DMTTC was incorporated in November 2011, with Smith as the incorporator. In January 2012, Foss sent a letter to Smith asking that Halberd dissolve itself. The letter cited "a number of recent unauthorized activities" and a failure to provide certain financial reports. In March, after Smith replied that Halberd could not dissolve, Foss withdrew Longstock III from its membership in Halberd.

DMTTC filed for bankruptcy protection in June of this year. News of that filing prompted a flurry of news reports that incorrectly assumed the owners of the Masonic Temple were the ones filing for bankruptcy protection. DMTTC also was sued by the temple owners but its involvement in the lawsuits is likely sidelined by the bankruptcy filing.

The lawsuits themselves are a treasure trove of accusations. In making its case that Halberd failed to manage the Masonic as a first-class entity, the temple referenced a performance in the Masonic parking lot in May 2012 by DJ Pauly D, whose real name is Paul DelVecchio. The suit claims that Halberd investing member Smith tried to force DJ Pauly D to provide a private concert afterward but let him go when Smith realized he could not legally hold the performer.

The suit also claims that Halberd failed to pay payroll taxes for its employees regularly and that Halberd replaced whistle-blowers with felons. The suit says at least one member of Halberd is believed to have taken Masonic Temple revenue for his own personal account.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

09192007 - Sheriff William Hackel - Denied New Trial - Macomb County SD

Also See:

[Sheriff] William Hackel - Masonic Temple Head of Security - Registered sex offender

August 26, 2013

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2013/08/sheriff-william-hackel-masonic-temple.html

[Sheriff] William Hackel - Registered sex offender - Released from prison

April 24, 2005

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2005/04/sheriff-william-hackel-registered-sex.html

[Sheriff] William Hackel - Appeal

June 6, 2000

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2000/06/sheriff-william-hackel-appeal-macomb.html

Sheriff William Hackel - Sentenced

May 15, 2000

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2000/05/sheriff-william-hackel-sentenced-macomb.html

Sheriff William Hackel - Trial: Convicted

April 17, 2000

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2000/04/sheriff-william-hackel-trial-convicted.html

Sheriff William Hackel - Charged w/ CSC

October 11, 1999

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/1999/10/sheriff-william-hackel-macomb-sd.html

Judge refuses new trial for Hackel
The Morning Sun
By SUSAN FIELD Clare Managing Editor
PUBLISHED: Friday, September 21, 2007 http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/092107/loc_trial.shtml

A federal judge has refused to accept a judge magistrate's recommendation that could have led to a new trial for a former downstate sheriff convicted of rape in Isabella County.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen in Detroit had recommended that former Macomb County Sheriff William Harry Hackel be given a hearing to determine whether jurors might have been tainted but U. S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds rejected that Wednesday.

Hackel was convicted of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in April 2000 for raping a then 25-year-old woman during a conference at the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort.

During the trial, according to court documents, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Police offered a job as a corrections officer and dispatcher to one of the jurors. Tribal police had investigated the allegation of rape.

Isabella County Chief Judge Paul Chamberlain dismissed the juror as soon as Isabella County Prosecutor Larry Burdick and defense attorneys became aware of the job offer and Hackel's attorneys appeared to agree that the action was adequate.

Hackel, who served three years in prison, later argued that Chamberlain should have conducted a hearing with all jurors to determine if they had been tainted because the juror told another on the panel about the job offer.

Hackel, in both his federal and state appeals, demanded that full-blown hearing.

The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected that argument. But Whalen, in the federal case that Hackel filed when he was still in prison, said Chamberlain should have held that hearing.

Edmunds, however, agreed with the state court.

In a 10-page order issued Wednesday, Edmunds ruled that Chamberlain had done an adequate job when he questioned the single juror and dismissed him.

Hackel's constitutional right to an impartial jury was not violated, and "was not contrary to and did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court."

Chamberlain conducted a "Remmer" hearing during the trial with Burdick, defense attorneys James Howarth and Daniel Waller, and the juror hired by tribal police.

After questioning the juror, Chamberlain dismissed him, and the defense attorneys complimented the judge, who indicated he did not find that there had been wrongdoing on the part of either tribal police -- who notified Burdick when they learned that a potential employee was on the jury -- or the prosecutor's office, according to court documents.

Chamberlain described the scenario as "ill advised at best, and at worst has the appearance of jury tampering."

Edmunds ruled that the Michigan Court of Appeals had "correctly observed that the trial court did conduct an investigation concerning the job offer" and that "all interested parties participated."

Edmunds also said that defense attorneys "were given ample opportunity to show that actual juror bias on the part of jurors other than" the juror who was offered the job.

"The Michigan Court of Appeals properly reviewed the record, concluding that under the facts presented here that there was no plain error," Edmunds wrote in the ruling.

After the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld Hackel's conviction, the Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal, according to court documents.

Sun Staff Writer Mark Ranzenberger contributed to this report.

No new trial for former sheriff
The Saginaw News
Posted by LaNia Coleman
September 20, 2007 - 23:26PM
http://blog.mlive.com/saginawnews/2007/09/no_new_trial_for_fomer_sheriff.html

A federal judge has ruled that a former sheriff received a fair trial the first time.

U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds on Wednesday overturned an earlier order for hearings on possible jury tampering in the case against former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen on Aug. 17 ordered Isabella County Chief Trial Judge Paul H. Chamberlain to conduct the hearings to determine whether Hackel received a fair trial on charges of sexual assault.

Hackel alleged jury tampering in the 2000 case, which sent him to prison.

Ex-sheriff loses new trial bid
U.S. judge rules against Macomb's William Hackel on jury tampering issue.
The Detroit News
Paul Egan
Thursday, September 20, 2007

A federal judge in Detroit on Wednesday shot down former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel's latest bid for a new trial on his sexual assault conviction.

U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds overturned a federal magistrate judge's recommendation that the Isabella County Circuit Court grant Hackel a hearing on whether the jury at his 2000 trial was tainted.

Edmunds ruled the jury tampering issue had already been considered and rejected by the Michigan Court of Appeals and did not need to be heard again.

Hackel, 65, the father of current Sheriff Mark Hackel, was convicted of third-degree sexual assault for raping a 25-year-old acquaintance at a 1999 law enforcement conference at the Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort in Mount Pleasant.

Hackel admitted having sex with the woman but claimed it was consensual. He was released from prison in2003.

In 2004, Hackel went to federal court seeking a new trial.Among other issues, Hackel said the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Police, which investigated the incident, offered a juror a job during the trial.

The juror was dismissed, but Hackel argued the juror may have tainted those left on the panel.

On Aug. 17, U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen recommended that Hackel be granted a hearing on that issue. But Edmunds ruled Wednesday that the Michigan Court of Appeals considered the issue in 2002 and found that Hackel's right to an impartial jury had not been violated.

Hackel's attorney, Terence Page, could not be reached for comment.

Former Sheriff Denied New Trial
WNEM News 5
POSTED: 4:41 pm EDT September 20, 2007
UPDATED: 4:57 pm EDT September 20, 2007
http://www.wnem.com/news/14161269/detail.html

SAGINAW, Mich. -- A former Macomb County sheriff convicted of rape in Isabella County has been denied a new trial.

William Hackel was convicted on two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in the 1999 rape of a 25-year-old at the Michigan Sheriffs Association conference at the Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort.

A federal judge in Detroit then recommended a hearing to determine whether jurors might have been tainted, after one was offered a job as a corrections officer with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Police.

It was tribal police that investigated the original complaint, but the claim was rejected Wednesday. Hackel served three years in jail.

Judge Grants Hearing In 7-Year-Old Hackel Case
Click On Detroit
POSTED: 3:23 pm EDT August 21, 2007
UPDATED: 11:27 am EDT August 22, 2007 http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/13942246/detail.html

Seven years ago, former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel was convicted of sexual assault in Isabella County.

Hackel was charged with raping a woman while at the Soaring Eagle Casino, but Hackel claimed the sex was consensual.

Now, a federal magistrate granted a hearing on claims of jury tampering. One of the jurors was dismissed.

During the trial, Saginaw Chippewa tribal police made a job offer to one of the jurors.

Prosecutor Burdick and Chamberlain admitted in court that the situation was worrisome, and the judge indicated his level of concern by dismissing Morden, Griem had argued.

Griem had argued that the judge "acknowledged the prejudice" created by the job offer "without curing it" by declaring a mistrial and ordering a new trial.

Chamberlain twice in court said the job offer had "an appearance of jury tampering," according to Griem's brief.

The judge also "failed to determine whether other jurors were influenced by Morden after he was tainted," Griem said in the brief.

Hackel served as sheriff for 23 years. His son, Mark, won the post in fall 2000 and was re-elected in 2004.

Hackel's rape trial was possibly tainted
Juror's job offer leads federal judge to grant hearing on new trial
Macomb Daily
By Jameson Cook
Macomb Daily Staff Writer
PUBLISHED: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 http://www.macombdaily.com/stories/082107/loc_20070821004.shtml

A judge's order for former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel to receive a hearing for a possible new trial is a decision long awaited by Hackel's former appellate attorney.

David Griem, who represented Hackel in his appeal of his 2000 rape conviction, said Monday he is glad Hackel will get the court hearing because he still believes Hackel was wrongly convicted and should have won a retrial.

"The only person who got raped in the Bill Hackel case was Bill Hackel," Griem said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen's last week reportedly ordered a hearing within 90 days about whether the jury that convicted Hackel was tainted because of a juror being offered a job during the trial with the Tribal Police of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, which investigated the case, and the juror talking about it to another juror.

Whalen reportedly indicated that the juror's situation was not adequately probed by the trial judge, Judge Paul Chamberlain of Isabella County Circuit Court in Mount Pleasant.

The juror, Dan Morden, was offered the job on the second day of testimony during the 2-week trial, and accepted it two days later. But Isabella County Prosecutor Larry Burdick did not learn about it until April 25, when he informed Judge Chamberlain.

Morden sat in the trial for several days and told another juror about the job offer, according to appellate documents in the original appeal in the state courts. Chamberlain then dismissed him, leaving the jury with its minimum level of 12. One other juror had been dismissed previously.

Hackel's federal appellate attorney, Terence Page, could not be reached Monday for comment.

Hackel, now 66, was convicted April 27, 2000, of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct for acts on a 25-year-old woman in October 1999 in a hotel room at the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort in Mount Pleasant, on the Saginaw Chippewa reservation. He was sentenced to three to 15 years in prison and was released in 2003after serving three years.

The incident occurred while Hackel was attending a conference staged by the Michigan Sheriffs Association, for which the victim worked.

Hackel, who was married, argued the sex was consensual.

In Hackel's state appeal, the Court of Appeals in December 2002 criticized his defense attorney in the trial, James Howarth, for failing to seek a mistrial because of Morden's activities.

Howarth at the time defended his decision, saying a new trial could have favored the prosecution and would have further increased Hackel's legal expenses, although he did admit one time before that not seeking the mistrial may have been a mistake.

Griem said he had made the same argument Page did regarding the juror -- along with other arguments -- in his appeal, but lost in the state Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court.

In his appeal, Griem had argued that Morden telling a fellow juror tainted the case beyond repair.

"He (Morden) told her he was probably getting the job but claimed not to have discussed how it might impact the case," Griem says in his brief.

Prosecutor Burdick and Chamberlain admitted in court that the situation was worrisome, and the judge indicated his level of concern by dismissing Morden, Griem had argued.

Griem had argued that the judge "acknowledged the prejudice" created by the job offer "without curing it" by declaring a mistrial and ordering a new trial.

Chamberlain twice in court said the job offer had "an appearance of jury tampering," according to Griem's brief.

The judge also "failed to determine whether other jurors were influenced by Morden after he was tainted," Griem said in the brief.

Hackel served as sheriff for 23 years. His son, Mark, won the post in fall 2000 and was re-elected in 2004.

Sunday, April 24, 2005

04242005 - [Sheriff] William Hackel - Registered sex offender - Released from prison - Macomb County SD

Also See:

[Sheriff] William Hackel - Masonic Temple Head of Security - Registered sex offender

August 26, 2013

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2013/08/sheriff-william-hackel-masonic-temple.html

[Sheriff] William Hackel - Denied new trial

September 19, 2007

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2007/09/sheriff-william-hackel-denied-new-trial.html

[Sheriff] William Hackel - Appeal

June 6, 2000

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2000/06/sheriff-william-hackel-appeal-macomb.html

Sheriff William Hackel - Sentenced

May 15, 2000

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2000/05/sheriff-william-hackel-sentenced-macomb.html

Sheriff William Hackel - Trial: Convicted

April 17, 2000

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2000/04/sheriff-william-hackel-trial-convicted.html

Sheriff William Hackel - Charged w/ CSC

October 11, 1999

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/1999/10/sheriff-william-hackel-macomb-sd.html

In October 1999, Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel was investigated for raping an acquaintance during a Michigan law enforcement convention. Sheriff Hackel maintained that the sex was consensual.

In November 1999, Sheriff William Hackel was charged with rape, after he failed a polygraph exam.

During his trial in April 2000, Sheriff Hackel falsely maintained that the sex had been consensual. The jury convicted Hackel of rape.

In May 2000, Sheriff Hackel was sentenced to at least 3 years in prison for the October 1999 rape. He served 5 years and was released in 2005.

In June 2000, Sheriff Hackel filed an appeal on his rape conviction...He was still falsely claiming that the sex had been consensual. Hackel's appeal was denied.

In 2007, the Detroit US Federal Court turned down Sheriff Hackel's request for a new trial on his rape conviction. Hackel was still maintaining that the sex had been consensual.

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

06062000 - Sheriff William Hackel - Appeal - Macomb County SD [Docket 227737]

Also See:

[Sheriff] William Hackel - Masonic Temple Head of Security - Registered sex offender

August 26, 2013

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2013/08/sheriff-william-hackel-masonic-temple.html

[Sheriff] William Hackel - Denied new trial

September 19, 2007

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2007/09/sheriff-william-hackel-denied-new-trial.html

[Sheriff] William Hackel - Registered sex offender - Released from prison

April 24, 2005

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2005/04/sheriff-william-hackel-registered-sex.html

Sheriff William Hackel - Sentenced

May 15, 2000

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2000/05/sheriff-william-hackel-sentenced-macomb.html

Sheriff William Hackel - Trial: Convicted

April 17, 2000

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2000/04/sheriff-william-hackel-trial-convicted.html

Sheriff William Hackel - Charged w/ CSC

October 11, 1999

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/1999/10/sheriff-william-hackel-macomb-sd.html

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Plaintiff-Appellee,

V.

WILLIAM HARRY HACKEL
Defendant-Appellant

Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Hood and Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
UNPUBLISHED December 20, 2002

No. 227737 Isabella Circuit Court
LC No. 99-009148-FY

Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520d(1)(b). He was sentenced to two concurrent terms of three to fifteen years’ imprisonment and appeals as of right. We affirm.

Defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting the victim while they attended a conference of the Michigan Sheriff’s Association held at a casino resort. Defendant, who had been the Macomb County Sheriff for twenty-four years, admitted engaging in sexual relations with the victim, but claimed that it was consensual. Defendant’s theory of the case was that the rape accusation was fabricated because the victim had a monetary motive.

Defendant first alleges that the trial court erred by not permitting the victim’s mother to be examined in camera about her knowledge of any alleged past accusations of sexual assault by the victim. We disagree.*1 The rape-shield statute, MCL 750.520j, was aimed at thwarting the impeachment of a complainant’s testimony with evidence of the complainant’s past consensual activities. People v Adair, 452 Mich 473, 480; 550 NW2d 505 (1996). At the same time, however, the rape-shield statute could presumably apply when evidence of a complainant’s nonconsensual sexual activities is offered for the same type of impermissible character purpose prohibited under the statute as a complainant’s consensual sexual activities. People v Williams, 191 Mich App 269, 272; 477 NW2d 877 (1991). The rape-shield statute has been said to bar "testimony regarding sexual subjects involving the complainant, unless such testimony falls outside the scope of the statute." People v Ivers, 459 Mich 320, 328; 587 NW2d 10 (1998). The rape-shield statute represents a legislative determination that, in most cases, the prohibited evidence is irrelevant. Adair, supra at 480. "A complainant’s sexual history with others is generally irrelevant with respect to the alleged sexual assault by the defendant. MRE 401." Adair, supra at 481.

Nevertheless, whether the rape-shield statute should, as a matter of law, be construed as applying only to consensual sexual activities need not be addressed in the case at bar because the trial court did not rely solely on the rape-shield statute as the basis for limiting defendant’s crossexamination of the victim’s mother. Rather, the trial court engaged in a case-specific analysis of defendant’s offer of proof concerning his constitutional right of confrontation. We note that defendant did not proffer substantive evidence that the victim was subjected to past nonconsensual sexual activities where an investigation occurred or raised false allegations of rape. Rather, the defense alleged that the testimony by the victim’s mother that "we’d never been involved in anything like this in our family," opened the door to statements allegedly made by the victim to her ex-boyfriend and a former coworker about past sexual violations and sexual contact to determine the mother’s knowledge of alleged past sexual abuse perpetrated on the victim.

"[W]hile the extent of cross-examination is within the discretion of the trial court there is a dimension of the Confrontation Clause that guarantees to defendant a reasonable opportunity to test the truth of a witness’ testimony." Hackett, supra at 347. We hold here that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by precluding defendant from cross-examining the victim’s mother regarding other allegations of sexual abuse. The trial court is permitted to determine preliminary questions concerning the admissibility of evidence pursuant to MRE 104(a). Preliminary facts under MRE 104(a) are determined under a preponderance of the evidence standard. People v Hendrickson, 459 Mich 229, 242-243; 586 NW2d 906 (1998) (Boyle, J., concurring). A trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See People v Barrera, 451 Mich 261, 269; 547 NW2d 280 (1996).

Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it properly could decide whether the statement by the victim’s mother opened the door to the proffered crossexamination based on a contextual review of that testimony. This is particularly true given the fact that trial counsel declined the opportunity to question the victim’s mother about the meaning of her statement.*2 Further, we find no basis for disturbing the trial court’s preliminary factual determination, inasmuch as a contextual review of the testimony supports the trial court’s determination that the mother was referring to how the legal process functions and, in particular, how it might function when a law enforcement officer is the defendant. Specifically, the victim’s mother testified that she contacted an attorney because:

"I was concerned about the good ole boy network; and I was concerned that she was going to be violated, and her rights would be trashed. We’d never been involved in anything like this in our family. I had no basis of comparison with a trial or whatever. And you watch T V, or I watch T V and, you know, you watch "Sixty Minutes" and "Newsweek" and all about how the police and . . ."

In light of the parties’ decision not to seek clarification from the witness and the trial court’s factual determination based on its contextual analysis, it was not necessary for the trial court to hold an in camera hearing to question the victim’s mother concerning her knowledge of the victim’s alleged past sexual activities. Further, defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses was not violated by the trial court’s ruling, inasmuch as defendant failed to establish the relevancy of the proffered cross-examination to the credibility of the victim’s mother’s testimony or her reason for contacting an attorney. The right of cross-examination does not include a right to cross-examine a witness on irrelevant issues. Adair, supra at 488. The Confrontation Clause only guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination. It does not guarantee cross-examination to whatever extent the defense might wish. People v Chavies, 234 Mich App 274, 283; 593 NW2d 655 (1999). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination of the victim’s mother.*3

Defendant next alleges that the trial court committed structural or plain error by failing to sua sponte order a mistrial or question other jurors after it was revealed that the investigating police agency in the case offered employment to a juror. We conclude that defense counsel’s approval of the relief granted by the trial court, namely, removal of the juror who was offered employment by the investigating police prior to jury deliberations, effectuated a waiver of this issue. People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 218-219; 612 NW2d 144 (2000). Even if we were to treat defendant’s claim as an unpreserved issue subject to forfeiture, we would not reverse because defendant has not demonstrated a plain error. Carines, supra at 763. The record reflects that the trial court conducted a sufficient investigation of the matter to ensure that defendant’s constitutional right to an impartial jury was not violated when it questioned the juror about the circumstances of the offer of employment, about any discussions he had with other jurors about the offer of employment, and how the offer of employment might effect his ability to decide the case. Smith v Phillips, 455 US 209, 220; 102 S Ct 940; 71 L Ed 2d 78 (1982); United States v Corrado, 227 F3d 528, 535 (CA 6, 2000).

Defendant’s reliance on People v France, 436 Mich 138; 461 NW2d 621 (1990), to establish a presumption of prejudice, is misplaced because the instant case did not involve a substantive communication with a deliberating jury. Here, the excused juror was not part of the deliberating jury. Further, an offer of employment is not a prohibited substantive communication. The type of communication deemed substantive in France, supra, was a supplemental jury instruction on the law. Defendant’s reliance on Remmer v United States, 347 US 227; 74 S Ct 450; 98 L Ed 654 (1954), is similarly misplaced because an offer of employment, even with knowledge that the person is sitting on a jury, does not constitute a communication, directly or indirectly, about the case.

We are not persuaded that it was necessary, under the facts of this case, for the trial court to sua sponte question other jurors concerning their communication with the excused juror about the case. The trial court did not find jury tampering; it only determined that the investigating police agency’s conduct in making the offer of employment during trial was, at best, ill advised and, at worst, created an appearance of jury tampering. Further, the trial court instructed the jurors at the onset of the case not to discuss the case with anyone, including other jurors, until it was time to decide the case. "It is well established that jurors are presumed to follow their instructions." People v Graves, 458 Mich 476, 486; 581 NW2d 229 (1998). We find no basis grounded in the excused juror’s contact with the investigating police agency that would preclude application of this presumption.

Finally, defendant alleges that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel as a result of defense counsel’s deficit performance. Because defendant did not raise this issue by motion in the trial court, our review is limited to errors apparent on the record. People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499, 507; 597 NW2d 864 (1999). When a claim depends on facts not of record, it is incumbent upon the defendant to make a testimonial record at the trial court level in connection with a motion for new trial. People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6; 594 NW2d 57 (1999). Defendant failed to establish his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The existing record is sufficient to determine that counsel’s performance relative to the matter involving the excused juror did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. People v Toma, 462 Mich 281, 302-303; 613 NW2d 694 (2000). The record is insufficient to establish deficient performance or prejudice in connection with counsel’s failure to pursue a defense based on the theory that the victim made past false accusations of sexual abuse. Defense counsel’s testimony is essential to a proper assessment of his performance in investigating this theory. People v Rockey, 237 Mich App 74, 77; 601 NW2d 887 (1999). Further, absence evidence of a false accusation to support defendant’s claim, it cannot be determined that, but for counsel’s alleged deficient performance, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Avant, supra.

Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly

*1 At trial, defense counsel sought to impeach the victim’s mother based on her statement that "[w]e’d never been involved in anything like this in our family." However, the victim’s mother also stated that an attorney was sought out so that "we could be sure that she wasn’t going to be railroaded again." We conclude that impeachment based on the second statement was not preserved because defendant did not identify this testimony in his offer of proof at trial. People v Hackett, 421 Mich 338, 352; 365 NW2d 120 (1984). Without an offer of proof or an actual undertaking by defense counsel to cross-examine the victim’s mother about the meaning of her "railroaded again" testimony, defendant cannot establish a plain violation of his constitutional right to confront witnesses. Therefore, this forfeited statement affords no basis for relief. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

*2 The trial judge stated: "When I suggested that we have the witness testify concerning what she meant by the word ‘this’ neither counsel advocated that we should do that. And in taking a closer look at the transcript I’m not convinced that we need to because this is defined by what is stated before and after. Therefore, I feel there’s a sufficient record. So the court is ruling thatthe witness is basically talking about a process, and that there is no entitlement to defendant’s
right to confrontation." Counsel may not harbor error as an appellate parachute. People v Riley, 465 Mich 442, 448; 636 NW2d 514 (2001). Both parties had the opportunity to definitively determine what the victim’s mother was referring to by her use of the word "this," but declined. Thus, it is speculative whether impeachment was feasible under the circumstances.

*3. Even if we had concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting crossexamination of the victim’s mother involving a preserved error of constitutional magnitude, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Kelly, 231 Mich App 627, 644-645;588 NW2d 480 (1998). Although evidence that a witness filed or contemplated filing a civil lawsuit is relevant to the witness’ credibility because it relates to the witness’ bias or interest in the case, People v Morton, 213 Mich App 331, 334-335; 539 NW2d 771 (1995), the trial court’s ruling did not prevent defendant from presenting his theory that the victim had a monetarymotive for making a false accusation against him. Nor did it preclude defendant fromchallenging the credibility of mother’s testimony regarding her motivation for contacting an attorney.

Monday, May 15, 2000

05152000 - Sheriff William Hackel - Sentenced - Macomb County SD

Also See:

[Sheriff] William Hackel - Masonic Temple Head of Security - Registered sex offender

August 26, 2013

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2013/08/sheriff-william-hackel-masonic-temple.html

[Sheriff] William Hackel - Denied new trial

September 19, 2007

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2007/09/sheriff-william-hackel-denied-new-trial.html

[Sheriff] William Hackel - Registered sex offender - Released from prison

April 24, 2005

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2005/04/sheriff-william-hackel-registered-sex.html

[Sheriff] William Hackel - Appeal

June 6, 2000

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2000/06/sheriff-william-hackel-appeal-macomb.html

Sheriff William Hackel - Trial: Convicted

April 17, 2000

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/2000/04/sheriff-william-hackel-trial-convicted.html

Sheriff William Hackel - Charged w/ CSC

October 11, 1999

http://michiganoidv.blogspot.com/1999/10/sheriff-william-hackel-macomb-sd.html

MI: Former sheriff and convicted rapist, William Hackel, eligible for parole in April
By Macomb Daily Staff and Wire Reports
December 26, 2002
Edited by Dec 31, 2002 6:16 pm
http://wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX/.1ddb798f

Imprisoned former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel has lost an appeal for his conviction for raping a female acquaintance at a law enforcement conference.

The Michigan Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision released Monday, affirmed the ex-lawman's convictions and his 3-to-15-year sentence for third-degree criminal sexual conduct.

Hackel, spending his second Christmas behind bars at a Kentucky federal prison, is eligible for parole in April.

"That is just sad," said Gerald Medley, a retired sheriff's detective. "I really feel bad for his mother, his wife and his family, especially at this time of year."

Hackel served 24 years in the sheriff's office now held by his son, Mark. He was convicted in 2000 of raping a 25-year-old woman in 1999 in her hotel room at the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort in Mount Pleasant.

Hackel, who turned 61 earlier this month, had claimed the two had consensual sex, but the woman insisted she had been sexually assaulted.

In the appeal, Hackel said his attorneys should have been allowed to challenge testimony from the woman's mother that he said indicated that the woman was after money in a civil lawsuit.

The victim, now 27, has filed a pair of civil lawsuits seeking damages above $25,000 for distress and anxiety. Both lawsuits have been dismissed.

Hackel's appeal also said the court should have declared a mistrial when it learned a juror had been offered a job by police involved in the rape investigation, and that his attorneys had provided an inadequate defense.

But the appeals court ruled Michigan law restricting testimony about a complainant’s sexual past could be used to restrict questioning of the woman's mother. It also said that the trial court acted properly when it dismissed the juror with the job offer.

A call to David Griem, Hackel's appeal attorney, was not returned Wednesday.

In the past, Griem had called the case against the former sheriff "an extremely weak one." It is not known whether Hackel will pursue the appeal to a higher court.

Meanwhile, Hackel continues to remain a popular figure among his friends and colleagues in Macomb County. They've held fund-raisers to help him pay an estimated $100,000 in legal bills.

"No one will ever make me believe Bill raped that woman," said Medley, who has known Hackel since both were teen-agers.

Victim's name is broadcast by mistake
May 16, 2000
Detroit Free Press
She dreaded the sentencing of her rapist, former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel, because it would dredge up the nightmare of the Oct. 11 attack. But on Monday, her dread took on new dimensions when Isabella County Circuit Judge Paul Chamberlain addressed her by name several times before sentencing Hackel to 3 to 15 years in prison. In a split second, her name -- which the media had concealed for months -- was broadcast all over the state during live coverage of the hearing. ...

Ex-sheriff gets 3 to 15 years in rape conviction
The Toledo Blade
Tuesday, May 16, 2000

Mount Pleasant, Mich. [AP] - A judge yesterday ordered former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel to serve three to 15 years in prison for sexually attacking a woman who through sobs said the assault sentenced her to an unforgettable trauma.

"I only wish that my life worked like a book, because if it did, I would just tear it up and throw this chapter away. But you see I can't," the woman in quaking voice told an Isabella County judge.

Chief Judge Paul Chamberlain ordered Hackel, 58, to get counseling while serving the concurrent prison terms on two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.

The judge called the punishment lenient but mindful of the 25-year-old woman Hackel was convicted of attacking at the Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort last October during the Michigan Sheriff's Association convention.

"We are supposed to be the leaders, and frankly, you are responsible for why we are all here today," Judge Chamberlain told Hackel. "You made the choice. You went to a hotel room witha woman [less] than half your age; you went as a sheriff. "It demanded the highest of standars, and you didn't meet those standards."

Moments earlier, Hackel tearfully asked the judge for leniency, imploring "please do not waste my life by putting me behind bars for a long time. I apologize to everyone, and I mean everyone."

His voice trembled as he stood in a blue inmate uniform, Hackel asked to "return to my wife and family as soon as possible," lamenting that "yesterday was Mother's Day, and it was the first time in 58 years that I've not given my mother a hug on Mother's Day."

"Today is my son Mark's birthday. I apologize to him to have to look at his father on his birthday being sentenced to prison."

The judge said he weighed Hackel's "outstanding record, a long record" of service with the impact of actions by a man was seeking his seventh term as sheriff.

"How do I deter others if I give you a light sentence because you've been a consummater" law enforcer, the judge asked. "Does that not open the door for anyone who has an outstanding public record to do as they please?"

Ex-Sheriff sentenced to prison for rape
Ludington Daily News
Tuesday, May 16, 2000

Mount Pleasant, Mich [AP] - Former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel is behind bars today, sentenced to three to 15 years in prison for raping a woman at a sheriff's convention.

Chamberlain also ordered Hackel, 58, to get psychological and sexual abuse counseling while serving the concurrent prison terms on two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.

Later Monday, Chamberlain refused defense requests that Hackel be allowed to be freed on bond pending appeal of his conviction.

Hackel's victim finds life torn apart
She'll testify to trauma at sentencing Monday
May 13, 2000
Detroit Free Press
She doesn't sleep much anymore. And when she does, the face of her rapist, former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel, haunts her dreams. "I see his face every time I close my eyes," said the 26-year-old Lansing-area woman. The Free Press generally does not identify rape victims. "I don't want to sleep because I keep reliving it," she said. The woman said her life has changed dramatically since Oct. 11, when ...

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan
Posted: May 10, 2000
by: Staff Reports
Indian Country Today
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1665

How a judge sees William Hackel - as a respected law enforcement official or a man who violated the law he pledged to uphold - could determine how the former Macomb County sheriff is sentenced, legal experts say.

An Isabella County jury convicted Hackel, 58, April 27 of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.

He was accused of raping a female acquaintance Oct. 11 at a sheriffs convention at a tribal casino. Hackel has said the sex was consensual.

Chief Circuit Judge Paul Chamberlain is scheduled to sentence Hackel on May 15.

Meanwhile, Hackel's attorney, James Howarth, planned to ask the judge to consider looking into possible jury tampering, and to reinstate bond for Hackel so he can get out of jail until his sentencing.

Howarth said the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Police, who investigated Hackel for rape, last week offered a juror a job as a dispatcher. The juror was dismissed before deliberations began because of the allegations.

If Chamberlain determines that the jury was tainted, he could order a new trial, Howarth said.

The 14-member jury was reduced to 12 before deliberations began.

Sheriff prosecuted after failing lie detector test
The Argus Press
Owosso Michigan
Mon., May 8, 2000

Mount Pleasant, Mich. [AP] - Former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel failed a lie detector test two weeks before he was charged with raping a 25-year-old woman at a sheriff's convention.

The FBI polygraph exam showed Hackel failed two key questions: "Did you force [the victim] to have sex with you on Oct. 11th?" and "Did [the victim] ever indicate to you that she wanted you to stop having sex with her?"

Hackel answered no to both questions, according to the Detroit News, which obtained results of the test with a Freedom of Information Act Request.

"It is the opinion of the examiner that the recorded responses ... are indicative of deception," lie detector examiner Samuel J. Ruffino wrote in his report. Hackel was given the hour-long test at the FBI headquarters in Detroit on Nov. 2, 1999.

Hackel, 58, was convicted April 27 by an Isabella County jury of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.

A message was left early Monday seeking comment from Hackel lawyer James Howarth.

Polygraph test results are inadmissible as evidence in court, but prosecutors use them when credibility is a key factor, said Steven Kaplan, an assistant Macomb County prosecutor with 14 years experience.

"It's an important tool in a case where it's one-on-one," Kaplain said. "In cases where the evident is not strong, prosecutors will use polygraphs to determine whether they will charge. It's a tool for the prosecutor in determining the validity of the charges.

Hackel, who was sheriff for 23 years, faces up to 15 years in prison when he is sentenced May 15.

Sheriff prosecuted for rape after lie detector failure
Ludington Daily News
Monday, May 8, 2000

Mount Pleasant, Mich. [AP] - Former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel failed a lie detector test two weeks before he was charged with raping a 25-year-old woman at a sheriff's convention.

The FBI polygraph exam showed Hackel failed two key questions: "Did you force [the victim] to have sex with you on Oct. 11th?" and "Did [the victim] ever indicate to you that she wanted you to stop having sex with her?"

Hackel answered no to both questions, according to the Detroit News, which obtained results of the test with a Freedom of Information Act Request.

"It is the opinion of the examiner that the recorded responses ... are indicative of deception," lie detector examiner Samuel J. Ruffino wrote in his report. Hackel was given the hour-long test at the FBI headquarters in Detroit on Nov. 2, 1999.

Hackel, 58, was convicted April 27 by an Isabella County jury of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.

A message was left early Monday seeking comment from Hackel lawyer James Howarth.

Polygraph test results are inadmissible as evidence in court, but prosecutors use them when credibility is a key factor, said Steven Kaplan, an assistant Macomb County prosecutor with 14 years experience.

"It's an important tool in a case where it's one-on-one," Kaplain said. "In cases where the evident is not strong, prosecutors will use polygraphs to determine whether they will charge. It's a tool for the prosecutor in determining the validity of the charges."

Rape, or disappointing sex?
By Karen De Coster
web posted May 8, 2000
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0500rape.htm

On Thursday, April 27th, 2000, a Michigan jury of six men and six women found high-powered Macomb County Sheriff William H. Hackel guilty of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, or date rape, as it is commonly referred to in the feminist tradition. Prisoner number 000080998, of Cell "C" in the Isabella County Jail, will now occupy a 10-by-12 foot cell, much like those that he has made famous during his 24-year tenure as Macomb County Sheriff, where the local lock-up was termed the "Hackel Hotel."

No one can deny that the married William Hackel erred when he met up with an awestruck young lady at a meeting of the Michigan Sheriffs' Association in October of last year, and willingly accompanied her to her hotel room at her suggestion. The events that followed ended a career for the respected and dedicated lawman and elected official.

At the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, a 25-year-old employee of the Michigan Sheriffs' Association, who had just met Mr. Hackel for the first time, suggested that they have lunch--via room service--in her hotel room, where she suggested they "kick back and relax." Once there, as the story goes, the unnamed woman placed her head on his chest and remarked about the excessive rate of his heartbeat, prompting a kissing and petting session, which was followed by the act of sexual intercourse.

According to his testimony, the sex was purely consensual. According to hers, she said no. Hence, the beginning of another rape trial where the jury is expected to render a decision on the basis of "he said-she said."

A definition of rape consistent with most North American statutes is "unwanted sexual penetration perpetrated by force, threat of harm, or mental or physical inability to give consent." A despicable crime that many believe deserves the punishment of castration in the most violent cases, rape has been resonantly politicized by a modern feminist movement of male-hating fanatics, especially since the increase in reported rapes on college campuses during the 1980s. It was at this time that feminist rhetoric began its assault on male-female relationships by looking at sexual relations gone bad in terms of trying to sort through various degrees and types of rape and "rape," by trying to define how one gives or does not give consent. What has followed is twenty years of what George Gilder--in his book Men and Marriage-has called feminists "palavering endlessly" about rape.

The palavering in regards to the William Hackel rape case has been scathing, and most of the chinwag has been biased in favor of the typical sentiment: if the woman says it was rape, it must be rape. However, Sheriff Hackel's case is not helped by the fact that he is a fifty-something white male in a position of power. In fact, even the local media has referred to the verdict as "a lesson about rape for men in power."

The unnamed woman--the so-called victim--was caught on security cameras (placed in the hallway of the hotel) calmly escorting Sheriff Hackel to her room. Once in her room, she proceeded to sit next to him on the bed, and pulled barrettes and bobby pins out of her hair in the process of letting her hair down. To most reasonable people, this behavior represents a sexual invitation, or at least an attempt to get "very comfortable" with the man whose company she coveted. At the least, one can be led to believe that this behavior was hardly a response to an act of coercion. But the woman says she did not want, nor intend to have sex with William Hackel that day. The woman testified that, as the Sheriff laid her down on the bed and began to undress her, she decided not to resist him out of fear that she was "turning him on even more." Less than an hour-and-fifteen minutes later, the video shows Sheriff Hackel calmly leaving her room. He then dined with his wife, and then checked out several hours later. None of the video footage of the Sheriff arriving at the hotel room or leaving showed any signs of force, or fear of wrongdoing on his part.

There were several unusual elements of testimony brought to light during the trial. One slice of testimony revealed that the woman had said after the attack that she was repulsed by the smell of Hackel and his cologne on her hands. Yet Hackel and his wife testified that he had not worn cologne in five years, due to an asthmatic condition. Also, the woman's (former) boyfriend testified that she promised to buy him a snowmobile, or other items, if she got one million dollars from suing the Sheriff, as she expected that she would do. Sounds more like a woman with a mission if you ask me.

And what was that mission? Was it a mission to make a man pay for a disappointing sexual experience that represented nothing more than lust on his part? Or was it a mission of hate; hate for a man of position and power who valued the woman no further than reaping the benefits of her willingness to provide him with her bodily pleasures? It was as if the unnamed woman expected a more romantic interlude; one that played on her feminine needs of love, romance, partnership, and possibly, a relationship.

Well, William Hackel did not offer the woman a relationship. Nor did he offer her flowers, a love story, or even the prospects of good and unselfish sex. In fact, he didn't even offer to take her out to a nice dinner. All he did offer was to buy her a sandwich from room service after the encounter. Hardly what any woman would hope to get from a sexual encounter with such a man as Mr. Hackel.

The feminist politicization of rape has led society to buy into the belief that rape, or date rape as is the case here, can be so loosely defined that no man could ever possibly know the boundaries of what constitutes "legal" sex unless he can discover the meaning of female logic and its inner workings, something that no man other than maybe Alan Alda has ever claimed to know.

The merits of "Yes" and "Maybe" and "No" as being the true meaning of a woman's intentions toward a sexual encounter have been debated from an ethical standpoint as well as a legal one. Women don't even know what these words mean, so how could one expect a man to figure it out? Just never forget that post coital regret can never fall under the legal definition of rape. But a good attorney, and a young, pretty, crying face on the stand can make a jury forget legal definitions and rule on the basis of emotion.

The local news channels aired exclusive interviews with the woman, her face blurred to protect her identity, and not one single piece of the emotional petition on her part seemed even the slightest bit genuine. What I saw was a woman emotionally scarred by regret, and her own dislike of herself.

The facts here tell us that a woman met up with a man whom she admired and by whom she was smitten. She then invited him up to her hotel room, just the two of them alone. She then sat next to him on the bed, which made the situation even cozier for what was to come next. The fact that a woman such as myself could have little or no empathy for this woman should not be surprising. If the unnamed woman invited sex in her room, and later cried foul because she regretted her actions, how can she expect the compassion that is usually reserved for the real victims of violent rape?

William Hackel is guilty. Guilty of cheating on his wife, sexual promiscuity, and an overall stupidity for putting his career at risk for the sake of satisfying a sexual urge. But did his lack of good judgement and proper discretion deserve a vilification from the community which he served for so long, and does it deserve the destruction of a career, and a 15-year prison sentence in the name of defending the honor of a smitten woman disappointed by her sexual experience? Does his improper behavior with the young lady who took him up to her room mean that he is a threat to society, or to other women as a sexual predator? Hardly. Sheriff William Hackel was found guilty of rape by a jury of individuals who were turned off by what they saw as his apparent lack of morality, their disgust of his misguided, penile-controlled behavior, and his lack of faithfulness to his wife. None of these are crimes, however.

Clearly, this was just another of the many assaults on men, and male sexual behavior in general. After all, current victim-minded logic has everyone believing that it would be politically incorrect to believe the male side of the story in any date rape case. If she says it's rape, then it's rape. On this as on every other question, count me as politically incorrect.

Karen De Coster is a politically incorrect CPA, and an MA student in economics at Walsh College in Michigan.

Panel to pick sheriff soon
Macomb County to get a law enforcer who will finish Hackel's term
May 5, 2000
Detroit Free Press

The three-member panel charged with replacing former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel voted Thursday to make a selection on May 24. Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga, County Clerk Carmella Sabaugh and Chief Probate Judge Pamela Gilbert O'Sullivan said Sabaugh's office will accept applications for acting sheriff until 9 a.m. May 18. Applicants must submit in writing their plans for the department, a resume, their qualifications and long- and short-term goals ...

ACTING SHERIFF LOOKS AHEAD, SEEKS QUIET AFTER SCANDAL
May 4, 2000
Detroit Free Press

Less than 24 hours after William Hackel was convicted of rape, his longtime partner, friend and successor as Macomb County sheriff wasted little time having Hackel's name removed from all public buildings. "People might have thought it was cruel, but you've got to go forward," Macomb County Acting Sheriff Ronald Tuscany said Wednesday, making his first public statements since Hackel entered the Isabella County Jail in Mt. Pleasant last ...

HOPEFULS FALL IN LINE TO FILL SHERIFF'S POST
2000 RACE FIRST SINCE '76 WITH NO HACKEL
April 28, 2000
Detroit Free Press

As one sheriff's career dissolves in disgrace as a convicted rapist, another's is about to dawn. At least eight Macomb County sheriff hopefuls have surfaced as former Sheriff William Hackel, unbeatable since 1976, awaits sentencing on two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. The list doesn't include any political heavyweights, yet. But now that Hackel has been convicted, more contenders are likely. "It is going to be a ...

In October 1999, Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel was investigated for raping an acquaintance during a Michigan law enforcement convention. Sheriff Hackel maintained that the sex was consensual.

In November 1999, Sheriff William Hackel was charged with rape, after he failed a polygraph exam.

During his trial in April 2000, Sheriff Hackel falsely maintained that the sex had been consensual. The jury convicted Hackel of rape.

In May 2000, Sheriff Hackel was sentenced to at least 3 years in prison for the October 1999 rape. He served 5 years and was released in 2005.

In June 2000, Sheriff Hackel filed an appeal on his rape conviction...He was still falsely claiming that the sex had been consensual. Hackel's appeal was denied.

In 2007, the Detroit US Federal Court turned down Sheriff Hackel's request for a new trial on his rape conviction. Hackel was still maintaining that the sex had been consensual.