The older threads have been closed, so I’m starting a new one.
Brock Turner is appealing his conviction, based in part on too much emphasis on the word “dumpster”.
And there’s this -
His lawyer seems to think that the emphasis on "behind the dumpster’ is prejudicial and also untrue because the bicyclists approached from the open side of the trash area. However, from the opposite side, the direction of the frat house, they were indeed behind it.
Why risk a possible retrial with this nonsense? Could he possibly be retried and get a harsher sentence?
In other news, the judge in the case, Aaron Persky, is facing a recall attempt. I’m guessing it will be successful.
He raped her BEHIND A DUMPSTER.
Him being associated with a dumpster is an insult to the dumpster.
CF, good.
CF - Aaron Persky tried to get a stay in the recall phase and was rejected.
“Him being associated with a dumpster is an insult to the dumpster.”
Exactly. If I were the waste management business that owns the Dumpster, I would sue Brock for defamation. 
Out of idle curiosity shortly after the attempted rape, I rode my bike over to the frat house to look at the scene. (It’s close to where I live, and I ride my bike everywhere, so this was not a particular effort. I would have ridden somewhere, and Stanford isn’t a bad place to ride.)
i can confirm that the dumpster was between the bike path and the frat house. In the daylight, the bike path isn’t particularly busy, and after midnight it would be deserted and dark. Anyone would describe the location as “behind the dumpster.”
If he didn’t want to be tarred for raping a woman behind a dumpster, he shouldn’t have attempted to rape an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. It was mere luck that the two bicyclist heroes happened along, and even more luck that they had good enough lights, and were attentive enough, to notice that she appeared unconscious and he was attempting to rape her.
@“Cardinal Fang” thank you for your on-the-ground reporting. That bike trip and your report demonstrate that you’re a valuable member of team CC.
Of course it’s going to be appealed. That is what defendants who can afford it pay their lawyers to do.
This makes my blood boil!
“Of course it’s going to be appealed. That is what defendants who can afford it pay their lawyers to do.”
Right. This is how the system is supposed to work. Even those who cannot afford to pay lawyers have a federal constitutional right to free counsel for a first appeal. People convicted under state law who exhaust their appeals to state courts can also challenge their convictions in federal court via a habeas corpus suit (generally on their own dime).
If and when the Court of Appeals makes a decision that is unlawful or unjust, that will be a different story. But this is standard procedure. Serial killers appeal their convictions, too, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
If you find the arguments in an appeal weak, that’s a sign that the trial judge ran a tight ship and followed the rules.
Irrelevant.
Well it is relevant in that he was convicted of sexual assault of an unconscious person. So I don’t get why he would want to highlight how drunk she was because it only underscores what he did!
How the system is supposed to work is men are not supposed to rape unconscious women behind dumpsters, and if a man does attempt to do this, is apprehended, convicted and given a slap on the wrist, he is supposed to feel fortunate that his punishment was so light, express contrition and attempt to reform his life, not file appeals pretending that a dumpster is not a dumpster and a rape is not a rape. It is legal to file an appeal. That doesn’t make it right.
Our blood is boiling because a rapist is trying to escape consequences, and we’re damned tired of men assaulting women and getting away with it.
As Hanna says appeals happen everyday. I would think he would focus on getting the registry lifted but perhaps there is a timeline or a process they are following. The registry was the most severe punishment.
So for the lawyers–I started reading the text of the appeal until it got to be too much for me. But apparently one of the issues was that character witnesses on behalf of the accused, to testify to his reputation for veracity, were not permitted. My question for the lawyers is: If these character witnesses were permitted, could the prosecution introduce information about Turner’s reported attempt to run away when being given a ticket for minor-in-possession and about the reported messages about drugs on his cell phone? (For “reported” read “alleged,” if that is technically better.). Or would the prosecution have to limit the discussion to the issue of veracity?
I realize that a lot of the people in this case were not Stanford students. However, it does take the keen edge off the desire for anyone in my family to go to Stanford.
I hope everyone on this thread is familiar enough with my view on this and related cases that I don’t need to reiterate it here. The actions of the men are reprehensible. I am 100% in agreement with Cardinal Fang (with the exception of technicalities based on the definition of “rape” in California vs. the Department of Justice definition of rape, which complicates things slightly). Thanks for the bike trip you took to the scene of the crime, CF.
My spouse reminded me recently in a completely unrelated case that the lawyer has to do what the client wants. I don’t know enough about legal ethics to be sure, but presumably any given lawyer (not government appointed) could decline to take a case?
Ah, thanks to @QuantMech for letting me know why no one seemed to respond when I posted this in the “mothers defend sons accused of sexual assault” yesterday afternoon! 
What’s baffling is that he got a slap in the wrist for an egregious crime with more than one witness. He should feel extremely lucky he wasn’t sent to jail for five or more years. The appeal makes it sound like he is unrepentant. Also, can he only be found guilty of a lesser charge?
(In Australia, Oscar Pistorius who’d received a lenient sentence for killing his girlfriend, appealed and got a conviction more in line with typical sentencing - don’t know if that’s possible in the US).
It’s his right, but it shows who he is for those who might have doubted it.
He is unrepentant. He is a privileged white male who has never had to pay for a single thing he’s done and thus thinks he’s untouchable.
This conviction is an outlier and he believes it was wrong. That he might have to pay for his actions is incomprehensible to him.
^South Africa, not Australia for the Pistorius case. Sorry for nit-picking @MYOS1634, but part of his defense was the high crime rate in South Africa.