Case brief The People v Cameroon Hooper.edited

The Case of Cameroon Hooker

Case citation: The People v. Cameron Hooker Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California. No. A033479.

Decided: February 25, 1988

Parties: Plaintiff/Respondent – The People 

Defendant/Appellant -Cameron Hooker

Introduction

In this case, of Cameroon Hooker, the court was presented with the possible avenue of applying psychology in a criminal trial. From the facts of the case and circumstances of the charges against him, the case remains vital in criminology. It presents an interesting avenue into the mind of criminals and offenses that involve coercion, mind control, and other psychological and mental aspects. This paper shall carry out a case brief in the case against Cameroon Hooker. It seeks to analyze his charges, legal problems, and issues arising and analyze its significance and impact in criminal law.

Facts

This case involved the offense of kidnapping, sexual assault. The victim, in this case, was Colleen Stan. The event occurred in 1977 after the victim left Oregon for Westwood, California, to meet her friend. She had planned to hitchhike the distance of 400 miles to her destination. During her attempt to get a ride, she met the defendant and his wife. During their drive, they diverted to a dirt road under the assumption that they were visiting caves. At this point, the defendant forced the victim to be quiet while gagging and blindfolding her. She was taken to the defendant’s house, where she was confined to the basement. 

For weeks she was kept in the basement. She was left naked, bound, and with her head placed in a box. During this period, she was tortured, beaten, and sexually assaulted. After close to a year of torture (Around January 1978), the defendant told Colleen of an underground organization called the “Company,” which was involved in the slave trade. He claimed that the organization had members worldwide who always watched slaves for signs of escape. Colleen believed this tale, which Hooker had invented. Hooker used various tactics to coerce her to comply. He claimed his wife was also a slave. His wife, Janice, could not dispute this as she, too, was afraid of Hooker.

The extent of fear and coercion was severe. The defendant would even allow Collen to visit her parents and walk about the house. The defendant also freely shared his future ideas to abduct more women. Hooker was a fan of bondage discipline and sadomasochistic sexual practices. He kept a collection of literature and pornography on the same. Throughout her stay at Hooker’s home, the defendant used Bible verses and other threats to ensure that she would not inform the police even in her freedom. However, during a visit to her parents, she told a pastor, who later informed the police. 

In November 1983, Hooker was arrested and charged with one count of kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon, three counts of false imprisonment, seven counts of forcible rape, two counts of abduction for illicit relations, and single counts of forcible sodomy, forcible oral copulation, and penetration with a foreign object. He pled not guilty to all of the charges.

The judgment of the trial court

In the first instance, the court admitted the witness evidence of Collen and Janice against Hooker. The court also considered the witness testimony of two experts, a physician who examined Colleen after she left Red Bluff and a psychologist who offered his opinions about Colleen’s captivity and her reactions to Hooker’s treatment. The psychologist observed that Colleen was coerced into remaining with Hooker and obeying him. He argued that the abduction, isolation, and abuse were critical examples of how Hooker coerced and threatened Colleen. On the defense’s part, Hooker decided to defend himself. In his defense, he stated that the victim Colleen, had consented to her stay. She continued to live at his house and did not escape or inform the police. Even when she went back home, she still went back to his house. He argued that this was a clear sign of her consent. He also argued that the questioning of Knight J. was against section 751 of the Evidence Code. The court admitted a claim of appeal.

The jury held that Hooker was guilty of all offenses except the charge of rape. He was later sentenced to 25 years for the kidnapping, with a consecutive term of five to ten years for the weapon use enhancement, to be followed by a 69–year fixed term in state prison for the remaining offenses. He appealed against this judgment.

This section shall address the legal issues raised in both the first instance and the appellate court. These issues include:

  • Brainwashing and coercion

The facts of the case suggest that Colleen did not intend to escape or report the defendant. Even when she was released, she still refused to escape or report the matter to the police. Her emotions after the release were different. She was notably numb and emotionless. This was the same in Janice’s case, who also refused to give any information on the acts of her husband.  The expert witness testified that they were coerced into remaining with Hooker and obeying him. Hooker had succeeded in this coercion through all the isolation, abuse, and even the feeding and lighting. These were carefully designed to achieve brainwashing. Being an expert in counterterrorism, torture, and coercion, the expert stated that it effectively removed any form of resistance. He also argued that the information on these methods of bondage discipline and sadomasochism literature was available to Hooker. 

Hooker, in his defense, argued that there was no coercion as she (Colleen) had consented to all the sexual acts. Also, he stated that the isolation and detention of Colleen were not continuous. Colleen could have left at any point but chose to stay. He argued that this was because she loved him. He acknowledged lying to Colleen about the Company but said that she was released from their contract a few months before they moved. 

  • Improper Questioning  

At appeal, the appellant, Hooker, argued that the psychologist’s interrogation was improper and unprocedural. In truth, the witness went into great length and detail to describe the use of coercion in military drills. In turn, the trial court judge, Knight J., had cross-examined the psychologist for an extended period. The court at appeal noted that the judges questioning were neither the defense nor the prosecution. The court at appeal held that the interrogation was against statutory provisions. To his disadvantage, this did not amount to a ground for a mistrial. 

Analysis of the use of the study of psychology and the law.

The case presented a vital instance where psychology and the law intertwine. The court was presented with an opportunity to assess a unique case. Notably, the facts of the case stated that the victims had not escaped or reported the crime. They appeared to have consented to the acts of Hooker. This, he argued, justified his acts and were not criminal acts. The court, in this case, had to employ the testimony of medical experts. These experts went into great length to discuss and argue on how science could corroborate witness testimony. 

Of importance to the link between science and the law was when the court used science to assess the accused’s criminal liability. The weight of witness testimony was also backed and supplemented by the testimony and advice of the witnesses. Also, the court addressed the psychological implications of the defendant’s acts.  Both Janice and Colleen were threatened with physical harm for submitting to Hooker’s demands. 

The methods applied by Hooker were designed to force coercion. His acts were meant to conceal the mens rea of the defendant. The law could apply the concepts of psychology in criminal law, sentencing, and assessing criminal liability. Elements the court could apply from the psychological study elements of despair, fatigue, craving for companionship, and how they could blur liability. Also, as was evident in the case of Hooker, defendants would raise a defense of consent mostly in cases of sexual offenses. In these cases, it is expected that the victim may identify his/her abductor as a friend, and this may consent. This is achieved where psychology and law interconnect.

Conclusion

The case of Hooker presented the court with an opportunity to assess whether science could apply to the law. Whether the concepts of psychology and its study can be used to determine guilt or criminal liability. The case of Hooker showed one such example. In this case, the accused used his background in masochism and bondage pornography to further his passions and torture. The use of witness testimony, Knight J.’s interrogation, and the hung jury on the charge of sexual assault was a clear indication that the application of psychology was relatively new, and its application was not yet common in the law. The courts could apply psychologists, psychiatrists, and other scientists to ensure that they could make it easy to adjudicate on such matters.

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.