A halfway decent plea deal would not have included pleading guilty to a felony. No one would expect him to take that sort of deal on these facts. I think we can be confident that the deal was better than the verdict.
Edited to add: this kind of case is the sort that prosecutors most hope to resolve through a plea, because as we all witnessed, testifying at trial is tough on the accuser. So they have a lot of motivation to offer a favorable deal the defendant is likely to accept.
Agree about the plea deal being better than the verdict which may have been part of the reason Labrie’s reaction was so raw.
But – he reacted more dramatically to verdict on the misdemeanor statutory rape charge than he did to the verdict on the felony solicitation charge. I thought that was interesting and I didn’t know what to make of that. I had assumed that any plea deal would have required a guilty plea to the misdemeanor statutory rape charge.
I haven’t been following this case except by reading this thread every few days (I’ve been consorting with bears in the mountains, no internet) but did Labrie get the points in the contest for having sex with the accuser?
I’m surprised his parents didn’t make him take the plea deal, but maybe they’re arrogant jerks just like him. Rule to live by: when you hire an expert for their expertise, believe their expert opinion instead of firing them. All of the lawyers had to have been telling him to Take The Plea.
I would 100% bet he thought he was innocent.
Because everyone he knew told him that she was at fault for accepting an invitation to accompany him. And everyone he knew told him that they had done very similar things and the girls were never believed.
Know a kid my son’s age who was arrested for rape. She agreed to let him walk her back to her room. Four counts of sexual assault.
Yes, it’s not just our daughters but also our sons who need to be concerned about rape.
I’d bet that more men are rape victims than are falsely charged with rape.
I think what @VeryHappy meant was that our sons need to be very attuned to what the girl is saying; ambiguities need to be clarified on the spot. Parents spend a lot of time educating girls on safety; sadly, probably not nearly as much time educating boys about being GENTLEMEN.
My boys are now 26 and 31, so I am less concerned about this, but I have heard some stories of middle school girls accusing middle school boys of rape and the boys immediately being suspended, ostracized, charged legally, etc. When, in fact, it wasn’t true at all. My point is that boys need to be careful about being in a “compromising position” that could be misinterpreted or lied about.
Huh, because according to his fundraising letter he was working 3 jobs trying to raise money for his defense. Productive guy! (Sarcasm intended.)
(ETA: this in response to the statement that he’s been building a chapel.)
I educate my kids that all human beings are equal, and that you respect all human beings unless you have a very significant and clear reason not to.
And then, the only reaction once you do disrespect someone is to avoid them, not to retaliate or take advantage of them.
As for middle school girls and boys, there were multiple girls who were sexually active in middle school, though they would only admit to HS “dates”. I do not like the idea of parties in MS or HS where there is no adult supervision, and I and my children have missed nothing by not attending such parties.
“one night stands” are for sober adults who know what they are getting into. And “yes means yes” will more and more become the law for adults.
I just think it is a shame that the jury essentially considered whether “she wanted it” when clearly it was a statutory case and didn’t matter whether she was 15 or 10.
Not sure I buy the logic of this argument:
Judge Larry Smukler could still deny Carney’s motion to set aside the conviction on the basis that it should have been raised before or during the trial. But in Thursday’s request, Carney claimed that would have been impractical.
Labrie “could not have known that he would be convicted of the felony ‘computer’ charge but acquitted of all felony sex offenses,” he wrote.
^^^I agree it defies logic, and I’m still wondering why they didn’t try to have that charge thrown out before the trial began. Maybe Labrie can sue for legal malpractice?
I think his lawyer figured it wouldn’t have been thrown out in the beginning and assumed that they would have a better chance to have it thrown out if he was convicted.
Carney is an interesting guy. I read that he wears bright purple toenail polish under his black wingtips.
Except his argument that the felony solicitation charge should be thrown out is stronger now that Labrie has been acquitted on the felony rape charges. I think the strongest argument is that it is inconsistent with the legislature’s intent to have a felony charge for solicitation of a misdemeanor. (I didn’t read the link provided, so I may be off base.)
Suing for malpractice does not help Labrie. The question is whether he’d somehow have an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that would justify throwing out the felony charge but that is very, very difficult to prove.
Sorry, that suing for malpractice comment was intended to be sarcastic. This kid fired a few very good attorneys before settling on the guy who successfully got White Bulger acquitted of a grand total of ONE out of 32 charges.
@harvestmoon:
That is a lie, he doesn’t wear purple toenail polish…he wears black, he is a lawyer after all:)
“I think the strongest argument is that it is inconsistent with the legislature’s intent to have a felony charge for solicitation of a misdemeanor.”
I agree. It’s a misuse of the statute under these circumstances. It’d be a different picture if he had been convicted of the physical felonies.
TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 649-B
COMPUTER PORNOGRAPHY AND CHILD EXPLOITATION PREVENTION
Section 649-B:4
649-B:4 Certain Uses of Computer Services Prohibited. –
I. No person shall knowingly utilize a computer on-line service, internet service, or local bulletin board service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child or another person believed by the person to be a child, to commit any of the following:
(a) Any offense under RSA 632-A, relative to sexual assault and related offenses.
(b) Indecent exposure and lewdness under RSA 645:1.
(c) Endangering a child as defined in RSA 639:3, III.
II. (a) A person who violates the provisions of paragraph I shall be guilty of a class A felony if such person believed the child was under the age of 13, otherwise such person shall be guilty of a class B felony.
(b) A person convicted under paragraph I based on an indictment alleging that the person has been previously convicted of an offense under this section or a reasonably equivalent offense in an out-of-state jurisdiction shall be charged as a class A felony. If the indictment also alleges that the person believed that the child was under the age of 13, the person may be sentenced to a maximum sentence not to exceed 20 years and a minimum sentence not to exceed 10 years.
(c) If the person has been previously convicted 2 or more times for an offense under this section or a reasonably equivalent statute in another state, the person may be sentenced to a maximum term not to exceed 30 years.
III. It shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this section that the victim was not actually a child so long as the person reasonably believed that the victim was a child.
Source. 1998, 361:3, eff. Jan. 1, 1999. 2008, 323:4, eff. Jan. 1, 2009.
He was convicted on the RSA 639:3 Child Endangerment charge. I didn’t see a paragraph cited in the indictment.