What level of proof is required to arrest someone 32 years after the fact? Unless they have an undisputed picture of him doing the rape how could you possibly convict someone after such a lengthy period of time?
From the article above: Ruark said Meroney appeared before a Wicomico County Circuit Court judge late Thursday afternoon and was ordered to be held at the county detention center on $50,000 bond
OK - I clearly know less about the bonding process than I thought I did. I thought that you had a bond to guarantee that you would appear in court later. Why would you need to cough up 50 grand while being held in detention?
I’ll wager dollars to doughnuts (1) he never serves a day in jail and (2) his career is ruined.
Isn’t there a statute of limitations on something like this? I was listening to NPR Thursday about a woman nearly killed by an axe-wielding assailant 30 years ago in Oregon, and when she finally decided to go back to the town where it happened, she discovered no one had ever been prosecuted, and the statute of limitations has now expired on the case. I’m guessing Oregon and Maryland have different statues on this kind of thing???
As far as I know, the only non-federal crime for which there is no statute of limitations is murder. But then, my whole life has been spent in the western U.S. (except for when I was in the service.) Some states could easily have no SOL or very long limitations on other crimes. It just seems that after 30 years … hmm.
He was given probation on the Baltimore cases - maybe evidence has come to light that puts that probation into question -like he lied or they reserved the right to recharge him …
A number of states allow for prosecution of sex offenses against minors in the case of repressed memories with the SoL starting from the time the alleged victim recovers the memory. SoLs may also stop running if the alleged assailant leaves the jurisdiction. Dunno if either of those are the case here.
After the recent priest scandals, state legislatures have been under great pressure to significantly loosen the statutes of limitation for crimes inflicted on children. Some states have voted to eliminate the limitations altogether. They are running into appellate problems, however, because they are trying to apply the laws to crimes that (obviously) have already been committed.
In any event, to answer astro’s question, if the police were involved and obtained evidence such as underwear, DNA testing could certainly lead to a conviction 32 years later. Given the high profile nature of his job, it’s possible that a victim just happened upon one of his newcasts and put two and two together. I daresay it’s a face/voice you’d keep burned in your memory.
On an unrelated note, when I clicked on astro’s 2nd link, Google had a huge ad of Maury Povich on the side and for a moment I thought he was the alleged rapist. Brrr!