^^ Pure speculation. You have no way of knowing what the parents are being charged. There ARE attorneys who take cases just for the notoriety even if their clients don’t have money to pay. (Owen Labrie may be an excellent example of this, as discussed on that thread.)
@Hanna You are right, but the requirement for him to be on the registry is not w/in the judge’s discretion. It’s automatic for people convicted of these crimes. The judge did not have the option to put him on the registry or not. That’s why people are – IMO rightly so – looking at the sentence the judge had the discretion to impose. Is that consistent w/ other first time offenders found guilty of the same or similar violent felonies? I don’t think it is. Everyone’s life changes forever if they are convicted of a felony. No one denies that. In some states, felons can’t even vote. But prison time is a typical part of the sentence for these crimes, and the judge departed downward for (IMO) the wrong reasons – he’s a good judge, but he’s human and he was either hoodwinked or some unconscious biases came into play or both. Things the judge said – like prison would be hard for Brock-- um, prison is pretty hard for everyone. For some reason, this kid in particular made the judge more sympathetic – it’s important to look at why if we are concerned about equal justice.
@musicprnt – if the prosecution felt the judge was likely to be biased in favor of the defense in the case, the prosecution should have exercised their rights under section 170.6 to have the judge removed from the case. In every case, each side is given one chance to get the case assigned to a different judge without having to give any reason. If the prosecution felt that the judge was likely to be biased, they were supposed to file that 170.6 challenge. They didn’t do that.
(i may have the statute number incorrect; that’s the statute that applies to civil cases; the criminal statute may have a different number).
Lifetime sex offender status is hardly a burden in comparison to what the victim will live with for the remainder of her life. I was violently raped 46 years ago. Much of the time I’m okay and don’t think of it, but the experience can never be erased. I tried to bury it but cannot, despite my intention to not let it rule or ruin my life. News stories trigger the nightmares and for a time my anxiety ramps up again. My heart goes out to the victim and I hope she receives the support she needs, both now and in the future.
Today at 12:31 pm
IN RE: post #872, I am shocked they didn’t redact the names and phone numbers of the friends Turner was calling.
Totally agree about the fact that the other names are public…these names are familiar to many people in the swimming community and the name without a last name could be one of a couple kids…if this was my kid…I would be VERY upset. Is this legal???
Nottelling, I appreciate your posts. They are really helpful for us non-lawyers.
I couldn’t disagree more with the concept that “the judge represents us” and he should be subject to mob rule on his decisions. Be careful what you ask for - the same kind of mob that could prevail on him to lengthen BT’s sentence could also prevail on him to lower it even more because he’s a nice white boy, or add extra length to a black defendant’s sentence because the town don’t like that kind. I find it such sloppy and scary thinking.
“But according to prosecutor Alaleh Kiancerci’s sentencing memo, texts and photos found on Turner’s cell phone, which police seized, indicate that he used alcohol and drugs in high school, well before the January 2015 assault. Kiancerci pointed out the lies to the judge during the sentencing hearing, but Persky did not comment on Turner’s dishonesty.”
I am sure in Perky’s head he read that and said “ha ha, kids don’t change, we used to do that, too”. The more I read about this case, the more I see the judge as a clueless schmuck.
@nottelling:
I am surprised they didn’t ask for that, maybe they felt based on past performance he would be unbiased, I don’t know, not a lawyer but if a stanford kid who was an athlete came up in front of a judge who went there and was an athlete, I would ask for it (then again, no one would ever want me as a lawyer, not in my makeup for certain)
@hanna:
The sex registry affects anyone who is so sentenced, the person sentenced to 14 years faces that, as does anyone with a sexually based crime, including ones that don’t involve any kind of threat. Couples who are busted for sex on a federal nude beach get on it, someone convicted of having paid sex with a prostitute is on it, lots of people are on that for life who did a fraction of what cutey pie did. More importantly, unlike the victim, he can get off the list, this likely will always be with her. A 17 year old boy convicted (wrongly) of statutory rape for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend is on there for life as well.
I personally thing the sex offender list as it is done is a travesty, there are far too many ways you can get on there, but that is how the law operates. So whether he got six years or 15 years, he would face that, as would anyone else convicted of such a crime. If Corey Bates gets sentenced, should they give him only 5 years instead of 15-20 he likely will get, because he faces that?
Silpat: I am so very sorry.
…
I, for one, don’t think Turner should have a drop of alcohol before he’s at least 30 and I am not in the least concerned whether that negatively impacts his social life for the next decade. Why should his life be the same as if he hadn’t raped someone? Her life isn’t the same.
@Lionsmum, the judge knew Brock was lying.
@Silpat, thanks for sharing your story. I am sorry for what you have been and are going through.
@silpat, thank you, for talking about it. When I hear people talking about how this kid will suffer for the rest of his life, what about the person he attacked? Someone very close to me was horribly raped for years, and it doesn’t go away (their case was even worse, it was a parent), so I know you are telling the truth.
“The judge did not have the option to put him on the registry or not. That’s why people are – IMO rightly so – looking at the sentence the judge had the discretion to impose”
I don’t think that most commentators are even aware what’s automatic and what’s not. (That’s no insult – I didn’t know, and there’s no reason why they ought to know if they don’t practice criminal law in California.) For some crimes in some states, registry is finite, not lifetime. Some people are concerned about the judge’s discretion, and others are also looking at the question of whether the punishment fit the crime. To do that well, we have to remember the whole punishment.
Part of the reason that I think people are forgetting the sex offender status is that I got a press inquiry asking me for a quote about whether Turner has a shot at transferring to another university when he gets out of jail. The quick answer is heck no, but not because of the felony – because of the sex offender status.
It’s true that he may get the status reversed at some point in the future, but based on my superficial understanding of the law, that would require (1) his conviction to be reversed, (2) a governor’s pardon, or (3) a change in the underlying law governing the registry. (3) looks the most likely to me at this point, and that’s not very likely.
Ironically, in California, there has historically been concerns about gang members getting probation and getting released into a community that supposedly does not encourage compliance with the terms of probation and in which a felony conviction supposedly be seen as a feather in the cap of the defendant, not a detriment.
So, in legislation that I would not have supported, factors were added to the sentencing laws and rules that stack the deck against gang members (and, as a collateral consequence, stack the deck in FAVOR of defendants like this one). So, I strongly agree that the system is rigged so that defendants such as this one end up being favored on a systemic basis. But that’s the fault of the law, not this particular judge.
Here are a couple of examples of what I am talking about. In the Advisory Committee Comments to California Rule of Court 4.414, “Criteria affecting probation,” a judge is instructed that, in determining whether probation should be awarded, “it is appropriate to consider … whether the defendant’s home and work environment and primary associates will be supportive of the defendant’s efforts to comply with the terms of probation.” You can see how that rule would DISFAVOR a gang member who comes from a family of gang members, but would favor a defendant like Turner.
Also, under this particular rule, the judge is REQUIRED to consider whether there will be other “adverse collateral consequences on the defendant’s life from the felony conviction.” If there are other adverse consequences, that weighs in favor of probation. Again, you can see how this would DISFAVOR a gang member where it is (probably wrongly) perceived that a felony conviction would have less impact, and favor a defendant like Turner.
In looking at this judge’s behavior, it is important to consider the impact of rules like this one. If this particular rule applied (which I’m not sure if it does or not), it would mean that the judge would be REQUIRED to take into account the fact that the defendant was expelled from Stanford, lost the chance at the Olympics, etc. Of course, the judge could always find that those kinds of factors were OUTWEIGHED by other factors that weigh against probation, and I think we all agree he should have so found. But (if this rule applies) the judge would have been breaking the law if he had simply said, “I’m not going to even consider the adverse collateral consequences, like being banned from Stanford and swimming.” He had to have at least consider them (if the rule applies). Yet the judge is being criticized for even CONSIDERING that factor here.
(Of course, a judge in a different case would have to take into account that the sole breadwinner in a poverty-stricken family would not be able to get work; that’s a collateral consequence as well.)
I don’t have time to research whether this PARTICULAR rule applies to this case, let alone read all the case law interpreting this rule and other rules to figure out how this would all play out. I just wanted to point out how all these complex systemic pressures lead to rules that would not be obvious to someone reading the newspaper reports.
Someone might think, “It is obvious the guy’s racist because he mentioned Stanford and swimming,” but the judge might have been required to consider those consequences.
(Also, some people have it backwards on here. The judge can’t just give the minimum statutory sentence without considering probation. The judge has to at least CONSIDER probation, and if he DECLINES to give probation, he has to provide an analysis that JUSTIFIES that decision.)
Again, to be clear, I AGREE that the judge got it wrong; my only purpose in posting is to argue that he shouldn’t be recalled.
884 Donna: We have discussed that report on other threads. I am just not convinced. One reason is examples of gang rapes on college campus. I have difficulty believing all the serial rapists somehow end up at a party together and then all rape together.
MOWC talked about one of the Vanderbilt rapists who seems to me may have just ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. He is still a rapist. But maybe he isn’t a predatory, serial rapist. Dstark talks about guys (in their 50s/ 60s?) who got women drunk and carried them upstairs, but now understand that to be rape. I used to have several media examples at my fingertips, but don’t want to go look them up.
And I don’t pretend any of this is more than speculation on my part. It seems to me a campus rape culture leads to rape by some men who might not rape if the campus culture was all Swedes on bicycles stopping rapists and partying males trying to help unconscious women instead of taking the opportunity to rape them and men marching with their female friends in Take Back the Night events. I think people adapt to cultural norms. jmho.
adding: Do those of you who read Missoula think that defendant is someone with the potential to have been a predatory, serial rapist at college? I am not sure what I think about that, but probably I don’t really think so.
and also: It would be nice if the small number of serial rapists responsible for the majority of campus rapes were true, because then we could be more confident our sons aren’t potential rapists. Because that is a really horrifying idea.
Can someone please elaborate on whether the sex offender registry is a national or state registry? Are offenders required to register when they move? How is that monitored ? Thank you.
@alh,
The guy already was caught once.
To be a serial rapist, you have to start by being a rapist. 
So…could Brock potentially be a predatory serial racist.
Yes.
Brock’s police report is online.
Can a lawyer answer this question please? If Turner were to violate probation would he automatically be sent to prison to serve his term , or does a judge have some discretion as to the punishment for a probation violation ?
dstark: I am worried about Brock. That is why I’m A-okay with him on the list for the foreseeable future. I want women to know to be on guard.
@carolinamom2boys I’m not a lawyer but based on Google University 
I think it’s both federal and state registries. I say that because when I googled the other day, what I read is that there are law firms that specialize in getting client’s names removed. They detail what you have to do to get it removed federally and then they use that federal removal to have it removed at the state level.
It didn’t involve having a governor’s pardon. IIRC, basically it was not getting into any legal trouble for a certain number of year (10, I think) and some other steps that didn’t seem impossible.
It just gets worse. (If this story is true - admittedly a somewhat dubious source.)
Stanford rapist took photograph of victim’s breasts and sent it to friends