Tim Scannell
After hearing arguments from both attorneys, St. Louis County District Court Judge Shaun Floerke said that he will make a ruling by April 11, 2014 as to whether there was probable cause for the grand jury indictment of Cook County Attorney Tim Scannell on two felony charges of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct.
The contested omnibus hearing was held in Duluth on March 27 at 1:15 p.m.
Scannell, who has been on a medical leave of absence since October 15, 2013, was charged with fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor by a grand jury convened in Duluth on October 22, 2013. He first came under public scrutiny on December 4, 2012, after a local 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.
At the hearing, Cook County Special Prosecutor Thomas B. Heffelfinger argued that Scannell had intentionally engaged in sexual contact with the minor victim, who was, “at least 16 but under the age of 18 years of age,” and that Scannell was “more than 48 months older than the minor victim, and the defendant was in a position of authority over the minor victim.”
The age of consent in Minnesota is 16, but prosecutors can bring charges in special circumstances where the victim is younger than 18 and the adult is more than four years older.
Joseph Tamburino of Caplan & Tamburino, Scannell’s attorney, acknowledged that Scannell had been a family friend and a former tennis coach of the girl. However, he argued that any position of authority Scannell had over the teen ended months before the alleged sexual contact. Tamburino said a position of authority had to exist at the time of the acts, which he argued, did not exist in August 2012.
Heffelfinger rebutted the assertion by reminding the court that Scannell had known the girl since she was in third grade. He had been her soccer coach, tennis coach, taught her guitar lessons, helped her with her homework and most recently, gave her advice on college planning.
Heffelfinger noted that in the girl’s grand jury testimony, which has not been released to the public, she said she and Scannell had been discussing college options in Scannell’s van when the alleged sexual contact occurred.
Heffelfinger argued that although Scannell may not have been her coach, he was still a father figure and mentor to her.
Tamburino asked for the court to dismiss the grand jury indictment on two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct on the grounds that “incompetent evidence has so far influenced the grand jury that an indictment would not have been returned without it.”
Tamburino said the grand jury based its indictment, “upon inadmissible evidence and inaccurate law. No probable cause exists to indict defendant and, therefore, the indictment should be dismissed.”
If Judge Floerke rules against Scannell, the case will move forward. Should Floerke rule in favor of Scannell, the case will end and the charges will be dropped.
Leave a Reply