The threats of violence against the judge are very, very sobering. I can only imagine the threats that have been made against Turner and his family. It is very, very scary. It is hard to have sympathy for a rapist who would commit such heinous acts, but I do fear that he may be in physical danger, and that scares me. The family may have been better off with a reasonable sentence that did not provoke such public outrage.
Argh. DS will not be able to get to the voting place before it closes. I wanted him to write in Mickey Mouse and vote for him instead of Persky. That said, death threats are not ok. Just remove him from the bench and make him professionally impotent.
Persky is not on the ballot.
Yes. 
<<<
It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to make any inquiry about any arrest or criminal accusation of an individual which is not currently pending against that individual, or which has been resolved in favor of that individual, resolved by a youthful offender adjudication, or resulted in a sealed conviction. These restrictions also apply to the provision of licenses, credit or insurance. It is unlawful to require any individual to divulge information pertaining to any such arrest or criminal accusation or to take any adverse action based on such an arrest or criminal accusation.
Statutory Provision
This protection is provided by Human Rights Law §296(16).
What is Unlawful
It is unlawful to ask an applicant or employee whether he or she has ever been arrested or had a criminal accusation filed against him or her. It is also unlawful to inquire about youthful offender adjudications or sealed records. It is not unlawful to ask if a person has any currently pending arrests or accusations. It is also not unlawful to inquire about convictions. See the Previous Conviction section below.
It is unlawful to require an individual to divulge information about the circumstances of an arrest or accusation no longer pending. In other words, the employer cannot demand information from the individual accused in order to “investigate” the circumstances behind an arrest.
<<<<
wow…
Really??? In NY an employer cannot ask on an application if the applicant has ever been arrested or convicted???
does this law spill over to NY colleges and Univs? Are they also prevented from asking if the applicant has ever been arrested/convicted? if not, WHY NOT??? Seems to be inconsistent if not. BTW…I think this is insane and glad I don’t live/work in NY.
"The threats of violence against the judge are very, very sobering. I can only imagine the threats that have been made against Turner and his family. It is very, very scary. "
God almighty, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Agree with @notelling that the threats of violence against the judge and Turner’s family are concerning. That being said, I would think the judge has protective measures (or at the very least, adequate support to assess the threats) in place because of the nature of his position.
Obviously Turner’s dad was under stress when writing the letter to the court, and I wonder if he had his son’s lawyer review it. What he said in the letter was fuel added to the fire and I wonder why the lawyer didn’t have him tone it down. It’s time for that lawyer, or the big guns hired for the appeal, to engage the crisis management team.
I don’t find Rasmussen’s new statement very convincing. She doesn’t like the scrutiny and the backlash but doesn’t seem to be examining her own biases and misconceptions. She mentions a few times that she was asked by the court to write a letter about Brock. Would the court really do that? Or was it Brock and his parents who asked her? She was not a material witness who was summoned to testify.
@mom2collegekids This statute is talking about non-pending arrests or accusations, and juvie and/or sealed records. Employers can ask about convictions and arrests/accusations that have not been resolved.
" It is not unlawful to ask if a person has any currently pending arrests or accusations. It is also not unlawful to inquire about convictions"
Thug has become synonymous with the n-word. It’s the PC way of saying it.
I’m not sure anyone particularly cares about how he looks. It’s about how he was being presented as a clean cut, all-American boy whereas people of color are generally not presented in such a manner in criminal cases. It’s about fairness. I don’t care for his in court photos, but lobbying for the mugshot being released is just a matter of fairness.
Is Turner’s lawyer filing an appeal? If so, what is the legal basis for it? Anyone know?
You can ask about felony convictions.
@greenwitch I had that same question about the character reference. I cannot imagine that the court ordered her to produce it. And I agree that she seems unaware of her own biases and completely clueless about a lot of things (Stanford marketing itself as a party school - ?). I guess round #1 didn’t teach her that she needs to be more careful in what she writes. She’s definitely very young.
Do any CA lawyers know if her expectation that the letter would remain private is based on any sort of actual rule of criminal procedure? She may not have “expected” her letter to go viral but would she have been given any assurances that it would be sealed or not a part of the public record?
@Bromfield2 Yes, his parents have retained appellate counsel (one of the best in the state) and filed a notice of appeal. We won’t know the grounds for appeal until the briefing is done. But there are pretty standard grounds for appeal in most criminal cases (like insufficient evidence). In this case, I imagine they will also argue jury pool bias due to press. Maybe they have some evidentiary arguments (I don’t know what they might be, but it could be something related to the processing of the crime scene, chain of custody, etc). His lawyer is really good, and I imagine the briefing will be really strong (though that doesn’t mean it will be successful).
“Thug has become synonymous with the n-word. It’s the PC way of saying it.”
Some people arbitrarily decreed that in the last year or so, and we’re supposed to agree with it. I guess those are the people with “word privilege.”
Persky was running unopposed. Did they remove him from the ballot? Where I live, even unopposed candidates are on the ballot.
I have never heard of character letters for sentencing ordered by the court. Typically the defense attorney will suggest it, and the defense attorney will review and edit the letters. They are not sealed (unless maybe they had to do with a minor or contained some sort of information subject to a protective order, and even then they are redacted). However, they rarely get press coverage unless (as here) it’s a case that’s of particular interest (or say, Dennis Hastert). I’m not sure what the lawyer told her, but she may have gotten a request from the lawyer and thought it was the court.
These letters seemed tone-deaf at a minimum, and some parts of them were closer to appalling, but maybe Turner’s attorney really knew what worked for this judge and probation officer. After all, they did result in a light sentence. I’m not sure anyone anticipated the reaction.
@greenwitch, I think Rasmussen’s statement and then her follow up letter are terrible.
Her band being barred from performing is a little too much though.
@Pizzagirl I didn’t need anyone to arbitrarily say that. My experiences as a person of color have showed that to me. I know you believe that privilege and racial inequality are myths from the politically correct, sensitive, colored left, but the ability to have the mindset and live your life without worrying about race, in and of itself is a privilege. When you look at the context in which thug is used, especially for people on the right, it’s essentially interchangeable with the n word. But don’t mind me. I’ll crawl back to my safe space.
The threats of violence are dead wrong, even if most of them are from blowhards who would be too cowardly to actually do something. That anger is better channeled into something constructive, like pressuring legislators to change the laws governing permissionable questions for victims of sexual assault, so a dirtbag defense lawyer (sounds like the kids lawyer was one of those) could use it to try and make the victim guilty…what the hell does what the victim was wearing have to do with what the guy did? What does how she held a cup, what she drank, have to do with what the a-hole did? I realize defense lawyers job is to defend someone, but from what I read the defense lawyer went over that line, this isn’t the 1950’s or 1960’s, and the judge also showed his bias by allowing those questions IMO. The judge was biased, he saw, not someone who committed sexual assault, but a “stanford man” who had ‘made a mistake’, and saw it through the focus of 'poor boy, he lost his swimming scholarship". So a white, upper middle class kid who happened to be a jock at an elite school somehow is the victim here, not the girl? This is just as bad as the administration at Baylor, or the cops and administration at the University of Florida covering up for athletes, it is about ignoring the victims because they somehow see the perp as "valuable. If a black kid who lived in Palo Alto had been charged with doing to the girl what this guy did, kid with no criminal record, was brought before this judge, you can bet he would get a lot more than 6 months, in one of the cases at a school where an athlete raped a girl he got something like 20 years.
I would feel a lot more sympathy for the kid if he acted like someone who had gotten drunk and done something wrong, showed some remorse, but like his father, appears to have no concept of what he did to the victim, all he sees is him being railroaded because "huh huh* nod nod wink wink he had sex with some drunken floozie, the kid is definitely a chip off the old block. Sorry, I have no sympathy for the father or their family, they are in serious denial, if they can continue to make the victim the guilty party and their son the victim. Family love goes a long way, but given what the father wrote, it is not hard to see where the kid got his attitude from.