Montrose – The Cnic Theatre has changed hands. The patrons of the only moving picture show house here will receive the news with surprise. On Monday a bulletin announced the closing of the theatre for a few days and it is being renovated and the public is of the opinion that the place needed it. Water, being priceless, the floor was treated to a good scrubbing, something to which it will become accustomed for the future—as well as daily ventilation to sweeten the interior atmosphere. Seats were repaired, booth and ceiling painted and a touch of elbow grease and duster wherever needful. In the very near future a little stage will be erected and now and then good clean vaudeville features will afford entertainment in connection with the picture program. Music will be under the direction of Miss May Knappman, of Scranton, a splendid pianist, who plays with good expression and understands the art of adapting her music to the pictures as they are thrown upon the screen.

Anniversaries: Mr. and Mrs. Eugene C. Sherwood, of Auburn, celebrated their golden wedding anniversary on Saturday, January 3. ALSO Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Stockholm, of Franklin, will tomorrow celebrate their fiftieth anniversary. Mr. and Mrs. John Hortman, of Hopbottom, celebrated their silver wedding anniversary on Dec. 3.

Marriages: On the last day of the old year, Rev. Carl Councilman, of the M. E. church, Montrose, married the following: Louis L. Pratt and Maud Carpenter, of Hopbottom and Walter E. Lobdell and Hazel G. Torrey, of Camden N.Y. On Jan. 6, 1914 he officiated at the marriages of Lewis G. Stalker of Lestershire,

N. Y. and Nora E Doolittle, of Binghamton and Thomas Crawford and Luvia Thornton, of Auburn Center. ALSO In South Auburn the marriage of our teacher, Miss Pearl Benninger, to Ray Tyler, occurred Dec. 31. A good way to end the old and begin the new.

Brookdale, Liberty Twp. – Michael Dolan, Jr., has bought a fine new cutter. Now, girls, for some drives.

Gelatt, Gibson Twp. – A man, whose first name was Tony, a town charge, was buried in the Potter’s field here on Saturday.

Richardson’s Mills, Harford Twp. – A sleigh ride party from this place attended the Rebekah Lodge, at Harford, one night last week.

Also in Harford, it is reported that F. O. Miller has bought the Guile store building.

Springville – Mr. Greatsinger is putting up ice preparatory to opening a meat market later, and this will be a great convenience to the town.

Brooklyn – Rev. Mr. Edwards has resumed his preaching services in the Presbyterian church after being quarantined for some weeks, his little girl having had typhoid fever at Plymouth, where they live.

Flynn, Middletown Twp. - It is reported that [Mr.] Robinson has sold his store at Birchardville. There will be a great many sorry to see him leave, as he is an up-to-date storekeeper, always ready to buy at a fair price anything the farmers had to sell.

Rush – Rush has electric lights and will soon have an orchestra.

South Montrose – Mr. Maine, for some time head gardener at Louden Hill Farm, has resigned his position. Before taking up active work, he plains making a trip to the Bermudas.

Susquehanna – Thomas Haley, employed as foreman of the Erie Railroad interlocking plant here, was killed while going across No. 2 bridge Christmas night. He lived on the Finnerty farm near McKune’s Cemetery. He left home at 6:30 o’clock and it is presumed that while returning he was blinded by the snowstorm and was run down by a train. The body was found about 10 o’clock by some trackmen. Mr. Haley was an old employee of the Erie and was popular with his fellows. He leaves a wife and seven children.

Hopbottom – While listening to his wife read a book at the home of his son, Merchant E. M. Loomis, Sidney Loomis, aged 78, was stricken with heart disease, Christmas evening, and toppled from his chair to the floor dying. Mr. and Mrs. Loomis had gone to their son’s home to spend Christmas, where they had a hearty dinner. About 8 o’clock Mrs. Loomis was reading from a book, a Christmas gift, when her husband was stricken.

Clifford – The Christmas entertainment and tree at the Baptist church was fine. As one little boy expressed it, “The best Christmas he ever had.”

Dimock – J. S. Mills has no more boarders as Mrs. Mills is taking a long needed rest. Also Dr. H. B. Lathrop, of Springville, was here on Sunday, attending to his many patients.

Forest Lake – The children of the Warner school, under the direction of the teacher, Miss Frances Kelly, gave a very enjoyable entertainment, Wednesday afternoon, consisting of recitation, dialogue, etc. Also Messrs Mart, Charles and Bert McNerney, of Binghamton, are spending a few days with Mr. and Mrs. C. N. McNerney.

Retta, Auburn Twp. – The revival at the Grace M. E. church was successful in deepening the religious life of the community and resulted in 21 conversions. An Epworth League was organized last

Tuesday and will meet every Sunday evening. Every Tuesday evening there will be a preaching service in the church.

Silver Lake – One of the most gratifying events that ever took place here was the Christmas tree party given by Mr. and Mrs. M. J. Corbett for 60 little girls and goys, parents and neighbors. Shortly after 2 p.m. Mr. Corbett started the Victrola music, playing the Grand March; all joined in the march headed by Mrs. Corbett and son, Morgan. Next was singing and school plays and after dancing the two-step every one was treated to all the ice cream, fancy cakes and cookies they could eat. The large Christmas tree, which stood in the bow window corner of the living room, was beautifully decorated and laden with presents for every one. All was quiet when Mrs. Bolton went to the window and said, “Who is this coming?” Every child ran to see and Poor Old Santa was walking slowly (with a long staff) through the deep snow. Santa shook hands with all the children—some so timid they could hardly answer, others so excited and overjoyed they couldn’t sit still—then Santa went over to the tree ad assisted Mr. and Mrs. Corbett distribute beautiful dolls to the little girl and fancy work baskets or books to the larger ones. Boys received a fine silver watch and all a bag of candy and a very large orange. Oh, what a joyful afternoon for all those little girls and boys! It is a day they will never forget.

The criminal justice system works hard to assure that innocent people are not wrongly convicted.  First, there is the presumption of innocence that applies until the Commonwealth has established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – the highest standard of proof required under the law.  Second, there is the right to a jury trial coupled with the requirement that all 12 jurors agree on a verdict, i.e., that there is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Third, the defendant is rightly afforded a variety of constitutional protections in addition to the presumption of innocence and the right to a jury trial.  These include the right to remain silent, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to legal counsel.  After a conviction is obtained, the law generally protects a criminal conviction unless there is some glaring error in the process.

It is not surprising that victims often feel like defendants have more rights than the victims have – and they should feel that way because the criminal justice system is designed to protect defendants, not victims.  But what happens when the two coalesce – when the defendant and the victim want the same thing?  This happens more times than you might expect as victims often have connections to defendants – and it is not uncommon for victims to suddenly appear and tell a prosecutor that they “are not pressing charges.”  This leads to a delicate conversation where the prosecutor informs the victim that the charges have already been “pressed,” and the victim cannot “unpress” them.

I saw an article that underscored these two points – the finality of criminal verdicts coupled with victim advocacy on behalf of a defendant.  It dealt with a defendant in New York State who was serving a 40 year sentence for raping his 8-year-old daughter.  The defendant had already served 15 years of his sentence when his now 25-year-old daughter came forward to recant her allegations of rape.  The victim contended that she made the allegations up because her abusive mother made her do it – and her now sober mother apparently is not contesting the new allegations.  What happens now?

The prosecutors in New York State had a special committee review the case, including a new interview of the victim.  After its review, the committee made the determination that the recent recantation was not credible.  In other words, the committee opined that the victim is lying now, not lying then.  Based upon the special committee’s report, prosecutors have decided that they will take no action to overturn the defendant’s conviction – he will remain incarcerated even though the victim is now claiming that she lied.

This particular case provided good fodder for news headlines.  Unfortunately, the legal procedures applicable to such cases were not reported clearly.  It turns out that the victim had previously recanted to her grandmother – 15 years earlier – and that particular evidence was considered by a judge and rejected.  The judge determined that the victim’s juvenile recantation was coerced by her grandmother and that it was not credible.  From a legal perspective, the claim has already been resolved by the courts – and once resolved, it was settled.

Criminal defendants have a variety of tools to attack a conviction – direct appellate rights that occur immediately after the trial, a wave of state post-conviction proceedings that allow a defendant to challenge any alleged constitutional violations that may have occurred during the prosecution, and finally a right to seek a writ of habeas corpus under federal law that requires proof that some federal constitutional right was deprived in the state court proceedings.  After those three waves of relief are exhausted, a defendant is generally left with no other options aside from seeking some kind of pardon from the executive branch.  In this particular case, the media has not reported on the extent to which the defendant challenged his conviction – but the one reference that I found in passing suggests that the challenges to the conviction were made many years ago based upon the same allegations.  They are now resurfacing as a result of continued requests by the victim to review the case.

In other words, the defendant is out of legal options – and the victim is advocating on his behalf to get his conviction overturned.  The prosecutors agreed to review the case – and again determined that the evidence supported the conviction – and that the victim’s recantation was still not credible.  The victim is continuing to advocate for her father’s innocence, but she has an uphill climb.  Despite all of the protections afforded to the defendant, he was convicted – 12 members of his community found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The courts have reviewed those convictions – and upheld them – and those convictions are now final.  The victim has only one avenue left for advocacy – she needs to convince Governor Cuomo or President Obama to grant her father a pardon.