Appellate lawyers handle the appeals. At this point, lawyers argue - witnesses and victim don’t have to show up. A Court of Appeals decides to uphold the conviction or not. Only if the Court of Appeals decides in Turner’s favor will the question of retrying the case come up. Jumping the gun to assume a retrial with victim or witnesses returning to court will even be necessary.
But why does Turner want a retrial? After all, he was convicted in the first trial and got a gift of a slap on the wrist sentence. He should expect that the most likely result the second time would a second conviction and this time years in prison instead of months in county jail.
The only reason he would succeed in the retrial he wants is if the damning witnesses were unable to testify. That’s why we’re worried about the damning witnesses not being able to testify-- because it’s what he wants, so he can weasel out of further punishment for his rape because his repulsive father is willing to pony up money.
I don’t know how he’d get an unbiased jury for his second trial. If you drive (or in my case ride) around this area, you see signs for the recall of Judge Persky, the judge in his case, because he is believed to have given a sentence that was too lenient.
“I don’t know how he’d get an unbiased jury for his second trial.”
If retrial granted, attorneys could ask for change of venue? To where I don’t know
They have collected enough signature to move forward to recall this judge.
http://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/judge-brock-turner-assault-case-face-vote-removal/story?id=52573896
The more I read about the judge in the Larry Nassar sentencing hearing, the worse I think of the Brock Turner judge.
A little OT, but:
Over and over again on this thread, the point was made that something was ethically wrong, and over and over again, that was countered with–but it’s a legal right. I remain perplexed that so many people conflate legal with ethical. I get that from my students a lot, but I expect us elders to recognize the distinction being made. And that there is a worth to making it.
So @“Cardinal Fang” , just wanted to say that I understood and concur with the opinion you were presenting upthread.
Judge in this case is facing a recall and says he doesn’t regret his decision.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/brock-turner-rape-case-judge-speaks-out-ahead-of-recall-vote/
Persky’s TV interview is useless. That’s not a criticism of Persky; by the code of judicial ethics he is not permitted to discuss what we want to know, which is why he made the decision to give this particular defendant a slap on the wrist.
His defenders have said some things that infuriate me, though. They say that people are trying to make the assault sound worse than it was by using the words “behind a dumpster,” which they say are inaccurate. (I rode my bike over to the place, and it is, in fact, exactly behind a dumpster.) The defenders say-- I can hardly believe they use this as a defense, but they do, and I have heard it with my own ears-- that the assault was not serious because the woman was drunk. The victim drank herself to unconsciousness, and therefore, I guess I am to assume, she is fair game for any guy who wants to rape her.
I hear different defenses because much of my social world is lawyers. The two that I hear are:
- "We don't end up with better work from judges when there's a grass roots rebellion over a single case." Which is both mostly true and mostly an argument against elected judges.
- "A short sentence is not unusual for first-time offenders in California, as a result of both insane prison overcrowding and a successful Democratic push to keep the criminal justice system from ending the productive lives of young men of color." I don't know enough to judge the correctness of those facts, but the logic is sound.
The usual penalty for illegal sexual penetration in California is 3, 6, or 8 years in prison, which appears to be less than in some other states for similar crimes (i.e. rape; in California, “rape” is basically the same crime and penalty, but has a condition in the definition that narrows its scope). This penalty has been around for quite a while (probably since California was more Republican).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=289.
Recent reductions in penalties have been:
- Limiting the types of third strikes that lead to life sentence of at least 25 years.
- Lower penalties for drug possession.
- Higher threshold between petty and grand theft.
To me it’s a matter of how serious the crime is thought to be. A short sentence may not be unusual for a first-time offender, but is it unusual for a first-time rapist?
This same judge was claimed to be kissy-kissy to the defendants in the De Anza College rape civil trial, where a bunch of white college athletes were accused of gang-raping a woman. (The gang rape happened and was interrupted by members of the De Anza College women’s soccer team. The only issue is who did it.) Opponents say Judge Persy incorrectly allowed inflammatory photos to be shown to the jury, and incorrectly allowed defendants to testify in the trial when they had taken the Fifth to avoid being deposed before the trial.
I’m going to happily vote to recall Persky.
The vote to recall Judge Persky is tomorrow.
Judge Persky just got kicked to the curb.
I’m very happy about this recall. Finally the victim can feel like she has made a difference. Laws were changed because of his ruling and it may send a message to other judges who are tempted to ‘pervert’ the law by totally ignoring the juries recommendations.
I hope the other judges take the right message. I, like the other people I know who voted to recall Persky, do not oppose decarceration in general. We think, however, that the justice system does not take violence against women seriously compared to other serious crimes.
That’s great news. California deserves better.
“Laws were changed because of his ruling and it may send a message to other judges who are tempted to ‘pervert’ the law by totally ignoring the juries recommendations.”
Juries don’t decide the punishment, that’s up to the judge, there may be some exceptions but that’s not the case here. The sentence followed the probation officer’s report, who came up with the recommendation after interviewing the defendant and victim, along with the short sentence policy Hanna mentioned. The victim was the one who also recommended treatment over incarceration, that was probably a big reason why the P/O went with the lighter sentence.
The victim says the probation officer misrepresented her wishes. We know that the victim did not approve of the probation report, because she said so at the sentencing hearing. “When I read the probation officer’s report, I was in disbelief, consumed by anger which eventually quieted down to profound sadness.” https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra?utm_term=.oxl0B9OXn#.nbAYqJ29G
Illusteatibg a certain mindset, the judge’s defenders had apparently tried to recent his recall by explaining that recalling him would encourage other judges to hand more severe sentences for sex crimes (meaning it’d be a bad thing).
Wrt judges etc, you can watch the British short series Three girls. It’s based on a true story. The trial’s lines were entirely lifted from the actual trial, including the defense’s questions and the girls’ answers. Wzrbibg: It’s hard to watch.
Why was the victim drunk to the point of being unconcious? Just curious. Did he find her laying there?