Tahlequah Daily Press

Breaking News

Local News

Discussion

Add a comment on this story
March 8, 2013

Prosecutors to use evidence of prior sex abuse in Lindsey trial

By JOSH NEWTON Staff Writer

TAHLEQUAH — Prosecutors this week said they intend to use, during jury trial, evidence of previous sex abuse allegedly committed by a Tahlequah man.

James “Jim” Neill Lindsey, 56, was charged in January 2012 with lewd or indecent acts to a child, performing lewd act in presence of a minor, and rape by instrumentation. Prosecutors are now alleging, based on recent testimony, that Lindsey abused another victim up until about 11 years ago.

Prosecutors say testimony presented by a woman during the discover process reveals Lindsey allegedly abused her from 1996 until about 2002.

Assistant District Attorney Marena Doolittle, in the filing, said the sexual abuse of this woman forms proof of motive, opportunity, and intent on Lindsey’s part to commit the acts alleged in the current case.

According to an affidavit filed by Tahlequah Police Detective Thomas Donnell, Lindsey began to inappropriately touch the alleged victim identified in the court case several years ago.

One court document indicates the incidents date back to 2008, while Donnell’s affidavit says the accusations covered a 10-year span.

Prosecutors said Lindsey touched the girl, had her touch him for sexual arousal, and used an adult item to violate the girl without her consent.

Lindsey recently filed a motion for a speedy trial and has asked to face a jury during the docket starting May 20. Lindsey’s attorney, Jerry Moore, argued Lindsey’s right to due process has been “substantially prejudiced” through failure of the court to conclude the case “in a fair and speedy manner.”

He has also argued there were errors made during Lindsey’s preliminary hearing.

Lindsey is free on a $50,000 cash bond. He is set to appear for a criminal docket March 21 at 3 p.m.

Text Only
Local News
Poll

Should storm shelters be a mandatory part of construction in tornado-prone areas?

Yes, in all structures, whether they be public buildings or private homes and businesses.
Yes, but only in public buildings, like schools or stadiums; no for private homes and businesses.
No, storm shelters should not be mandatory, but perhaps government funds or grants should be available to those who choose to build them.
No, they should not be mandatory, and there should be no government funds for them.
Undecided.
     View Results
Press Sports Twitter Updates
Follow us on twitter
Follow me on Twitter
AP Video
Sheriff: No Sign Killing of 2 Kids Was Planned Obama Defends Drone Strikes, With Limits Raw: Jurors Deadlock on Jodi Arias Penalty Boy Scouts Decision "First Step" Say Activists Raw: Utah Teen Arrested in Death of His Brothers Closer Look at Okla. School Where Children Died Two Suspects in Murder Known to London Police Boy Scouts Mom Supports Gay Inclusiveness "Be Ready": NOAA Warns of Busy Hurricane Season SeaWorld: Penguins Are Coolest Thing in Florida Obama Renews Call to Close Gitmo Obama Offers Drone Strike Defense Raw: Heckler Interrupts Obama on Guantanamo A Slice of Apple History Up for Grabs
Stocks
Bedlam