I think the Leagle website might be a good outreach resource. If you go to their search page and do a phrase search on Alcoholics Anonymous, you get thousands of results. The story on the front page today is about a “couple” that met in AA.
People v. Wisdom
A. The prosecution’s case
In September 2007, S.K. met Wisdom at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. The two began dating in December 2007. After a couple of months, S.K. ended the relationship. Wisdom wanted to continue the relationship. On the evening of February 29, 2008, S.K. agreed to see Wisdom. Wisdom and S.K. decided to purchase some alcohol and cocaine and then go to S.K.’s residence. S.K. and Wisdom arrived at S.K.’s apartment at approximately 9:00 p.m. that evening.
After injecting himself with cocaine, Wisdom unexpectedly struck S.K. in the face with his hand, causing her to bleed. S.K. believed that Wisdom had broken her nose. Wisdom then shoved his penis in S.K.’s face and ordered her to orally copulate him. Wisdom continued to physically and sexually assault S.K. over a period of several hours. Wisdom struck S.K. in the face with his fists multiple times, struck S.K. in the face with a fire extinguisher, kicked her in the ribs, threatened her with a knife, threatened to kill her, and forcibly injected her with cocaine. Wisdom also penetrated S.K.’s anus and vagina with his penis several times, and repeatedly forced her to orally copulate him.
At approximately 1:00 a.m., a friend of S.K.’s, Natalie S. (Natalie), knocked on the door of the residence. Wisdom told S.K. to get into the bed and to cover her face. Wisdom opened the door and allowed Natalie to enter. Once Natalie was inside the apartment, Wisdom repeatedly accused Natalie of being an undercover police officer. Wisdom shoved Natalie down on a couch, told her that he was going to “fuck” her, and began to remove his clothes. Natalie pretended to vomit, and asked for some water. Natalie and Wisdom went into the kitchen. While in the kitchen, Wisdom injected himself with cocaine and grabbed a knife. Wisdom slowly ran the knife across the outside of Natalie’s clothes, while telling her that he was going to have sex with her. Wisdom placed the knife inside his boxer shorts and put his hands on Natalie’s breasts and bottom. Natalie grabbed the knife from Wisdom, and the two began to struggle for the knife. During the struggle, Wisdom fell on the ground, and Natalie was able to flee the apartment.
After Natalie left, Wisdom told S.K. that they had to leave because the police were coming. As Wisdom and S.K. were walking to Wisdom’s car, S.K. was able to escape to a nearby convenience store. A store clerk telephoned the police, while S.K. hid in a storage room. The police were initially unable to locate Wisdom. However, a few days later, federal agents arrested Wisdom in Florida, and he was extradited back to California.
B. The defense
Wisdom testified that he had been with S.K. at her residence on the night in question. Wisdom acknowledged that he had struck S.K. in the face multiple times, but denied that he had sexually assaulted her. Wisdom also acknowledged that Natalie had come to S.K.’s residence during the evening. Wisdom denied that he sexually assaulted Natalie, and claimed that Natalie had grabbed a knife and attempted to attack him before she left the residence.
  • causeandeffect

    How absolutely horrific!!! I'm sure I've seen leagle somewhere recently, I think someone posted somewhere under that name.

  • hh, do you mean ST or leagle?

  • hulahoop

    The site appears to be having some issues today. At least it is for me.

  • hulahoop

    Sorry FTG…leagle. I haven't checked it today. ST is working just fine. )

  • Mona Lisa

    Here's an interesting case I found on Leagle, following Inouye v. Kemna:


    The case involved an individual who had been incarcerated for the 1980 shooting of his unfaithful wife. He was up for parole but this was denied because, among other things, he didn't go to AA meetings. The state court upheld this decision but the federal district court reversed it and the appellate court confirmed. Here's the interesting part of the court's decision:

    Recognizing the relationship between Pirtle's prior alcohol abuse and his commitment offense, the Board has repeatedly advised Pirtle that he should attend AA meetings. Pirtle regularly attended such meetings for four years after he was given a parole date in 1990, because doing so was a condition of that original order, but he stopped when the parole date was revoked. Pirtle has explained to the Board that he is an atheist, and as such, he objects to AA's religious content and its emphasis on a higher power.6 He has also explained to the Board that he is willing to attend a secular substance abuse program, and at his 2002 hearing, he provided the Board with a list of such programs in the area of Northern California in which he could participate if he were released. Pirtle had been unable to attend secular substance abuse programs in prison, however, because according to his uncontroverted testimony, no such programs were available.7 His failure [ 611 F.3d 1024 ] to attend a program that is not available has no probative value, and thus cannot support the Board's decision in any way.

    Notwithstanding his unwillingness to attend AA because of his religious beliefs, Pirtle has been consistently forthright with the Board about his alcohol abuse. He has repeatedly expressed his commitment to abstain from alcohol, both to the Board and to prison psychologists. Pirtle's psychological assessments report that he has a history of episodic alcohol abuse, and that it is now in remission. The assessments also state that Pirtle has a great deal of insight about his problem with alcohol and its role in his crimes, and they note that he is committed to sobriety.

    Pirtle's attitude about alcohol was demonstrated most colorfully at one parole hearing in which he stated: "I mean I wouldn't stick my hand in a jar of rattlesnakes — drinking would be paramount to the same thing." Consistent with the self-awareness that he has demonstrated and that his psychologists have observed, Pirtle had not consumed any alcohol during the twenty-two years of incarceration that preceded his 2002 parole hearing. Because there is no evidence that Pirtle will be unable or unwilling to manage his alcohol problem effectively upon release, as he has already done for more than two decades, we agree with the district court that "the record does not support the panel's determination that petitioner's abuse of alcohol up to 1980 rendered him dangerous in 2002."

  • hulahoop

    I think the prisons should be forced to offer a secular program especially if they are offering AA. Steppers were always trying to get volunteers for the prison program. Talk about a captive audience.

    He could have continued to attend AA even though he was only doing it to get paroled or quit and told the truth about he felt about it. So it's better to lie and use AA to get out of jail free (no matter what your personal beliefs are?) That is the message it sends to other inmates.

  • Mona Lisa

    Actually this case stands for the proposition that refusal to attend AA, where no other options were given, cannot be used as a basis for denying parole.

    I've been reading several other cases from federal district courts (these are the trial-level courts). Some of them have been saying that it is ok to force AA attendance unless the prisoner specifically and strenuously objects on religious grounds. The rationale is basically that unless you complain about having your constitutional rights violated, it's ok to violate your constitutional rights. The message that this sends is: if you don't want to go to AA, say so and make it clear that your objection is based on religious grounds.

    I will look some more and see what the appeal status is of these cases. It is possible that they will be overturned on appeal. It really is not logical to say that unconstitutional practices are ok unless somebody complains.

  • hulahoop

    Yes, but he was initially denied by the parole board partially because he didn’t attend meetings. A lot of convicts will look at that first. And the parole board doesn’t always have to be totally up front about all the reasons they are denying parole. One reason is good enough to send you to the back of the line to start the appeals process.

    I can see it both ways, but I can definitely see someone attending AA meetings in prison to gain the blessings of the parole board. It is the quickest way out.

  • Chris

    That guy is my brother fucked up shit