OIDV Project Of Michigan - Officer Involved Domestic Violence Project Of Michigan: Macomb County Sheriff Department

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UNPUBLISHED December 20, 2002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.

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".

Monday, April 17, 2000

04172000 - Sheriff William Hackel - Trial: Convicted - 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 - Sentenced

May 15, 2000

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

Sheriff William Hackel - Charged w/ CSC

October 11, 1999

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

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.

Macomb County sheriff convicted of rape
The Argus-Press
Owosso Michigan
April 28, 2000

Mount Pleasant, Mich [AP] - Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel clenched his jaw but said nothing as a jury read verdicts convicting him of rape.

His wife sobbed in the courtroom as Hackel, who has been sheriff in the suburban Detroit county for 23 years, was taken into custody by the court baliff Thursday.

The 58-year old faces up to 15 years in prison on each of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Hackel has said the sex with the woman, an acquaintance, was consensual. The conviction means he is automatically removed from office, according to state election law.

He will be held in the Isabella County jail pending sentencing at an undetermined date.

"I'd say he reacted with the same dignity that he has shown not only through this trial but through his life," defense attorney James Howarth said, adding that Hackel's wife of 24 years, Ada, was "devistated."

The sheriff's son, Macomb County sheriff/s Inspector Mark Hackel, put his head in his hands as the judge polled the jurors on their verdicts.

When the judge revoked bail, Mark Hackel said, "Oh my God, oh my God," and began pacing in the gallery, the Morning Sun reported. he then bolted from the courtroom.

Hackel remained in office since the charges were filed last November. earlier this month, the Democrat announced he was running for a seventh term, but not cannot do so.

Undersheriff Ronald P. Tuscanny will fill the post temporarily, county clerk Carmella Sabaugh said. The clerk, prosecutor and chief probate judge will meet to appoint someone for the rest of Hackel's term, which expires Dec. 31, corporation counsel George Brumbaugh said.

Prosecutors said the assault occurred Oct. 11 at the sheriff's convention at the Soaring Eagle Resort. Hackel testified that the woman had consented to sex.

The woman, 26, testified that she agreed to have lunch in her room with Hackel. Once inside, she said, Hackel tried to undress her and ignored her when she twice asked him to stop kissing hand groping her.

She testified she didn't call police out of fear her allegactions against a prominent law enforcer would be ignored. Instead, she reported the attack to a resort employee. The employee told the resort nurse, who notified police.

Isabella County Prosecutor Larry Burdick praised the victim for what he said was her bravery in seeing the case through.

"This is an example of a courageous young woman who had something horrible done to her and had the courage to stand up and run the gauntlet ... to see justice done.

The woman said Thursday that the verdict "hasn't really sunk in yet."

"I always believed that the truth would come through," she told The Detroit News.

The Isabella County Circuit Court jury heard six days of testimony, followed by closing arguments Wednesday. They deliberated for 9 1/2 hours.

Howarth said he would ask for a new trial and would appeal the verdict.

Hackel spoke briefly with reporters just before hearing jurors had reached a verdict.

"I know I'm innocent," He said. "I believe in the system. The jury will sort it out. But if they don't I'm prepapred to handle it."

Defense witnesses including Macomb County Prosecutgor Marlinga.

"I testified what I knew about him which was that he was an honorable guy in everything I've ever known, never showed agression toward anybody," Marlinga said after the verdict.

"As a lawyer and a prosecutor I have to accept the jury's decision, but it doesn't stop me from being sad."

Hackel's wife testified Monday that her husband had told her about the rape accusations but did not mention that he had sex with the woman.

She said she learned of the rape through media reports.

After the verdict Thursday she spoke briefly with reporters.

"We're going to get through this," she said. "My husband is innocent."

Jurors declined to comment to reporters and were escorted out of the courthouse.

In 1995, Hackel decided against switching parties to run against Democratic U.S. Rep. David B despite overtures from national Republicans, including then House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Hackel found guilty of rape
CM-LIFE
Anthony Judnich
April 28, 2000
http://media.www.cmlife.com/media/storage/paper906/news/2000/04/28/News/Hackel.Found.Guilty.Of.Rape-2477801.shtml

Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel faces up to 15 years in prison after a six-man, six-woman jury found him guilty of rape Thursday in Isabella County Circuit Court.

After deliberating for almost 10 hours beginning Wednesday, the jury announced its verdict Thursday morning. Hackel was convicted of two counts of third-degree criminal-sexual conduct, involving oral penetration and forced sexual intercourse.

"Oh my God, my God," Hackel's son, Mark Hackel, said after Chief Judge Paul Chamberlain denied continuing the sheriff's bond. Hackel's wife, Ada, bent over in her seat and sobbed as the bailiff led him to the Isabella County Jail.

Hackel, 58, is guilty of raping a 26-year-old woman Oct. 11 in her hotel room at the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort, 6800 Soaring Eagle Blvd., during a Michigan Sheriff's Association fall conference.The trial began April 17, and closing statements were given Wednesday. Hackel had admitted he and the woman had sex, but testified that it was consensual.

The victim, an MSA staff member, said she was "shocked" and "happy" about the jury's ruling.

Third-degree criminal-sexual conduct requires a mandatory jail sentence, but Isabella County Prosecutor Larry Burdick said he doesn't know yet what he'll recommend. The maximum prison sentence is 15 years.

Hackel will remain jailed until his sentencing, which should take place within four to five weeks, Burdick said. Hackel had been free on a $10,000 surety, or 10-percent bond.

Hackel's sister, Linda Ahern, attended the trial and said Ada Hackel is devastated by the jury's decision and the judge's bond rejection.

"The man isn't going anywhere. They could have let him go home," Ahern said. "This goes beyond belief. It was something that never should have happened."We'll just have to live with the decision. Anger or crying won't change the decision."

Defense Attorney Jim Howarth said the verdict will definitely be appealed. Hackel, who has been Macomb County's sheriff for 24 years, had planned to run for a seventh four-year term this fall, but resigned following his conviction.

Howarth said he was stunned by the jury's decision."I don't understand it, I'm in shock," he said. "The judge can order a new trial because no rational juror could come up with this verdict."

Upon hearing the decision, Hackel "reacted with the same dignity he has shown throughout this trial," Howarth said.

He said the jury held Hackel to an unfair standard because of his job position, saying "if William Hackel was a custodian in a hotel, he would have been acquitted.

"The prosecution won the case because the victim had the courage "to run the gauntlet" and that she "handled the media attention and the court hearings with great courage," Burdick said."This case also stands for women who suffer these kinds of assaults, so they can see that the system can work for them.

"Women who suffer a sexual-assault incident can come forward and will be treated with respect, Burdick said.

Prosecuting the case of a sheriff accused of rape was difficult, but "no one person is above the law," he said.

After sentencing, Hackel will be transported to the Jackson State Prison's processing center, where his place of incarceration will be determined.

SHERIFF GUILTY AND GOES TO JAIL
RAPE VICTIM SAYS SHE IS PLEASED AND SHOCKED BY VERDICT
April 28, 2000
Detroit Free Press

For 24 years, William Hackel was the law in Macomb County. He snared robbers, murderers and rapists, and was hailed as a champion of victimized women and children. On Thursday, a jury gave him a new label -- rapist -- and sent him to share a cell with an armed robber. An Isabella County jury found him guilty of two counts of rape for two acts during the assault.

"This is a sad day," said Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga. "He was the last ...

Detroit - area sheriff convicted of rape at law convention
The Toledo Blade
Friday, April 28, 2000

Mount Pleasant, Mich. [AP] - A jury convicted the longtime Macomb County Sheriff yesterday of raping a woman at a law enforcement convention last year, rejecting his claim that the sex was consensual.

Sheriff William Hackel, 58, faces up to 15 years in prison on each of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. The conviction means he is automatically removed from office, according to state election law.

Hackel, who has been sheriff in the suburban Detroit county for 23 years clenched his jaw as the verdicts were read in Isabella County Circuit Court but made no comment. As he was taken into custody by the court bailiff, his wife sobbed in the courtroom.

"I'd say he reacted with the same dignity that he has shown not only through this trial, but through his life," defense attorney James Howarth said, adding that Hackel's wife of 24 years, Ada, was "devastated."

The sheriff's son, Macomb County sheriff's Inspector Mark Hackel, put his head in his hands as the judge polled jurors on their verdicts.

When the judge revoked bail, Mark Hackel said, "Oh my God, oh my God," and began pacing in the gallery. He then bolted from the courtroom.

Hackel remained in office since the charges were filed last November. Earlier this month, the Democrat announced he was running for a seventh term, but now cannot do so.

Undersheriff Ronald P. Tuscany will fill the post temporarily, county Clerk Carmella Sabaugh said. The clerk, prosecutor, and chief probate judge will meet to appoint someone for the rest of Hackel's term, which expires Dec. 31.

Prosecutors said the assault occurred Oct. 11 at a sheriff's convenction at the Soaring Eagle Resort. Hackel testified tht the woman consented to sex.

The woman, 26, testified that she agreed to have lunch in her room with Hackel. Once inside, she said, Hackel tried to undress her and ignored her when she twice asked him to stop kissing and groping her.

Jury still out in sheriff's rape trial
Ludington Dailey News
Thursday, April 27, 2000

Mount Pleasant, Mich [AP] - Attorneys in the rape trial of Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel indicated in closing arguments that the jury's verdict would hinge on each side's ability to discredit testimony.
The Isabella County Circuit Court jury heard six days of testimony, followed by closing arguments Wednesday. They were sent home after eight hours of deliberations without reaching a verdict.
Deliberations were to resume todday.
Hackel, 58, is charged with two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. If convicted, he could face up to 15 years in prison.
Prosecutor Larry Burdick said in his closing statement that the defense would try to attack the woman's credibility by suggesting she either had a plan to frame Hackel, or was so embarassed by the incident that she convinced herself she was raped.
"The perpetrator is going to count on secrecy as his first line of defense," Burduck said. "The second line of defense is to attack the victim's credibility so that no one listens."
Calling the woman's testimony troubled, defense attorney William Howarth said she repeatidly told police and hotel workers after the alleged attack that she could not stand the smell of Hackel and his cologne on her hands.
Hackel and his wife testified that Hackel has not worn cologne for five years because it aggravates his asthma.
Authorities say the assault occurred Oct. 11, 1999 at a sheriff's convention at the Soaring Eagle Resort. Hackel testified that he and the woman both consented to sex.
Outside of court, the woman said retelling what happened has forced her to relive the expreience. But the worst part, she said, is waiting for a verdict.
"I did what needed to be done, and I've tried to stay strong through this," she said. She also said she wouldn't file a civil suit.
Prosecutors Monday rested their case against Hackel with the testimony of Clare Fox, the case lead investigator with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Police. The Saginaw Chippewa tribe owns Soaring Eagle.
When questioned about the woman's accussations, Hackel "said that they simultaneously looked at each other and began kissing each other," Fox testified.
Hackel did not use the words "rape" or "sexual assault," Fox said. "His response was that he thought it was consensual. His response would be, 'I was led to believe it was consensual sex.' "
Last week, Hackel's accuser testified she didn't call police because she feared her allegations against a prominent law enforcer would be ignored. Instead, she reported the alleged attack to a resort employee. The employee told the resort nurse, who notified police.
Hackel's wife of 24 years, Ada, testified Monday that her husband had told her about the rape accusations but did not mention that he had sex with the woman.
Ada Hackel said she learned of that through media reports.

Accused sheriff testified in his own behalf
Ludington Daily News
Wednesday, April 26, 2000

Mount Pleasant, Mich [AP] - The Macomb County Sheriff accused of raping a woman at a sheriff's convenction trembled as he testified the woman initiated physical contact with him and never pushed him away as they had consensual sex.

"[She] grabbed me and hugged me and put her head on my chest," Sheriff William Hackel said Tuesday, publicly defending himself for the first time since the October incident.

The popular sheriff became quiet and his lip trembled as he began to describe what happened.

Hackel, 58, said it was his 25-year-old accuser who suggested they order room service for lunch inside her room. Hackel said neither he nor the woman tried to stop what was happening or say that what they were about to do was wrong.

"Did she ever try to push you away from her?" Howarth asked.

"She did not," Hackel said.

"Are you proud of what you did?" Howarth asked.

Hackel shook his head, unable to speak. In the gallery, his son, Mark, wept.

Hackel is charged with two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in the Oct. 11 incident at a sheriff's convention.

Alleged CSC victim testifies in sheriff’s trial
April 24, 2000
12:00 a.m.
David M. Bossick
CM Lifehttp://www.cm-life.com/2000/04/24/allegedcscvictimtestifiesinsheriffstrial

A 26-year-old woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel, 58, testified in tears for more than four hours Wednesday.
The woman testified she was assaulted Oct. 11 by Hackel in her hotel room at the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort, 6800 Soaring Eagle Blvd., where she was coordinating a weekend event for the Michigan Sheriff’s Association.
She testified that she met Hackel at a Michigan State University vs. University of Michigan football game in 1997.
"It was fun. It was like being at a football game with my dad or my grandpa," she said. "The sheriffs are highly respected individuals. … Dealings with people of such stature is an honor."
The alleged victim characterized her relationship with Hackel before the alleged incident as one of respect.
"I looked up to him like most sheriffs, as father figures," she said.
She testified that Hackel helped her carry boxes up to her hotel room, where he allegedly assaulted her.
"He took my shoulders and pushed me on the bed and used his hand to pull my shirt up," she said.
The alleged victim said she was immobilized with shock and fear.
"The more I tried to get away, it turned him on even more, so I stopped and I just laid there.
"My generation knows … that no means no and not to put yourself in a dangerous situation," she said. "And here I was with a sheriff and he of all people should know that rule."
She described the assault, alleging Hackel orally penetrated her and then raped her.
"I opened my eyes and looked over to see if he had a condom on and he didn’t."
After the alleged incident, the woman said she told the Hotel Manager Dave Buckenberger she had been raped.
"At that point he was the only logical person to call. Everyone I knew at that conference was a sheriff."
She said she was afraid to go to the police because "girls are always victimized in these cases."
The alleged victim continued her testimony Thursday and Judge Paul Chamberlain dismissed a juror in the fourth day of the trial.
Chamberlain dismissed juror 32 because of statements he made to other jurors regarding the trial. He is the same person who said during jury selection that he could be unbiased although his wife was raped 17 years ago.
Chamberlain also said the jury will not be able to ask questions of the witnesses.
The alleged victim took the stand again Thursday, as defense attorney Jim Howarth asked her what kinds of military experience she had. She replied she was part of the U.S. Army National Guard from 1995 to 1997 and did go through training.
She described how Hackel held her down during the alleged assault. "He was holding me down like this," she said as she placed her left hand on her upper chest and lower neck.
Howarth asked why she didn’t confide in Suzanne Palmer, her superior, after the incident.
"I don’t confide in her," she said. "I would have confided in the executive director before her.
"She’s my boss. I have a boss-employee relationship," she said.
Howarth asked why she didn’t call the police regarding the incident. "My first thought was I can’t call the police," she said.
She thought the police would believe the crime happened, but nothing would be done, she said.
"I didn’t know what was going to happen," she said. "Look at who did it to me. He is the law," she said. "OK. I was not ignoring what I have been taught. I was reacting to who did it to me."
Isabella County Prosecutor Larry Burdick brought other witnesses to the stand in the morning session of the trial. These included security guards on duty at the time of the alleged incident and desk-staff personnel.
Burdick introduced evidence including phone records, room lock records and surveillance tapes from cameras in the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort.
The desk staff of the resort testified that no one could remember receiving a call to leave early on the evening of Oct. 11, 1999.
One security guard said there was a "screw up" when he forgot to put a tape in the surveillance machine, so the only thing that is on tape is Hackel and the alleged victim entering the room.
Burdick called seven other witnesses Thursday. These included Buckenberger, Tracy Jackson, a security officer at the Soaring Eagle Hotel; Terrence Jungel, executive director of the Michigan Sheriffs Association; Connie Swander, a forensic scientist with the Michigan State Police in Lansing; Jeri Tuscany, an educator and wife of the Macomb County undersheriff; Leona Lashuay, medical technologist at Central Michigan Community Hospital; and Dr. Nivedita Mahanti, a forensic scientist at the Michigan State Police DNA lab in Lansing.
Buckenberger’s testimony revealed that he had talked to the alleged victim on the phone after the alleged rape.
Jackson testified that she had sat in the hall outside the woman’s room while tribal police were inside investigating the situation. Jackson said she saw a man wearing a Detroit Red Wings shirt get off the elevator onto the fifth floor but then quickly turn and leave before she got a good look at him.
Suspicious, Jackson said she wanted to look at the hotel videotape from the hallway camera, but a worker had forgotten to hit the record button on the hall’s camera.
Jackson told Burdick that the man she had seen was taller than average and had gray or graying hair.
She said Investigator Clare Fox showed her different pictures of men but she couldn’t match any of them to the man she saw in the hall.
A couple of days after the alleged assault, Jackson said she saw a picture of Hackel in the Mount Pleasant Morning Sun newspaper and said he did not match anyone in the pictures that Fox had shown her.
Jungel, who is the woman’s boss, testified that he had briefly talked with Hackel as Hackel was checking out of the hotel and that he did not appear nervous or present unusual behavior.
Swander testified that she had tested evidence of sperm from the fifth floor hotel room where the alleged rape took place.
Swander testified that semen was found on vaginal and rectal swabs taken from the woman as well as on a towel from the hotel room’s bathroom, on the woman’s underpants and on the inside of a bed comforter from the room.
Evidence of saliva was also found on a vaginal swab, the panties and on the alleged victim’s jeans.
On cross examination by Howarth, Swander said only the vaginal swabs have been tested for DNA.
Tuscany said she and her husband drove Hackel and his wife to the sheriff’s conference. She said she and her husband have known Hackel for about 20 years and that he is "very loyal to his friends."
"Do you feel he’s loyal to his wife?" Burdick asked Tuscany.
"Yes," Tuscany answered.
The next person to testify was Lashuay, who said she drew two vials of blood and one of urine from Hackel and then gave the samples to Fox for the investigation.
The last person called by Burdick Thursday was Mahanti, who said the DNA from the woman and Hackel matched in tests done on a vaginal swab from the alleged victim.
Mahanti said the tests were done Feb. 16.
"Did anyone tell you four months prior to that Bill Hackel admitted to police that he had sex with (the woman)?" Howarth asked Mahanti.
"No, I was not aware of that," Mahanti said.
The trial resumes today at 8:30 a.m.

Jury seated in trial of Macomb sheriff
The Argus Press
Owosso, Michigan
Tues., April 18, 2000

Mount Pleasant, Mich. [AP] - A jury of eight men and six women was seated in the rape trial of Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel.

Hackel, 58, is charged with two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. A woman alleges that Hackel attacked her during a sheriff's conference at the Soaring Eagle Resort in October.

The defense and prosecution interviewed 25 prospective jurors Monday from a pool of about 901 before settling on a jury.

Hackel's attorney has said his client will testify that he had consensual sex with the woman.

Defense attorney James Howarth asked jurors if they could reach an innocent ve?"rdict if what someone did was legal but, in their view, morally wrong. Hackel is married.

"Some things may be morally wrong, but not a crime," Howarth said. "We may not like it."

Both Howarth and County Prosecutor Larry Burdick probed prospective jurors about their sentiments toward law enforcement officials.

"I don't think I could be fair with the police," said one juror who was dismissed by Chief Judge Paul Chamberlain.

A key element to the case, and one of the defense plans to present, is whether the woman making the allegations resisted. Michigan law says a woman does not have to resist for an assault to be a crime.

Despite that, Burdick questioned jurors on how they felt about it.

"Do you think a woman should have to resist?" he asked.

Some jurors hedged on the issue, and a few indicated they believed that a woman should resist in some way a sexual assault.

One juror said his wife had been raped at knifepoint 17 years ago. Despite having strong feelings about it, the man said he could be a fair juror.

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.