Did Wyandotte County DA’s office drop the ball in child rape case against sheriff’s deputy?
Since Wyandotte County authorities announced, with some fanfare, the April arrest of a sheriff’s deputy on child sex abuse charges, the case nearly ran aground.
Inexplicably, the Wyandotte County District Attorney’s office failed to produce any evidence at Michael Edward Mastel’s scheduled preliminary hearing last week — and hadn’t shared its evidence with Mastel’s defense attorney as required by law.
That prompted District Judge Renee Henry to reschedule the hearing for Friday, and to suggest she might dismiss the case if the prosecutor hadn’t turned over evidence to the defense this week, which the district attorney’s office finally did Monday afternoon.
It’s certainly a bizarre turn of events for such a serious and high-profile case, and after Wyandotte County District Attorney Mark A. Dupree Sr.’s triumphal press conference to announce the charges April 16. At the time, Dupree heralded Child Abuse Prevention Month and exhorted the public that “when a child makes the statement, when a child finds enough gall to stand up to their abuser or to tell, let them tell. Don’t call them a liar. Don’t say ‘I don’t believe you.’ I hope the community takes away that if you hear something, if you see something … One: Believe the child. Then two: Say something about it.”
Yet months later, there’s no evidence to be had at the preliminary hearing, which is held to determine if there’s merely enough proof to put someone on trial?
Jonathan Carter, the district attorney’s spokesman, explained in an email to The Star that evidence “was not available last Friday because there was a continuance.” Quite the opposite, it appears there was a continuance because there was no evidence.
In a subsequent email Carter maintained, “The continuance was because the detective in this case was unavailable. … the detective had files pertaining to the case and was not available.”
Asked if there was anything said in court about missing or misplaced evidence, Carter replied, “No.” But multiple sources in the courtroom at the time have reported that the prosecutor did indeed admit to not being able to find the evidentiary file in the case, and said that the file would be recreated if need be.
Regardless, how could the day of a vital hearing in a prominent child rape case involving a sheriff’s deputy arrive without all parties being prepared? How is it the detective was unavailable and the hearing wasn’t rescheduled before its appointed time? How is it the prosecutor didn’t have copies of all the evidence in the case? How is it the defense attorney didn’t have access to that evidence until this Monday?
Unfortunately, the answers to those questions may not be forthcoming. The district attorney’s office simply stopped responding to The Star’s inquiries about the case.
How can such a notable case involving a sheriff’s deputy, made more noteworthy by the district attorney’s press conference and including such serious charges — rape, aggravated criminal sodomy and three counts of sexual exploitation of a child — be so carelessly handled as to risk dismissal by a judge?
Is this case a priority or not?