Rowan Wilson’s injustice on rape: His March decision to free a convicted rapist favors guilty attackers over their victims

Judge Rowan Wilson, Gov. Hochul’s nominee for chief judge, is described by some as a progressive. But a shocking ruling he recently authored shows him to be anything but progressive towards survivors of rape.

On March 16, a Court of Appeals decision written by Wilson overturned the conviction of Andrew Regan, whom a jury found guilty of raping a 22-year-old woman. Within hours of the rape, the young woman had done everything survivors are advised to do: alerted loved ones, reported to police, underwent a hospital exam. Police questioned Regan; he denied having sex with the woman but refused to provide DNA. The evidence eventually proved him a liar, as his DNA matched the rape kit.

But, in a too-familiar story, a solid rape case that should have seen a swift arrest was slow-walked by investigators and prosecutors. The St. Lawrence County district attorney’s office dragged its feet seeking a DNA warrant; the inexperienced prosecutor was unfamiliar with basic procedures; the case changed hands repeatedly. Four years passed before the defendant was indicted.

The victim’s perseverance kept the case alive. “I called them, month after month,” she told us. “My father helped me, calling the DA’s office, calling the investigator.” The effort, she said, was “agonizing.”

Then a diligent new investigator got the case. A warrant was issued. The case proceeded; a jury convicted Regan.

But the Court of Appeals, led by Wilson, reversed the conviction, holding that the prosecution’s slowness violated due process — for the very defendant whose uncooperation increased the delay.

There was no violation of the speedy trial statute, but Wilson relied on a judicially created doctrine, “prompt prosecution,” and interpreted it far more radically than any precedent had done.

Previous “prompt prosecution” cases required courts to give weight to whether the defendant had been prejudiced by delay. That makes sense. Defendants’ rights matter; if delay had led to exculpatory evidence being lost, for example, due process would be impacted. But the court found no prejudice to Regan.

Weighing against reversal were the gravity of Regan’s crime; the victim’s right to justice; society’s right to protection. Absent prejudice to the defendant, these should have tipped the balance, preserving the conviction. Instead, Wilson and three other judges broke precedent, justifying their decision by citing the lack of any excuse for the prosecution’s slowness.

That reasoning missed the point entirely. Inexcusable delays by police and prosecutors routinely confront victims of rape. Survivors contact our organizations seeking help with unresponsive detectives and indifferent prosecutors. Sexism is real, and it impedes law enforcement’s response to sexual assault. In smaller counties, sexism is compounded by genuine scarcity of resources and training.

There are many ways the Court of Appeals judges could tackle this injustice. They could convene task forces, or support reform initiatives, as their predecessors have done on other issues. Instead, Wilson and his colleagues discarded one victim’s hard-won justice, released a convicted rapist whose guilt was never in doubt, and set a precedent that will damage or destroy future rape prosecutions.

A powerful dissent by Judge Madeline Singas called the decision “a stunning nullification of a jury’s first-degree rape conviction and the reinforcement of the bleak history of the treatment of sexual assault victims.” The ruling, she explained, “will not deter this type of behavior by law enforcement, but instead be weaponized against victims and used in hindsight to rationalize closing long-running rape investigations and dismissing prosecutions.”

She is right. Prosecutors who prioritize rape victims strive to work expeditiously; prosecutors who don’t, but who might eventually have been moved by a persevering survivor, will instead use Wilson’s ruling to close cases once delays of their own making have dragged on long enough. Singas’ insightful dissent will, we hope, influence future judges.

But right now, will the state Senate take any notice of the devastating injustice Wilson’s ruling dealt rape victims? Hochul’s previous nominee, Justice Hector LaSalle, was rejected for offending important constituencies like unions. But survivors of rape and other violent crimes are an important constituency, too.

If Wilson’s vision of “progressive” jurisprudence is too narrow to include fairness to survivors, he should not be chief judge. There is nothing progressive about making it easier to get away with rape. Will senators even question Wilson about it? Will they stand with survivors and vote against Wilson?

Wilson’s callous opinion exemplifies a system that too often treats victims as non-entities. As the Senate considers his nomination, let’s put justice for survivors at the center of the conversation.

Abney is founder and CEO of HerUnivercity, which advocates for women and girls, especially women and girls of color, in New York City. Manning is director of Women’s Equal Justice, which serves survivors of sexual assault.