Cox Lies About Decision in Rape Case, Attacks Underage Victim
Once again, the hit dog hollers.
In a public response to our story from this morning, Delegate Dan Cox defended his involvement in the defense of a criminal convicted of raping a 13-year old girl. Cox also proceeded to attack the victim in an effort to defend himself.
Cox’s statement, made in at least two Facebook groups, stated:
Response to Kelly Schulz’s Lackey, Duckpin author, Smear of Dan Cox, Esq. for Representing A Maryland Citizen Accused of Rape of a Minor
After being approached for help from a wonderful family and their church, I vigorously represented a man, husband and father accused who is deemed innocent under law, and the defendant, his wife, members of the family and church friends and medical doctor all testified he was innocent. The girl refused a rape kit exam. The DNA expert proved no sexual DNA was on her or him in direct contradiction to the accusations. Without attorneys who pursue truth and constitutional rights, innocent people would be in jail. I am a defender of children and the innocent. DUCKPIN should be ashamed for his desperate attack on the legal system and my work for constitutional law.
There are several inaccuracies in Cox’s statement:
Cox claims that he represented a man who is “deemed innocent under law.” However, as mentioned in the story, Charles Jarrett entered an Alford Plea, An Alford plea is a special kind of plea where the accused does not admit the act and continues to claim innocence, but acknowledges that the evidence presented by the court would likely convict the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It is universally seen by the court as a guilty plea. Therefore, by his client entering what is a type of guilty plea, he cannot be “deemed innocent under law.”
Cox calls the piece a “desperate attack on the legal system and my work for constitutional law.” He (and many of his Facebook warrior supporters) are responding to an argument nobody made. The piece was not an attack on the legal system, or even an attack on Cox’s “work for constitutional law” though maybe that should be called into question given the inaccuracies of his statement and the numerous typos and grammatical errors made in some of his recent court filings with respect to COVID. All the piece did was point out that Dan Cox, through his legal practice, made sure that a sex offender convicted of sexual crimes against a 13-year old girl is free and not in jail.
Cox did not address his statements in court filings about COVID being dangerous.
While Cox releasing a statement lying about the facts of the case at a time when the facts and the court documents have already been released, it pales in comparison to Dan Cox defending himself by attacking a girl who was the victim of a sexual offense at the age of 13 at the hands of her client. As the father of a daughter, I find Dan Cox’s attack of the victim unforgivable.
It isn’t nearly as lighthearted or amusing as the continued illiteracy coming out of Gordana Schifanelli and her Shore Times.
In the piece not only does Schifanelli manage to misspell my name in more ways than one, she also accuses me of being “a bigger threat to Democracy.” I’m not sure what I’m a bigger threat than, however, considering the piece like everything else over there is incoherent.
As always with Cox and Company, a hit dog will holler.