Judge rules defense attorney can view DCF records chronicling victim's past

AISLING SWIFT

Naples Daily News

Numerous boxes of reports detailing a foster child's history and claims of sexual abuse will be released to a Naples defense attorney who argued Wednesday that a foster father has been falsely accused of repeatedly raping the teen.

Collier Circuit Judge Elizabeth Krier granted attorney Shannon McFee's motion for disclosure of Department of Children and Families records involving the girl. However, Krier ruled that the records she'd reviewed in her chambers must be returned to DCF to delete medical information and some names before being released to McFee within 60 days.

Krier made her ruling after about an hour of arguments by McFee and Assistant State Attorney Chris Klink, who cited concern over other information possibly contained in the boxes, but agreed McFee was entitled exculpatory evidence – information that would benefit Jeff Allen Woodring, 39, of Golden Gate.

McFee argued he already knew that DCF had asked the girl to sign a statement admitting the allegations were false because she'd testified to that during her deposition.

"We're not going there on a fishing expedition," McFee said. "We think we know what's in there based on the victim's own testimony."

He said the girl originally told investigators Woodring touched her inappropriately over a three-year period and said no intercourse was involved, but admitted she could be pregnant by someone else. She recanted the allegations, McFee said, then later claimed she and Woodring had intercourse nearly every day. But McFee argued she didn't even live in the foster home for one-third to one-half of the three-year time period she claims to have been raped.

"One of the things we're going to be looking at is the motivation of this victim to accuse individuals of rape," McFee said. "This is not the first time she's made these allegations. They seem to coincide with other time periods where she's been in trouble in life."

McFee cited other incidents, including when she was expelled from school, and questioned the girl's capacity to remember events, arguing that she'd been arrested numerous times for drug use and sales. He wanted to examine her motivation, opportunity, prior allegations of abuse, and recantations.

"There is no other evidence that this occurred, other than this lady saying it did," McFee told Krier. "He's potentially facing 30 years in prison based on the allegations of a young lady over a three-year period."

After the hearing, McFee declined to comment on whether other defendants had been charged based on the girl's accusations, citing the confidentiality of this case.

Due to the sexual nature of the allegations, the girl's name, age and other details are not being published. She lived in Woodring's special therapeutic foster home, a home that provides care for seriously emotionally disturbed or developmentally disabled children who may benefit from care in a family setting, but who have clinical or behavioral needs that exceed basic foster care.

Further information about Woodring and how long he'd been in the foster care system was not immediately available after the hearing, which ended late Wednesday afternoon. Woodring has no criminal record here.

Woodring, who was arrested in May 2006, is free on $75,000 bond and is charged with sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation. He faces up to 30 years in a state prison on the top charge, a first-degree felony, and 15 years on the latter, a second-degree felony.

Neither Woodring nor the teen attended the hearing, although an attorney, which represents victims' rights, was present and briefly told the judge the victim was entitled to confidentiality.

Klink contended the victim's privacy should be protected and only information that would have an effect at trial should be released. "If the victim submitted something in writing that's directly on point, the defense is entitled to that," Klink argued.

McFee, however, contended unfounded reports are not protected under the state's rape shield law and that the U.S. Constitution trumps state laws protecting victims' confidentiality. "Would the system want the defendant to see this to properly defend himself? Without them, I can't prepare my timeline or defenses," McFee told Krier.

Krier ruled inspection of the records was necessary to resolve the issue of the defendant's guilt or innocence. But when McFee asked if his colleagues at Berry, Day, McFee Martin could help him inspect the numerous boxes, Krier ruled only McFee and Woodring could look at them to protect the victim's confidentiality. She added: "If I can look through them, you can look through them."