BREAKING: Steubenville Rape Trial Verdict – Guilty
The accuser in the rape trial of two Ohio high school football players testified Saturday as the trial neared an end that she recalled drinking at a party last summer but could not remember what had happened when she awoke the next day naked in a strange house.
Testimony in the four-day nonjury trial against Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond ended after the judge heard from the 16-old West Virginia girl and others in the juvenile court case. Judge Thomas Lipps said he would announce a decision Sunday.
If found delinquent — the juvenile court equivalent of guilty — the two defendants could be held in juvenile jail until they turn 21, when they would be released.
(If you click on the link above, be sure to read the comments. Steubenville isn’t our only problem.)
For those of you not familiar with this case, I wrote about it here.
There are two sets of witnesses here – The boys who were there and granted immunity for testifying against their friends and the girl’s former friends. Here’s what was said:
The boys with immunity:
Testimony Friday from three teenage boys granted immunity incriminated the defendants.
Mark Cole, Evan Westlake and Anthony Craig said the West Virginia girl was drunk and didn’t seem to know what was happening to her that night. They said she was digitally penetrated in a car and later on a basement floor.
Cole testified that he took a video of Mays and the girl in the car, then deleted it later that morning. He testified he saw Mays unsuccessfully try to have the girl perform oral sex on him in the basement of Cole’s house.
Westlake testified he saw Richmond’s encounter with the girl in the basement, as did Craig. Westlake also confirmed that he filmed the 12-minute YouTube video, later passed around widely online, in which another student joked about the attack.
Craig testified that he saw Richmond’s hand in the “crotch region” of the girl, a less descriptive version than he gave last fall in another hearing.
The girl’s former friends:
Earlier Saturday, defense attorneys went after the accuser’s character, calling two former friends of hers to the stand. They testified that the girl had a history of drinking heavily and was known to lie about things.
West Virginia high school student Kelsey Weaver said the accuser told her what happened two days after the alleged attack then, sometime afterward, told Weaver she couldn’t remember what happened.
“So two different versions?” asked Mays’ attorney Adam Nemann.
“Yes,” Weaver replied.
Earlier, Weaver testified that the accuser was flirting at the party with Richmond.
Both Weaver and schoolmate Gianna Anile testified they were angry at the accuser because she was drinking heavily at the party and rolling around on the floor. They said they tried unsuccessfully to get her to stop drinking.
Anile said she also tried to get her friend to stay at the party rather than leave with others, including the two defendants.
“When I told her not to leave, I was trying to, like, pull her back into the party. She was trying to shrug me off,” Anile testified. “She kind of hit me.”
Okay. Umm… I’m not sure what to make of the former friends’ testimony, since it doesn’t prove anything other than the victim/accuser (take your pick) was drinking and flirting at a party. When it comes to the boys’ testimony, it’s the texts, tweets, videos, etc. that back up what they said. The main witness in this trial is social media. Quite simply, if these kids hadn’t created a digital record there would be no case.
When it was her turn on the witness stand, the girl, guided by the prosecutor Marianne Hemmeter, testified for two hours about how she discovered how she was treated that night, and how she came to figure out that Mr. Mays was only pretending to care about her in an effort to try to save himself.
She said an increasingly frantic Mr. Mays repeatedly sent her text messages the next day, pleading with her not to press charges and saying that he feared his football career would be hurt.
“He was just, like, freaking out,” the girl testified Saturday. “He kept asking, ‘Are you going to tell the police?’ He was trying to get me not to tell anyone.”
In one text message, she said, Mr. Mays admitted taking the picture of her naked in the basement but said that he did not know how the photograph had been circulated. He said the picture showed his semen on top of her, the result of what he said had been a consensual sexual act.
At one point, Mr. Mays, who maintained that he had taken care of the girl while she was drunk, appeared to grow increasingly frustrated that she refused to reassure him. He told her in a text message, “I’ll just never do anything nice for you again.”
Later, in the final series of text messages they ever exchanged, Mr. Mays told her, “I’m about to get kicked off my football team.”
The girl replied: “The more you bring up football, the more pissed I get, because that’s like all you care about.”
Mr. Mays texted back: “You know that’s not all I care about, but that needs to be taken care of first.”
If you haven’t educated your kids about the digital world, you had better get on it. These text messages from Mays (it doesn’t say if they were presented as evidence or if this was the accuser/victim’s memory), if they exist, make it pretty clear that he knew he did something wrong. They were sent the next day.
But what’s really disgusting is the defense attorney. Remember Mr. Madison? He’s the one who started the case with this statement: He said that online photographs and posts could ultimately be “a gift” for his client’s case because the girl, before that night in August, had posted provocative comments and photographs on her Twitter page over time. He added that those online posts demonstrated that she was sexually active and showed that she was “clearly engaged in at-risk behavior.”
From the beginning Mr. Madison’s goal was to paint the girl as sexually active, and rely on the slut defense. And he’s really relying on this. He said this the other day:
But attorney Walter Madison, who represents one of the accused boys, argues she was drinking voluntarily and left willingly with the group of boys.
As reported by the Cleveland Trader Madison said: ‘There’s an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices.’ ‘She didn’t affirmatively say no,’ he stated. And… ‘The person who is the accuser here is silent just as she was that night, and that’s because there was consent.’
So… drinking and leaving a party with a boy you like makes what happened okay? Is that really consent? Of course not, but that seems to be the defense. There are plenty of kids who get sloppy drunk at parties and don’t get raped. Know why? Because there weren’t any rapists in the room.
His closing argument:
“The reality is, she drank, she has a reputation for telling lies,” said Walter Madison, representing Richmond. “When she wakes up and finds out kids have submitted a photo of her on the Internet, she has two choices: saying, `Yeah, that’s me,’ or, `I was having an alcoholic impairment.”‘
And there’s his case. He doesn’t deny the sexual activity. So it looks like this will all come down to how drunk she was. I would be very concerned if I were Richmond and Mays.
I’ll update when the verdict comes in. Live stream here.
UPDATE: Both defendants guilty on all three counts.
Tags: Rape, Steubenville
For me, this creates reasonable doubt:
“Testimony Friday from three teenage boys granted immunity incriminated the defendants.”
as it does in any case involving coerced testimony. The US Government is the sole entity allowed to bribe witnesses, according to . The rationale for allowing this was that “Well, that’s the way we’ve always done it, and prosecutors couldn’t function without it.”
I hate to get graphic, but the actual determination of rape comes down to where the hands were and what exactly they were doing. The case for rape rests on two eyewitnesses. Friday, one of them backed off the rape claim:
“Craig testified that he saw Richmond’s hand in the “crotch region” of the girl, a less descriptive version than he gave last fall in another hearing.”
I’m not sure what the other eyewitnesses testified to. This is juvenile court, so I don’t know if the witnesses are cross-examined, but I don’t think the rape claims would hold up under cross-examination. If the eyewitness accounts are conflicting, the suspects are going to walk.
I do think the attacks on the girl’s character and consent are regrettable. But on the other hand, the defense may have calculated it was their only chance to keep their client out of jail, which is after all their duty.
I’m sticking with what I wrote: When it comes to the boys’ testimony, it’s the texts, tweets, videos, etc. that back up what they said. The main witness in this trial is social media. Quite simply, if these kids hadn’t created a digital record there would be no case.
I don’t like immunity either – I would have tried them, too! – but it wasn’t their testimony that brought forth the verdict. The judge was quite specific. He said that it was the social media – texts, photos, videos, etc.
Sorry, I lost a few links in that comment during post-comment editing. Here’s how it was supposed to go:
For me, this creates reasonable doubt:
“Testimony Friday from three teenage boys granted immunity incriminated the defendants.”
as it does in any case involving coerced testimony. The US Government is the sole entity allowed to bribe witnesses, according to US v. Singleton. The rationale for allowing this was that “Well, that’s the way we’ve always done it, and prosecutors couldn’t function without it.”
If there was a digital record of rape, it would be a slam-dunk conviction. But according to reports, there isn’t.
Puck, their defense attorney doesn’t dispute that the sexual acts occurred. His defense was that she gave consent.
Actually, the defense was “‘She didn’t affirmatively say no,’ he stated.” And… “The person who is the accuser here is silent just as she was that night, and that’s because there was consent.”
It was… Silence = consent.
Like I said, I wish the issue of consent hadn’t come up at all. That is offensive, and may be what makes people overlook the other necessary part of a rape conviction, the need for proof establishing the act.
I’m assuming there must be some evidence establishing rape which was not revealed to the public. I’m waiting for more reports to come out for my own personal conclusion. If “being icky” was a crime though, they are guilty. Or of some lesser sexual crime, depending on Ohio law.
In case you didn’t notice though, all my skepticism is about the prosecutorial process, not about anything to do with women. If you wrote about a drug or gun crime involving a male, I’d have the same skepticism where warranted.
I had the same skepticism on two different juries for drug and gun charges. In the drug case, the verdict was innocent, and afterward the judge spoke to the jury and said “How did you get that verdict? We have video of this guy handing over a gun to somebody else” implying we had let a gun-carrying felon go. We told him “Yeah, but we didn’t see that video (inadmissible somehow), and the prosecution didn’t prove its case on the drug deal. You told us the standard was reasonable doubt, and we took that seriously.” Apparently the judge felt we should have convicted just because he was a bad guy. That judge didn’t exactly create any confidence in the justice system for me.
Ohio AG speaking now: He seems to have concluded that more crimes were committed. Grand jury will ensure fairness, complete investigation. 16 witnesses refused to testify.
He’s also quoted a shocking amount of texts, tweets, pictures and videos.
Looks like we only know a fraction of what went on.
It’s remarkable how the prosecution was able to recover tons of information from 17 phones:
“A computer forensic expert called by the state documented tens of thousands of texts found on 17 phones seized during the investigation.”
…except against all odds, somehow they weren’t able to recover the videos of the actual rape acts recorded by the three witnesses, who they then immunized because they needed their verbal testimony. Technically possible, but that is a far stretch for me. Is it possible the videos showed something different from what they testified to? Of course we don’t yet know what they actually testified to, except for the one boy who testified he didn’t see a rape.
Can you tell I don’t think much of prosecutorial integrity?
I sometimes think that the inebriation standard of “passed out drunk” and “unable to give consent” is insufficient. I’m not sure how it should be framed, but I had an experience once that made me think the standard wasn’t placed at the correct level. I once attended a party with a woman (a stunner of a beauty) who I knew wasn’t the least bit attracted to me. But on this night she was very drunk. As I drove her home, she started to remove her clothing and threw herself all over me. But I told her that I knew if we got it on, she would regret it in the morning and she would feel as though I had taken advantage of her. Sure enough the next day she thanked me for showing restraint and said I was right in my assessment. Now I am not saying that the standard should be set at a place where a woman or a man can declare they were raped because they later regret their expression of consent. But I do think that the standard should be set in such a way that the alleged perpetrator had reasonable and convincing cause to believe that the alleged victim’s “consent” resulted from an impairment that made the victim unable to give informed consent.
As long as consent is part of the definition of rape, it will be fair game for the defense. But the Steubenville girl was obviously blackout drunk. Attacking character and consent was not only offensive but also the wrong legal strategy. I think the way to go (from the defense point of view) was to make the prosecution prove qualifying contact had happened. Were the witnesses cross-examined? Do juvys have the right to a jury trial? I don’t think the witnesses would have held up under cross-examination asking where they were sitting relative to the victim, what were the lighting conditions, how do they know exactly what the hands were doing, how drunk were the witnesses themselves, etc. I think the defense made some poor decisions to the level of incompetence. But the suspects don’t seem in the mood for appeal, although I think an appeal would have a good chance of success. But there is no argument the suspects are guilty of depravity, technical rape or not.
Unless I’m told otherwise, all the digital evidence is hearsay relative to rape. Can a large enough body of hearsay be accepted as evidence?
Here’s the thing… the defense went with the “consent defense” because they didn’t deny the digital penetration. They said, “Yeah, that happened, but she was okay with it.”
So, I’m not seeing where you’re getting the “prove what their hands were doing” case. By all accounts – including their own lawyers – digital penetration occurred. The “I didn’t touch her sexually” ship sailed early on, and the boys and their lawyers were the ones who pushed that ship out to sea. Which only left them with the consent defense.
Not saying you are wrong, but I just didn’t read that in the news (the part where they admitted the contact). Reportedly, one of the eyewitnesses didn’t see it. I hope you can excuse me for not googling for “penetration.”
I just know if it were my son, I’d make damn sure they proved it before sending him down for rape and sex offender status.
The defense attorneys have consistently admitted that these acts occurred. Not sure what the grounds for appeal are. Ineffective counsel?
Good to see the slut shaming defense did not work here.
“The defense attorneys have consistently admitted that these acts occurred.”
Of course… but don’t you find it odd that the media isn’t reporting that fact, despite reporting everything else over and over again? You must have some other source; would you care to share it? Or did I just miss an obvious report?
Meanwhile, more information about the actual testimony keeps coming out as we speak. Today one of the immunized witnesses says:
The second witness said:
Both of the boys’ attorneys have already announced they will file an appeal. But if the boys are smart they will get new lawyers and drop the slut defense, and go after the conflicting eyewitness accounts. With conflicting eyewitness accounts, an appeal should be very possible.
puck, I thought you were withholding judgement for a verdict. We have one. WE also have the videos the (no longer alleged) rapists made, bragging about their crime. Every case has conflicting eyewitness testimony. I dont understand if this is just a study in devil’s advocacy, or if you really think they shouldn’t have been convicted… and why?
Well, let’s look at what we know. Based on news accounts (which are still emerging with new accounts of the testimony):
Witness #1 testified he saw contact constituting rape, but said he felt pressured to tell the authorities what they wanted to hear.
Witness #2 testified he didn’t see any contact constituting rape.
Witness #3 also didn’t see contact constituting rape.
Mays’ text messages tell three different versions of what happened, one of which is that he had intercourse, which is provably false.
The iconic photo of this trial shows a fully clothed girl with two boys touching only her hands and feet. But somehow this is taken to be proof of rape. Go ask anybody if there is photographic evidence of rape – I dare you to find someone who understands there is not. This is the work of prosecutors cleverly releasing statements and information to taint the public opinion. But the public is confusing depravity with rape. The law has a technical definition of rape, which is currently resting on the testimony of one eyewitness who was most likely coerced.
How badly does the online lynch mob want this girl to have been raped? Wouldn’t it be great news if she wasn’t? But somehow I feel the Internet would be crushed if it turns out she wasn’t raped. There is something creepy and prurient about the insistence this girl was raped, despite scanty and dwindling evidence.
I’m especially disappointed in this community for cutting itself loose from its reality-based moorings and giving in to emotion and ideology. We are falling prey to the same ideological and emotionally-based arguments that weaken conservatives. Nobody seems willing to look up the actual testimony, to the extent that actual quotes are leaking out on the web. Remember, the standard is reasonable doubt, and there is plenty of that. If we don’t support the justice system, who will?
If those boys were Afghan prisoners held by the US military, this community would be more insistent on standards of proof than they are for the Steubenville case.
Remember Blackstone’s Ratio, which is what gives American justice its credibility:
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”,
I dont want this girl to have been raped. What you see as “only touching hands and feet” I see .. “carrying off like a dead body” C’mon man, use your logical side that is usually very present.
They sure seemed happy (the convicted rapists) about what they had done until they had to answer for their crimes. You’re also forgetting their own attorney admits they touched her. they admit they touched her. I really don’t see where the reasonable doubt is anymore. So a couple people didn’t see anything… at a party where there was rampant underage drinking. Half remembered accounts from their peers who were also breaking the law that night aren’t really reliable, one way or the other.
Maybe it wasn’t intercourse, but it was still a crime…. one they might have wiped from their records just in time for college ball. Now it’s time to go after the institution that would have protected them.
You’re also forgetting their own attorney admits they touched her. they admit they touched her.
What is this, Newsmax? Stop saying that without a link (touched in the definition of rape). Nobody I’ve challenged on this has been able to come up with a link. We’re supposed to be better than that. Are you trying to make this true by repetition?
I haven’t seen a video like that, Ben. Are you referring to the one made by the kids saying “she was so dead”? If so, I think that was a different bunch of kids – they were recipients and participants in the social media frenzy.
Here’s where I’m having trouble with Puck’s views:
The charge of digital penetration did not come from the victim. She remembers nothing.
Which means the charge had to come from one of the boys. Which one?
Did the defendants admit to this? This seems possible, mainly due to the fact that a lot of people don’t understand the definition of rape. Could it have been… I didn’t have sex with her, we only fooled around?
If that’s what happened, and I’m leaning towards this reason simply because no one questioned the digital penetration, then that would explain the lousy consent defense. Of course, I’m open to other interpretations as to why no one challenged the charge – and I mean no one.
If it came from either one of the two witnesses with immunity then why didn’t the defense counter this claim in any flippin’ way? If Mays and Richmond had claimed there was no sexual contact (and I don’t think they did) then the defense would have focused their case on making these witnesses prove their statements. That didn’t happen.
All of this leads me to believe that sexual contact was admitted to early on. There was absolutely no argument made to make me doubt that. It came across as a given.
I’m open to other interpretations as to why no one challenged the charge – and I mean no one.
Oh but they did:
Which represents a reversal of his earlier testimony. When asked why, the boy went on to say “I guess I just assumed.”
There are a lot of gaps in what we know about the testimony.
Mays’ text messages tell three different versions of what happened, one of which is that he had intercourse, which is provably false.
How is this provably false?
I’m not saying this happened. I have no idea, but you seem to. There was no physical evidence (bodily fluids) in this case, so I don’t know if intercourse occurred.
Know what else? Go read my posts on this and then tell me where I’ve cut myself loose from my reality-based moorings and giving in to emotion and ideology. I have never rendered a verdict of guilty.
You’re right, it is possible. But nobody is claiming it except Mays in his conflicting text messages, there’s no forensic evidence (which makes it less likely but not impossible). But the clincher for me is the heavy eyewitness coverage, none of which reports it. The witnesses were close enough to have noticed THAT. So it is kind of a hypothetical.
And from your link: “The defense argued that the girl never lost consciousness and all three teens only testified so that they themselves would not get in trouble.”
The defense argued that the girl never lost consciousness. The defense never argued that digital penetration didn’t occur. Why is that? Granted, these guys may not have been the best lawyers, but… come on.
“The defense never argued that digital penetration didn’t occur. ”
Yet somehow they got one of the prime witnesses to reverse his testimony and admit he did’t see it. Why would they do that if they already admitted it happened?
I’m not really very accepting of “arguments by inference” on this point. If the attorneys already admitted to it, it would be big news and there would be plenty of reporting on it.
Their defense is “she wanted it”. what else could the attorney possibly have mean by his assertion that since she didn’t definitely say no, she must have meant yes.
One only attempts the “slut defense” if you did it. Their choice of a defensive strategy.. and the conviction… is enough for me.
BTW, i haven’t seen the video. I saw 2 screen grabs from it and read the synopsis. Cant bring my self to actually watch the whole thing.
Puck, I feel like you’re reaching here. The defense keeps changing their strategy, they keep trying different ways to explain it away. They have said both “she wanted it” and “nothing at all happened”.
At the time the consent defense was formed, they thought they were facing three air-tight eyewitnesses and (likely) thought it was their only chance to keep their client out of jail and sex offender status. Which is after all their duty, distasteful though it may be. But now that the eyewitnesses have cracked and told a different story, a defense focusing on the act makes much nore sense.
And yet they didn’t argue or base their case on this. Why? I’m serious. Why?
Their case was that the girl was conscious and gave consent. Consent for what?
” Consent for what?”
There’s no dispute that sex acts occurred that did not meet the definition of rape.
And just because the defense goes after consent does not prohibit them from also going after the act. It’s still the prosecution’s job to prove the act occurred. The defense would have to be very stupid to say or allow their clients to say anything in court admitting to the act.
“There’s no dispute that sex acts occurred that did not meet the definition of rape.”
wait what? didn’t we go over this last week? What act and what definition are you referring to?
There’s no dispute that sex acts occurred that did not meet the definition of rape.
Really? I’m having a hard time following you. What sex acts occurred that did not meet the definition of rape? You are very sure of certain things. It’s really not me who’s jumped to a conclusion.
Rape in Ohio is penetration; am I wrong? Do you need me to draw you a picture of what was testified to?
Really? You think I need a picture? Why? Because I’ve cut myself loose from my reality-based moorings and giving in to emotion and ideology?
I think you might need a better argument.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907
since i did this last week… (some sections deleted)
(A) “Sexual conduct” means vaginal intercourse between a male and female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.
2907.02 Rape.
(A)
(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies:
(a) For the purpose of preventing resistance, the offender substantially impairs the other person’s judgment or control by administering any drug, intoxicant, or controlled substance to the other person surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception.
(c) The other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.
(2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of rape, a felony of the first degree. [chunks relating to sentencing deleted]
(C) A victim need not prove physical resistance to the offender in prosecutions under this section.
(D) Evidence of specific instances of the victim’s sexual activity, opinion evidence of the victim’s sexual activity, and reputation evidence of the victim’s sexual activity shall not be admitted under this section unless it involves evidence of the origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease, or the victim’s past sexual activity with the offender, and only to the extent that the court finds that the evidence is material to a fact at issue in the case and that its inflammatory or prejudicial nature does not outweigh its probative value.
Evidence of specific instances of the defendant’s sexual activity, opinion evidence of the defendant’s sexual activity, and reputation evidence of the defendant’s sexual activity shall not be admitted under this section unless it involves evidence of the origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease, the defendant’s past sexual activity with the victim, or is admissible against the defendant under section 2945.59 of the Revised Code, and only to the extent that the court finds that the evidence is material to a fact at issue in the case and that its inflammatory or prejudicial nature does not outweigh its probative value.
Effective Date: 06-13-2002; 01-02-2007; 2007 SB10 01-01-2008
2907.021 [Repealed].
Just like I said – in Ohio, rape requires penetration. Thanks for confirming.
I have a pretty good list of non-rape sexual activity that was testified to, but frankly I don’t really want to post the graphic details.
From what we know from the press – the case for rape comes down to one eyewitness who said he felt coerced. That’s reality.
puck i think where we’re confused is that our interpretation of “however slight” in the statute differs from yours.
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Now you are parsing. It’s either in or it’s out. And what witness can tell the difference if it’s that slight? The weird thing here is the victim can’t confirm.
“Sexual conduct” means vaginal intercourse between a male and female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.”
“without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal”
insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other”
“insertion, however slight, of any part of the body”
Puck. there it is. Move on.
Wow, how much did you enjoy typing all that? I guess I can play “repeat” too:
“From what we know from the press – the case for rape comes down to one eyewitness who said he felt coerced. That’s reality.”
Now you move along until you can rebut that. And I’m still open to being proved wrong, using actual reported facts from the testimony.
except SB was repeating from the statute and you’re just quoting your own personal interpretation of the case.
What are you arguing? I mean, what is your “thesis” here?
Last week you needed a conviction before you decided. That’s fair, but now there has been a conviction. Then you were saying what they did to her wasn’t rape based on Ohio law… clearly it is.
Now you’re saying it didn’t happen? Im really not sure. Is it that they “only” “molested” her and therefor shouldn’t be convicted or “rape”?
Maybe you aren’t satisfied with my counterarguments, but I am not exactly sure what you argument is. According to Ohio Law, they raped this girl. their defense was that she gave consent, meaning they affirm they did these actions. CLEARLY (and by their disgusting bragging videos) she was passed out. For the life of me, other than one kid who may have suddenly felt like saving his buddies. Cant see what you’re objecting to.
Actually, I’m confused by why, if what puck is claiming is true, it wasn’t used by the defense.
Granted, I don’t have all the facts (and neither does puck), but these lawyers and parents of the boys chose the “conscious and consent” defense for a reason. I’m having a lot of trouble believing if there was no penetration that they wouldn’t have gone with that defense – or at least approached this case from both angles.
And it isn’t “weird” that the victim can’t confirm – it’s sad. What’s “weird” is the defense’s tactic of going after the girl’s consciousness and consent rather than going after the witness’ with immunity testimony.
I have read almost everything the defense lawyers have said on this case from the beginning – and at no time did I read where they denied penetration. In fact, that seemed to be tossed in at the end. Right up until the trial the defense lawyers were putting forth, publicly, their consciousness and consent argument.
Now, you can say that was bad lawyering, but it seems everyone involved agreed with it – to the point of insisting on putting the girl’s former friends on the stand, who offered nothing more than a “she wanted it” defense because she’s a liar. (And the defense fought long and hard to get those girls to testify.)
The problem is only one (probably coerced) kid testified to violation of the rape statute. There is no other evidence that the statute was violated, no matter how many times you paste the statute here. What is so hard to understand about that? Doesn’t that bother you? That sets off all kinds of alarms for me.
By “weird” I meant only “legally unusual.”
and at no time did I read where they denied penetration
Silence is not consent.
no seriously im with SB on this one. Can you clarify your theory? They molested her while she was unconscious but it doesn’t amount to what’s needed for a rape charge. And the witnesses were either not specific enough/didn’t see it or (the one who was specific) was coerced? and then these guys were railroaded (by the prosecutors and the bench trial) because media created a narrative that requried justice?
is that a fair interpretation of what you feel happened?
I never pledged to substitute the verdict for my own critical thinking. The conviction produced more facts, which are now factored into my current thinking. That is reality-based.
I’m not making any claims about what really happened. I’m just reviewing what the prosecution has proved or not proved. It’s entirely possible the prosecution has railroaded some guilty boys.
Hmmm… Why is Puck allowed to make assumptions? We have no idea if the kid was coerced. Maybe he said that so he didn’t get in trouble with his teammates when he went back to school? “Hey, I didn’t want to testify. They coerced me.”
I have no idea if this kid was coerced, and, you know what? Neither does Puck.
In fact, Puck’s entire argument is based on something the defense didn’t argue. So, in order to believe Puck I have to assume that the boys’ lawyers ignored the fact that their clients were innocent of penetration and decided to go with the conscious and consent defense.
Unless someone explains that to me I’m going to stick with they went with the best defense they had.
Question: I’m not a lawyer… If Mays and Richmond admitted to their lawyers that penetration occurred could their lawyers argue that it hadn’t?
He’re my concern with puck’s argument: if there was touching but not enough to amount to a rape charge, and their lawyers knew they did that touching but not rape, and knew there was at least some evidence to that prove the touching then I CANNOT BELIEVE their lawyers wouldn’t try to strike a plea deal to some lower count of offensive touching instead of rolling the dice that they could have to register as sex offenders for decades to come. I mean maybe that happened and they just rejected it, but it seems the logical way to go here.
and Pandora, If I remember correctly they could but they just couldn’t present any false evidence or make their clients lie about doing it. They could go at it from the “prosecution didn’t prove it, there’s no evidence of it” angle.
In fact, Puck’s entire argument is based on something the defense didn’t argue.
No, it’s based on witness testimony.
I have no idea if this kid was coerced, and, you know what? Neither does Puck.
I’m just going on what’s been reported. I know it’s a long thread, but I posted this upstream with a link:
I don’t think this fact is in the same link, but I’m pretty sure this is the same kid they were holding a child porn charge over for the cell phone, and only agreed to testify after he was immunized. This is all the prosecution has left for violation of the rape statute. The two other witnesses folded.
well you can base your holding on witness testimony that you only heard about from second hand media reports (at least I assume that’s how you heard it, I looked for a transcript and found none), but didn’t the judge do that too? and he found the kids testimony believable and came to a different conclusion that you. Is it possible that his interpretation of the testimony he heard with his own ears is fair?
the judge could easily have thrown this out on the basis that it should have been a lower charge.
What do you have to say about the videos the boys made where they talked about what they did? I realize it wasn’t uncovered using due process, that isn’t what Im asking. Were they lying? Is this like someone taking credit for a crime when they think it will make them look cool? You’re concerned about the witness, understood. Why wont you take the defense’s strategy of “she wanted it” aka “yea, they touched her” into consideration? Their affirmative defense failed.
I’m just not understanding why you’re version of a coerced witness carries more weight than my made-up scenario. After all, there was a LOT of pressure not to testify, so why is your version of coercion (they threatened me so I lied and said I saw penetration) less valid than (I said I was coerced because I have to go back to school and face my friends)?
I have no idea if either version is true, but you do.
And what’s interesting is how we’re the only ones arguing this point since the defense didn’t pursue it. Again, why is that?
“I have no idea if either version is true, but you do. ”
That is the definition of reasonable doubt. And no, I don’t know what happened at that party, but I do know what is reported about the testimony.
“And what’s interesting is how we’re the only ones arguing this point since the defense didn’t pursue it.”
I could speculate but I have no idea. It seems that it was pursued in cross-examination though, with interesting results.
That is NOT reasonable doubt. That’s me not being privy to all the evidence – just like you.
Here’s where I see you coming from: You believe the boy who said he was coerced to say there was penetration. I have no idea if what he said was true. That’s you’re entire case – a witness with immunity changed his story and you’re willing to believe that he lied the first time, but told the truth on the stand. Me? I have no idea which one was a lie.
plus the defense never denied there was contact. only that there was “no consent”. There was no consent, there was contact. Are you saying they shouldn’t have been convicted because of the definition of rape or are you saying they shouldn’t have been convicted because they didn’t actually perform the actions they were convicted of performing? Are you even saying they souldnt have been convicted?
Puck, I think you’re hearing hoofbeats and assuming Zebras. I don’t disagree that there is doubt… I just don’t think it is reasonable. The thing is, you’re talking about not jumping to conclusions and making sure all the facts and evidence are heard and presented….. you aren’t given any weight at all the the judges decision? even though he had MUCH MUCH more access to the case than any of us?
And let’s not forget that the defense didn’t shy away from calling someone a liar. They did it quite easily with the victim – in fact, it was a major part of their case. So why not hammer the immunized witness for lying?
What possible reason could they have for not tearing him apart and not making his new testimony central to the case? That could have been a Perry Mason moment! Sorry, but there seems to be more to this than bad lawyers – we just don’t know what it is yet.
And if it is all the defense lawyers fault (extremely doubtful), forget the appeal – Mays and Richmond have a huge lawsuit to file. (again, doubtful)
As a diversion to the legal arguments going back and forth on this thread, CNN must do a thorough self-examination on its coverage of the verdict. Candy Crowley and Poppy Harlow sure felt bad for the rapists, saying how “difficult” it was to watch the lives of two boys crumble because of this verdict. They said little or nothing about how this ordeal has affected or will affect the victim.
CNN is rightfully taking a beating because of this. Apparently they have aired a segment today explaining the hardships the young woman faces as a victim. Good, but not good enough.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/cnn-steubenville-rape-petition_n_2901462.html?utm_hp_ref=media
CNN must be so thrilled that Fox News beat them in the worst news station ever contest this week. They aired footage naming the victim.
Congrats guys. Sorry CNN briefly threatened your reign.
nevermind, apparently the footage (part of one of the in-court apologies) mentioning the victims first name was also on CNN and Slate and a bunch of other places on the internet.
*sigh*