Corbin man accused of rape and incest takes plea deal

A Corbin man took an 11th hour plea deal Thursday only moments before a jury was slated to hear arguments over rape and incest charges against him.

James Ambers Walters, 39, was accused of raping his 16-year-old daughter late at night on June 6, 2005 and early the next morning June 7, 2005.  Walters was arrested the next day, but has been free on bail and will remain so until his sentencing hearing September 25. He agreed to a ten-year sentencing recommendation, of which he will likely only serve 20 percent, before he is eligible for parole. He was originally charged with two counts of incest and two counts of rape, but pleaded guilty to only a single charge of incest. According to Commonwealth’s Attorney Allen Trimble, Walters was previously convicted in Laurel County for rape.

Walters was represented in the case by Public Defender Ron Findell who said he only agreed to the plea deal because of several pre-trial motions that were denied.

"I firmly believe in my client’s innocence," Findell said.

Prior to the plea bargain, the defense filled three motions in the case, all denied by Whitley Circuit Judge Paul Braden.  The first would have prevented a jury from hearing some evidence Findell claims was illegally obtain by police from Walters’ apartment. Kentucky State Police Detective Staci Anderkin went to Walter’s home with two police officers during the investigation. Anderkin had a court order to obtain a blood sample and a rape test kit from him along with an arrest warrant. While they were at his apartment, Anderkin allegedly obtained permission from Walters to search the premises. The search proved fruitful uncovering evidence vital to the case … evidence Walter’s defense wanted excluded.

Trimble defended the detective’s actions.

"When they went out there, there was no intention to search anything. Had there been an intention, she would have gotten a search warrant at the same time she got the warrant to conduct the rape kit," Tremble said. "She is an experienced detective and she’s not a detective that rushes into anything. She’s very contemplative and does things by the book."

A second motion would have allowed the defense to question the alleged victim concerning her mental history and also allow testimony as to her state of mind. The last motion would have given the defense the right to discuss the alleged victim’s sexual history at trial, something state rape shield laws typically do not allow. Such laws are statutes or court rules that limit the introduction of evidence about a victim’s sexual history, reputation or past conduct.

"It pretty much went to the crux of our case," Findell said. "Therefore my client, even though he absolutely, adamantly maintains his innocence, felt like the best thing to do under the circumstances was to go ahead and enter an Alford plea and to appeal the judge’s overruling of the motions, which is what we are going to do," Findell said.

An Alford plea is when the defendant maintains that they are innocent, but pleads guilty because they feel there is enough evidence prosecutors can present that a jury would find them guilty.

Because the girl was 16 at the time of the allegations, the law requires the intercourse had to be forced to be considered rape.

"Even though we have evidence that the child was unwilling and said no, the element of force probably would be difficult for us to prove and that’s the reason we worked out a plea," said the Commonwealth’s attorney Allen Trimble. "Sometimes juries believe that there has to be bruises or injury to be forceful, which is not true."

Trimble maintained the case against Walters was strong.

"Not only did I have the testimony of the girl, but I had DNA evidence where we found her blood, which she had testified after the intercourse she had bled, on a pair of underwear in his bedroom," Trimble said.

Before the sentencing, the defense plans to appeal the judge’s decisions on the motions.

"Every conviction I have is appealed. We have good judges down here and they will make good decisions based upon the law,"

Trimble said. "Now, sometimes, judges disagree. While I feel comfortable in agreeing with the court’s decision in this case, there may be some other judge up the line that doesn’t. You can’t really anticipate that."

The next step for Walters is an evaluation performed on all sex offenders before sentencing. The evaluation is considered by the parole board and for probation regulations. It also plays a role in deciding how long the offender will have to remain a registered sex offender and what kind of restrictions will be placed on him. The evaluation decides the threat or danger level based on a person’s crimes.

Because Walter’s has already been convicted of rape in the first degree, he has to remain a registered sex offender his entire life. Other restrictions could also be placed on him.