It was a spring night in 1995 when Scott R. Nailor’s wife left the house to take care of his terminally ill stepfather. Alone in the house with his twelve year old stepdaughter, Mr. Nailor took the child by the hand and led her into a back bedroom. He told her that if she did not do what he told her to do that he would hurt her mother. He then forced the girl to the floor, grabbed her head and forced her to perform oral sex on him.
After this initial night, Mr. Nailor forced his stepdaughter to perform oral sex on him two more times on different nights in the spring of 1995 while his wife was tending to his terminally ill stepfather. Each time, he took the child forcibly by her hand, led her in to the back bedroom, and forced her head to his penis. Then one night, Mr. Nailor had additional inappropriate sexual contact with the girl. The court documents are unclear about the exact nature of this additional sexual contact, only to state that it was inappropriate. All of these incidents took place in the spring of 1995.
Three years later in February 1998, the child began to experience flash backs and hallucinations reliving the events of those nights. She was so haunted by the trauma that she had a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized. She reported the abuse to the local police who investigated her claims. However, since three years had passed there was no physical evidence to support her claims.
Upon interviewing Mr. Nailor, he stated to the police that he had engaged in consensual sexual encounters with his stepdaughter the spring of 1995. He claimed that she had been eleven or twelve years old at the time, but that she had initiated the sexual encounters between them. He also stated that these encounters had occurred while his wife was away tending his terminally ill stepfather. Mr. Nailor had essentially placed himself at the scene of the crime at the time that the crime had occurred.
Mr. Nailor was arrested and charged with twelve sexually based crimes. He was eventually convicted of three counts of sodomy (oral sex) in the first and second degrees, two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree. Mr. Nailor was facing a potential of 88 years in prison. One of those was a one year jail term. Mr. Nailor appealed his convictions.
Mr. Nailor appealed his convictions on the grounds that he was being charged multiple times for the same act. That act being the oral sex act between him and his stepdaughter and the sexual assaults that he committed on her. Mr. Nailor’s appeal of his original conviction was heard before the Honorable Justices PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, CARPINELLO, GRAFFEO and MUGGLIN, JJ., and CARPINELLO, J. all affirmed Mr. Nailor’s original conviction. The conviction was considered valid because each of the counts of oral sex and each count of sexual assault occurred on separate dates and at separate times. That fact made each count a separate incident, even though each was a similar crime.
Mr. Nailor had argued that since the original indictment stated that these incidents had occurred in the spring of 1995, rather than spelling out each individual day and time, that the offenses could not be separated into individual and distinct crimes apart from each other. Rather, everything that happened in the spring of 1995 should be considered as one long incident composed of everything that happened in that spring. Therefore, Mr. Nailor’s sentence would be reduced to one count of sodomy in the first degree (25 years) and one count of Sexual abuse (6 years). The Honorable Justices did not agree with Mr. Nailor and upheld the original convictions.
Mr. Nailor then argued that during his original trial, the prosecutor, Sterling T. Goodspeed, was questioning Mr. Nailor’s victim on the stand and asked if she “ever remember(ed) in the spring of 1995, before (defendant’s stepfather) died. . .being alone with (Mr. Nailor) at night watching television.” Mr. Nailor’s defense team objected at which time Sterling T. Goodspeed, the prosecutor re-asked his question by asking if the girl remembered being alone with Mr. Nailor in August of 1995 when her mother was over at Mr. Nailor’s stepfather’s home caring for him. The child stated that she did. Mr. Nailor’s contention was that since Mr. Goodspeed had misstated the time period as August of 1995 rather than the spring of 1995 that the testimony was invalid. The Honorable Justices did not agree with Mr. Nailor. They contended that when Mr. Goodspeed attached the time period to the time of illness of Mr. Nailor’s stepfather whether or not he said August or spring did not matter. What mattered was that the child remembered the events occurring at around the time of Mr. Nailor’s stepfather’s illness.
Lastly, Mr. Nailor objected to his sentences on his crimes running consecutively rather than concurrently. The Honorable Justices disagreed again. They found that because the offenses occurred as separate and distinct acts on three different occasions that the court was within its rights to impose consecutive sentences.
Mr. Nailor made several mistakes in this case. If he had hired a New York State Sex with a Minor Defense attorney after his initial arrest, he would have most likely been advised to not make a statement. The burden of proof is on the state to prove their case. In this case, after three years there was no physical evidence of any crime. The only evidence was testimonial by a minor child who had gone through a mental breakdown. Her testimony may or may not be factual if it had been left to stand on its own merit.
However, by providing a statement to the legal authorities admitting to sexual activity with the child, Mr. Nailor placed himself at the scene of the crime at the time that the crime was committed. We may never know for sure how the case would have turned out if Mr. Nailor had exercised his right to remain silent and not incriminate himself. What we do know is that his ill-advised decision to claim that a twelve year old child had initiated sexual contact with him of her own accord did not work in his favor. This is especially true in light of the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder displayed by the child at the age of 15. It is rare that someone who was not traumatized would suddenly three years later have a breakdown because of a consensual act.
Given that Mr. Nailor was in a position of power over the child as a father figure, there was no way that the act was going to be viewed as consensual by a jury. The child stated on the stand that there were no verbal threats made after that first forced oral sex. When asked on the stand if Mr. Nailor had repeated the threat, the child stated that he had only had to tell her one time for her to be afraid that if she did not comply that her mother would be injured. This established the forced act element demonstrated by threat or by taking the child by the hand and leading her into the bedroom.
The burden of proof is always on the state. If Mr. Nailor had remained silent and allowed a New York State Rape Lawyer to assist him, I doubt that he would have ever been convicted. Here at Steven Bilkis and Associates, we provide New York Sex Abuse Lawyers, New York Child Pornography Lawyers, New York Sex Crime Lawyers and New York Sex with Minor Defense Lawyers. Being arrested and having your freedom taken away from you can be devastating. New York Rape Attorneys will stand by you and ensure that your rights are protected. New York Sex Crime Attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are considered. We make sure that you are not wrongfully charged or convicted of any crime.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its New York Rape Lawyers has convenient offices throughout the New York Metropolitan area including Corona, New York. Our New York Sex Abuse Attorneys can provide you with advice to guide you through difficult situations. Without a New York Sex Crime Attorney you could lose your freedom even if the state has not adequately made its case. In addition to Sex Crime Law, Stephen Bilkis and Associates can recommend New York Personal Injury Lawyers who will help you.