Most Popular

Recent Articles

Recent Articles by Nadia Pflaum

National Features >

  • SF Weekly

    Pinot Bizarre

    You won't believe the California wine industry's latest new-age craze.

    By Joe Eskenazi

  • Westword

    The Snowboard Bandits

    They lived for excitement, but the FBI got the final thrill.

    By Joel Warner

  • Seattle Weekly

    "Trash Fish"

    Chuck Bundrant built an unlikely seafood empire--with a little help from Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.

    By Laura Onstot

  • Village Voice

    The Transformation of Mike Bloomberg

    How a benevolent billionaire mayor ended up owning us all.

    By Wayne Barrett

A Boy's Life

Continued from page 5

Published on January 22, 2004

"We came here in support of Matthew, and we want to help do whatever is best for him and his case," she told the Pitch.

On behalf of the state, Deputy Attorney General Jared Maag argued that what the court found in Lawrence v. Texas didn't alter Kansas' decision because it didn't apply to minors, only consenting adults.

"Then why are we here?" Pierron asked. "Here we are, by order of the U.S. Supreme Court, so I'd prefer to hear more analysis on why or why not this ruling was constitutional."

Maag recapped the state's three arguments, but that only fueled more stern statements.

"I realize that homosexuals don't have favor within the law. But we don't take chunks of people and say, 'If you commit this crime, you get a higher penalty.' That's not constitutional," Pierron said.

"This has to do with how far a police state can go in regulating sex with children," Maag replied. "The state is given wide latitude in dealing with issues of child safety. It is not irrational to promote traditional sexual relationships to children."

But Pierron called two of the state's arguments -- its rational interest in promoting heterosexuality and in relationships leading to procreation -- "utterly ridiculous."

"We are not here to encourage procreation or marriage between sexual predators and children," Pierron said. "That's not applicable. There is no rational basis for that. On disease pathogens, you may have an argument, though science goes in the other direction, but the state does not contend that Mr. Limon had any diseases to pass on. If a female with every venereal disease known to man had committed the same act as Limon, she would get a lesser penalty, but he gets a harsher sentence.... Your first and second claims make no sense, and the third, under closer scrutiny, doesn't, either."

"Judge Pierron wrote the opinion upholding the state's position in the first appeal. It was quite fascinating to see how two years' time altered the judge's approach," Kline told the Pitch.

The judges' decision could come any day now.

The ACLU's Matt Coles says that if the three-judge panel affirms Limon's conviction, there is the option of taking the case to the Kansas Supreme Court. "My fond hope is that this case ends here," he says. If Limon goes free, though, the state can appeal that decision to the Kansas Supreme Court. "But I think they should pause and think very seriously about that and about whether that is truly just," Coles says.

Maag says that either way, "It's definitely not the end of it. Only after the U.S. Supreme Court rules -- then no one can appeal."

Kline predicts that the three judges will keep Limon's conviction but reduce his sentence and remove the clause in the Romeo and Juliet law that distinguishes between sentences for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

"I would be pleased with that result," he says. "General Stovall, who was in this office ahead of me, took this all the way up. It's amazing how people have put this cause on me as if I'm out there making this happen, and it's simply, honestly, because I'm pro-life. But that's another issue."

Limon passes his time playing piano for the prison's church choir and writing music.

It's been more than three years since he spoke those faltering words at his sentencing hearing. Though he's avoided speaking to the press, the ACLU's New York City office agreed to relay questions from the Pitch to Limon in prison on the condition that they were unrelated to his legal case. The ACLU asked Limon the Pitch's questions by telephone and e-mailed transcripts of his responses to the paper.

Limon misses his family. "Just being able to talk and sharing feelings and, of course, when they come up to visit the hardest part is when they leave," he said. "We have some pretty good conversations and heart-to-hearts. I miss being able to help them around the house and being there for them."

If none of this had ever happened, Limon said, "I'd probably be more smarter, be going to school or graduated."

At Ellsworth, Limon said, he has had "more musical ideas." But he referred also to other lessons. "Others have helped me realize the stuff I was doing was wrong and nothing but getting me into deeper doo-doo, and it helped me see the light," he said. "I had a cellmate for two years and we became the bestest friends. He got me into working out and lifting weights. He told me who is OK and who to stay away from, and that's pretty much kept me out of trouble. There's been a couple other people; they have pretty much done the same thing, they've helped me work out. And there have been a couple of times that I've been pretty down, and they've lifted me up and gave me encouragement. They're no longer here and the other guy [the cellmate] is in Lansing [Correctional Facility] now."

He misses driving. "The first car I drove was an '89 Buick LeSabre," he said. "The second one was an '88 Dodge Lancer. [Right now] I'd be driving that Buick but I wouldn't mind having a brand new Lincoln Towncar with tinted windows." On the radio would be "R&B, kind of the old school stuff, hip-hop, and mixing it in with some classical stuff," he said. "Keith Sweat, Silk, the Isley Brothers, that's pretty much recently what I've been listening to."

« Previous Page   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next Page »

The Pitch Insiders

  • Local food, music and news blasts
  • Free Stuff
Backpage.com