Rusk County woman who lied about rape gets probation, part-time jail sentence

Thursday, June 14, 2012 - 1:06pm

Rusk County — On Tuesday, Amanda G. Jimerson's deferred adjudication probation was revoked and she was found guilty by District Judge J. Clay Gossett after a hotly contested probation the court assessed a ten year prison sentence but then suspended that sentence and placed Mrs. Jimerson on 10 years probation. The court did order that she serve 12 weekends in jail as a condition of the second probation.

in 2007, Mrs. Jimerson pleaded guilty to tampering with and fabricating physical evidence, a third degree felony. A finding of guilt was deferred at the time of her guilty plea and the court placed her on deferred adjudication probation for a period of 7 years. The underlying facts of the crime were that Mrs. Jimerson made up a rape allegation on an innocent man then staged a crime scene, all in an effort to divert attention from her own unfaithfulness. As a result, the innocent man she swore raper her was jailed for approximately 20 days until Mrs. Jimerson's lies were exposed.

In 2011, the state filed its motion seeking the revocation of her deferred adjudication probation. At her 2011 hearing, Mrs. Jimerson asserted that she was mentally incompetent. Judge Gossett ordered a psychiatric evaluation. The ensuing court-ordered evaluation showed that Mrs. Jimerson was competent.

Yesterday, at the probation revocation hearing, Mrs. Jimerson pleaded "true" to the state's allegations that she had failed to timely pay fines, fees and restitution as ordered by the court. Evidence adduced at the hearing showed that the money she owed was eventually paid but only after the state filed its motion to revoke her deferred adjudication probation. She pleaded "not true" to allegations that she had failed to report as instructed to her probation officer for the majority of her probation term. The court heard evidence from the probation officer assigned to supervise Mrs. Jimerson. That officer testified that Jimerson was only required to report by mail but that Jimerson had wholly failed to do so for most of the moths she was on probation. The failures to report by mail began in 2008 and continued the 2011 filing of the state's motion to revoke. The probation officer testified that she did not want Mrs. Jimerson back on probation because Jimerson would not report, would not pay her fines, fees and restitution and would not do the community service hours the court had assigned her.

First Assistant County and District Attorney Richard Kennedy represented the state. County and District Attorney Michael Jimerson took no part in the proceeding because Mrs. Jimerson is married to a distant relative of his. Attorney Daryll Bennett represented the defendant.

Kennedy strongly urged the court not to put Mrs. Jimerson back on probation arguing that she had already had her chance at probation and had not taken advantage of that chance. Kennedy told the court that she had violated her probation contract with the court by failing to report as ordered or to pay the fines and fees in the manner as the court had ordered her to do. From the state's perspective it appeared that Mrs. Jimerson was not remorseful for her conduct which caused an innocent man to be arrested and charged with sexual assault but was instead only concerned that she was finally going to be held accountable for that conduct. In her testimony, Mrs. Jimerson apologized to her family for what she had done but she wholly failed to apologize for what she had done to her innocent victim. She also appeared to minimized the gravity of what her deceitful conduct had caused for her victim.

Mrs. Jimerson's husband testified that in 2008 at a time when his was not payer her fines, fees and restitution, their family went on vacation to Florida.

Mr. Bennett pointed out that Mrs. Jimerson did violate her terms and condition of probation but that her youngest child was very ill and would suffer if her mother was sent to the penitentiary.

A defendant who probation is revoked has the right to appeal to a higher court after a trial court's ruling after a probation revocation hearing but the state does not have such a right of appeal.


Comments News Comments

Post new Comment