A matter of justice

Monday, April 18, 2011 | 2:01 a.m.

Victor Fakoya was accused of killing a 2-year-old in 2008. It was a tragic case.

Fakoya is a Nigerian immigrant, and the boy was the son of his college roommate. The boy’s family immigrated to the United States and settled in Southern Nevada to live with Fakoya, his wife and their two children until they could get a place of their own.

The adults all worked and arranged their schedule so someone was always home with the children. Fakoya had been at home alone with the three children when the 2-year-old went into what appeared to be a seizure.

Fakoya called 911, and the boy was rushed to the hospital where he died a few days later. Prosecutors said the boy had been shaken and abused, and they said that Fakoya was the only one who could have done it. The boy’s father testified that there had been tension in the house between the two families and said he and his family had been asked to move out.

Despite prosecutors’ claims, the case was far from certain and the medical evidence was debatable. The defense presented experts who offered scenarios other than abuse to explain the boy’s death. Fakoya testified he didn’t do it, and character witnesses said he wasn’t the violent type.

A jury trial last year was declared a mistrial after jurors couldn’t come to a decision. Late last year a second trial ended after jurors found him not guilty.

But the Clark County district attorney’s office isn’t done with Fakoya. It is pressing a case against him in Family Court, threatening his parental rights. Legally, it isn’t a matter of double jeopardy because the Family Court case isn’t criminal, even though prosecutors seem to be presenting the same case.

In a pleading filed after the jury verdict, prosecutors unbelievably contended that a “child has died as a result of abuse by Victor Fakoya.” Never mind the jury verdict.

Speaking last week on “Face to Face With Jon Ralston” on KSNV Channel 3, Fakoya’s attorney, Kristina Wildeveld, said prosecutors are demanding that he complete an abuse class, which includes admitting guilt for the boy’s death. If he doesn’t do that, prosecutors plan to move to terminate Fakoya’s parental rights.

She said that Fakoya would be willing to take the class — he just won’t admit to the crime. Why would he? He was acquitted. So why are prosecutors so insistent on making him confess?

The district attorney’s office has declined to comment on the case, citing state law barring prosecutors from speaking about open child welfare cases. But someone should provide an answer. The district attorney’s office is spending a significant amount of time and money on the case, and there doesn’t seem to be a good reason for it.

Fakoya couldn’t raise bail and spent two years in jail before he was acquitted, and now he can’t go home and live with his wife and children until the Family Court case is resolved.

That’s ridiculous considering the Family Court matter was launched because of the criminal case in which he was found not guilty.

So why are prosecutors still prosecuting?