On Thursday, July 10, 2014, Sixth Judicial District Chief Judge Shaun Floerke handed down his opinion blocking the request by Cook County’s special prosecutor Thomas Heffelfinger to allow Dr. Amanda Powers-Sawyer, a White Bear Lake psychologist, to testify that Cook County Attorney Tim Scannell had engaged in the practice of “grooming” before having sexual contact with a 17-year-old girl.
Scannell admits to having sexual contact with the girl in August of 2012, and charges were brought against him after he violated a restraining order filed by the girl’s parents to have no contact with her.
Scannell, who is being represented by Attorney Joseph Tamburino, will appear in court in Duluth on Monday, July 21 where he will face two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct.
Heffelfinger tried to add Dr. Powers-Sawyer to the state’s witness list three weeks before the trial date, and he made his case to the judge at the pre-trial hearing held on July 3. In his arguments Heffelfinger said Powers-Sawyer would be able to testify that in a four-month period prior to the alleged crime that Scannell used his position of authority to build “trust and attraction” and “reliance” with the victim. These are “grooming” practices used by sex offenders to build trust with children before sexually abusing them, he said.
Tamburino argued that a grooming expert would prejudice the jury to his client, and he told the judge that the case boiled down to whether or not Scannell held a “position of authority” over the girl or whether the physical contact was consensual, as Scannell has alleged.
In his six-page opinion Judge Floerke wrote, “The State argues that Minnesota case law allows for expert testimony regarding the grooming of adolescent victims, and that Dr. Powers- Sawyer’s testimony will assist the jury in understanding the psychological concept of grooming and counterintuitive behaviors of adolescent victims of sexual assault.
“Based on expert disclosure, ‘grooming’ is behavior that manipulates the victim’s trust to achieve sexual satisfaction and often involves arranging and encouraging the victim to meet and desensitizes the victim to escalating sexual behavior without being aggressive, coercive, or forceful. The purpose of the proffered expert opinion would be to describe general grooming behaviors and their impact on an adolescent to the jury. It is clear that any consent to the sexual contact by the alleged victim is not a defense, and the jury will be so instructed. The issue of consent is irrelevant, and the State has moved to exclude testimony regarding consent. The State cannot also attempt to introduce evidence showing how or why the alleged victim would consent to the contacts. Whether sexual contact was coerced is immaterial and the jury will be instructed of that as well.
“Because coercion is not an element of the charges, it is not implicated by the facts, expert testimony that explains to the jury that an adolescent can be coerced through grooming behavior without realizing it is happening is also not helpful to the jurors. A discussion of grooming behavior would be unfairly prejudicial to the Defendant under the facts of this case.”
Floerke also added, “The general facts surrounding the alleged offenses are not in dispute.
“The core, and likely sole, issue for the jury to decide in this matter is whether Defendant [Scannell] was in a position of authority over the alleged victim at the time of the alleged offenses. Expert testimony about grooming may assist the jury in understanding how the Defendant gained consent or why the alleged victim did not object to the sexual contact. But neither of these questions matter in this case. Force, coercion, and consent are not the issues for the jury to decide here.
“If the State was going to allege coercion by the use of grooming behavior, it could have sought an indictment on different, and more serious, charges. But for the position of authority that Defendant is alleged to have had over the alleged victim, their relationship would be completely legal. Because expert testimony regarding grooming behavior would not assist the jury in determining whether Defendant was in a position of authority over the alleged victim in August 2012, the testimony will not be admissible at trial.”
Scannell has been in the public eye for several years, first gaining national attention when he was critically injured in the December 15, 2011 shooting in Cook County courthouse. Scannell had been shot by a defendant he had successfully convicted of criminal sexual conduct with a teenaged girl.
Scannell came under public scrutiny again on December 4, 2012, after a Cook County family asked for and received a harassment restraining order that called for him to refrain from having any contact with their 17-year-old daughter. That action led to an investigation and the eventual indictment by a grand jury convened in St. Louis County on October 22, 2013.
Scannell has been on a medical leave of absence from his county attorney position since October 15, 2013. As an elected official, Scannell will continue to be paid his full salary while he is on leave.
He has not filed for reelection and Assistant County Attorney Molly Hicken is filling his position. Hicken is the only person on the ballot to run for the county attorney seat in this fall’s upcoming election.
Leave a Reply