If the two Swedish men have finished their graduate programs and left Stanford, I sincerely hope that their expenses will be covered to return to testify at a second trial, if one is granted. I have not forgotten them. I am very grateful for their actions. Many assaulted women have no witnesses, which makes a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt very difficult to reach. I also hope that the victim does not lose heart about testifying. I think that many people underestimate how long it takes for the victim to recover from a situation like this.
I don’t think the change in the California law will be applicable, because if it were applied, it would constitute an ex post facto action. But I think the change in the law might give a clue about public opinion, that could inform the decision as to whether or not to request a retrial–as an indicator that this would not be a wise move (ignoring all questions of rights and better moral choices).
Presumably, if Turner were granted a new trial and if he were found guilty a second time, his exercise of his legal right to appeal could not be used as any indicator of the remorse he may or may not be feeling? Lawyers, your views on this?
That to me is the same thing as saying he should have just plead guilty (that would have been the moral thing to do since we all know he is guilty) instead of exercising his right to a trial by a jury of his peers.
The right to appeal is a part of the same judicial process.
The article says the law that was changed after the crime can’t be used against him.
The issue of remorse is why I say it makes him look unrepentent.
(It was clear his father saw him as “the real victim” in all this, so that’s probably what he’s been told at home.)
I am having a hard time understanding where his lawyer John Tomkins is coming from. A video with his statement regarding the appeal is linked below. I really think this family is getting some very bad advice. His attorney is just chumming the waters with statements like this:
I certainly understand Turner’s wanting to get rid of the requirement that he be registered as a sex offender for life. But, as the law professor says in that video above, the facts are the facts. I really don’t see how he will get anything positive out of this appeal.
Oh please. Almost every criminal appeals if convicted. OJ appealed his case in Las Vegas and it was on video tape. Many criminal defendants claim ineffective representation even if they had a top criminal attorney. It’s part of the criminal process. Why do they do it? To get a better sentence, a new trial where evidence will be many years old and memories will fade.
If he gets a new trial, it’s very like the prosecution will go for a lesser charge and negotiate a sentence.
Have you noticed how guys who are defending sex pests in the media are turning out to be sex pests themselves?
Surprise, surprise. When I see a guy like that lawyer, in a sober dark suit, say a rape wasn’t a rape, I figure he’s a sex pest too, wanting to mansplain that being a sex pest is totally fine.
I don’t see how that’s possible, considering the lowest he was supposed to get was 3 years (up to 8, 6 were cited by the prosecution)… and he got six months, in county jail, with half time served.
I also don’t see how he can get the case vacated since there are witnesses and most people who know about the case consider he got off easy.
Who thinks he’d really take more time in jail if it meant no sex offender registry? It may be what he’s going for but somehow it’d match earlier impressions if he thought of himself of a victim of the system and wanted the case closed with him declared not guilty.
I just don’t really see the prosecution going for a lesser charge. Here’s Jeff Rosen’s statement regarding the appeal-- he was the prosecutor in the first trial:
Just a general question about legal proceedings, not directly connected with this case: If an attorney says something [presumed to be serious] in court and a juror bursts out laughing, would the juror be replaced?
Will the Swedes be available for testimony? I’m figuring he hopes they will have returned to their home country.
I get that his lawyer is obligated to say it’s not a crime to be discovered thrusting on top of an unconscious undressed woman, but seeing him say it was a nauseating spectacle all the same.
Can any lawyers here comment on the probability of success?
My guess is if an attorney/judge had a problem with juror’s outburst, the juror could be questioned away from other jurors to find out what was so funny, and then decide whether or not to replace or make objection to juror’s continuing to stay on jury.
I would agree. It would be totally disrespectful unless the judge was the one who cracked the joke and would probably result in a conversation with the judge. I suppose if one of the attorney’s cracks an obvious joke and the judge laughs the jurors could laugh. But generally the courts are pretty serious places doing serious business.
