Last October, a Texas woman broke into the home of a family friend and forcibly performed oral sex on him:
In her fourth arrest this month, Megan Davis Hoelting, 31, was charged with burglary with the intent of sexual offense Tuesday.
Hoelting told police that, in just a nightgown, she snuck into her husband’s friend’s bedroom while he was sleeping Monday night, according to a felony criminal complaint obtained by The Smoking Gun.
Hoelting said she took off her nightgown and, in just underwear, got into the man’s bed. She said she wrapped her legs around the man’s waist and kissed him, according to the complaint.
The man said he woke up to find someone on top of him, “fondling his genitals” and “attempting to perform fellatio upon him,” according to the complaint.
When the man realized it was Hoetling, he told her to leave. She refused and the man called to police to remove her. Hoetling confessed to the crimes. One would think that would be enough to obtain a conviction. However:
A Texas grand jury has declined to indict a woman who was arrested last year for allegedly breaking into the home of a friend of her husband’s and sexually assaulting the man while he slept, court records show.
State prosecutors this month filed a motion to dismiss a felony charge brought last October against Megan Hoelting. The court action was triggered when a Williamson County grand jury “No Billed” the case against the 31-year-old Hoelting.
A “no bill” is a legal term referring to the lack evidence present during a grand jury proceeding. If the grand jury finds there is not sufficient evidence to establish a crime occurred, they cannot issue a “true bill.” This results in a “no bill” decision.
It appears the grand jury ruled in this fashion due to the prosecutors’ motion to dismiss the felony charge. However, that is an odd explanation given that Hoetling confessed to the crime. One would think that her confession would be sufficient evidence. Unless that was ruled inadmissible or there is some other issue that was not released to the public, the grand jury’s decision makes no sense.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine if a man sneaked into his wife’s friend’s home, stripped down to his underwear, and performed oral sex on her. Imagine if prosecutors decided to dismiss a felony charge against the man. Imagine if the grand jury decided not to indict despite having the man’s confession.
While there have been many improvements in recent years in the handling of female sex offenders, there are still plenty of instances of poor judgment. I dislike terms like “female privilege” and “the pussy pass,” yet I can think of no better words to describe this situation. She confesses, yet still faces no punishment. It appears this woman walked solely because she is a woman.
What makes the situation more baffling is that Hoetling had three prior arrests that month:
She was arrested three other times this month. She was collared for alleged theft Oct. 14, alleged assault Oct. 16 and alleged public intoxication Oct. 21.
In the span of a fortnight this woman was arrested four times. This begs the question: why was Hoetling not in jail?