2007 | State v. Carl Chaney

An appeals court reversed Carl Chaney's convictions on four counts of rape, after ruling that former assistant Mahoning County prosecutor Dawn Cantalamessa violated Chaney's constitutional right to due process by suggesting to a jury that his refusal to speak to police after his arrest should cast doubt on his trial testimony.

Chaney in June 2007 faced multiple charges including rape, kidnapping and aggravated burglary involving his girlfriend. But after he was arrested at a Youngstown bar, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and declined to answer officers' questions, according to a city police report.

However, when Chaney testified during trial in May 2008, during cross examination, Cantalemessa asked him, "Now, you would agree with me that this is the first time you ever made a statement about this, is that right?" court transcripts show.

Chaney replied "Yes'' and one of his attorneys objected to the question. After a sidebar between judge and attorneys, Cantalamessa rephrased the question slightly: "So you would agree with me this is the first time you ever talked about this?"

"You mean out in public, yes," Chaney replied.

Later, during closing arguments, Cantalamessa again made vague reference to Chaney's decision not to talk to police, noting to jurors Chaney's trial testimony was the "first time" he'd spoken about the case — and that he had a year to prepare his testimony.

Defense attorneys objected multiple times but were overruled, transcripts show.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals on March 25, 2010, reversed Chaney's convictions, ruling Cantalamessa's "improper references to Chaney's post-arrest silence violated Chaney's constitutional rights," reads the opinion written by then-Judge Mary DeGenaro. Two of the other three judges agreed.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the state's use of a defendant's post-arrest, post-Miranda silence as a means of impeaching the defendant's testimony at trial violates the defendant's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment," the opinion reads. "Courts look upon any comment by a prosecutor on the post-arrest silence of a defendant with extreme disfavor because they raise an inference of guilt from the defendant's decision to remain silent."

Former Seventh District Court of Appeals Judge Mary DeGenaro (Source: Mahoning County Prosecutor's Office)

Cantalamessa told Mahoning Matters she couldn't remember the specific line of questioning but recalled the trial court sided with her when it overruled the defense's objections, which made it "fair game" at trial.

Cantalamessa said prosecutors should be "careful" with phrasing at trial, since the burden of proof is on prosecutors to prove a defendant is guilty, rather than on defendants, to prove they're innocent.

Chaney's trial jury in 2008 acquitted him on three of his seven counts of rape, as well as his charges of kidnapping and aggravated burglary.

But upon retrial in 2011, Chaney pleaded guilty to four counts of rape and was sentenced to three years in prison. Since he had been incarcerated for nearly four years by that point, that entire sentence was credited.

This story was originally published October 26, 2021 at 3:52 AM with the headline "2007 | State v. Carl Chaney."