That is part of the reason Labrie hung his head after the class B felony conviction. He knew it also meant a conviction on the child endangerment charge.
@MaterS , trying to follow the bouncing ball here – do you mean that the felony computer conviction can rest on the child endangerment charge even if the misdemeanor rape charges don’t allow for it to apply?
@MaterS and @GnocchiB - I have the same question. I.e., could Labrie have been found not guilty of every single charge EXCEPT the child endangerment charge? Can the child endangerment conviction stand alone?
@prospect1 I don’t understand your question and probably don’t know the answer.
The AFSA verdicts were read first as not guilty. The next verdict read was the Felony B verdict which was guilty. He would have to be guilty of the AFSA (which he wasn’t) or the Child Endangerment charge to be convicted on the Felony B. The live feeds from the courtroom said Labrie’s reaction showed that he knew he would be convicted on the Child Endangerment charge. For Carney to say he didn’t know this would be a possible outcome seems odd.
The Crimson has more on how rescinding acceptances works in a case like Labrie’s. Speculation, but no details, on what happened here.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/9/11/rescinding-harvard-weighs-safety/
I think losing his Harvard acceptance is the least of his worries. It’s all about the felony conviction.
I do not understand the process of getting a charge dropped after he has been found guilty of it. Anyone?
You can ask for a lot of things on appeal, depending on the circumstances. The appeals court might find that he was improperly charged, for instance.
@Hanna, but can the trial court make a similar finding at this stage? The court approved the jury instructions on this charge; wouldn’t the court have to reverse itself somehow? Something like a criminal version of a JNOV?
Yes, this is not on appeal yet. The judge is allowing the defense to argue to drop the computer felony charge - that a jury found him guilty of. Completely confused here.
Wondering if those in the NH area have heard anything on local news on the Owen Labrie appeal?
The prosecution filed a 23 page objection today to defense counsel’s request for an appeal of the felony charge.
http://www.wmur.com/news/prosecutors-in-labrie-trial-expected-to-file-brief-thursday/35722674
Sure doesn’t look good for him.
Just a slight correction on the procedural status. The defense has filed a motion to set aside the verdict in the trial court, and the prosecution has filed an opposition to those papers. This is not an “appeal.” If the court denies the motion and enters a judgment consistent with the verdict, the defense would still be permitted to appeal the judgment (including on the felony charge) to a higher court. Just wanted to clarify the prior post that referred to the present motion as an “appeal.”
Thanks for the correction, @nottelling. My lack of legal expertise is evident. :">
Ok, so the defense basically gets a “do over” because it didn’t present the best argument the first time around, after having asked for a one week extension?
http://www.wmur.com/news/labrie-defense-reiterates-argument-against-felony-conviction/35922162
“Lawyers for a former St. Paul’s School student convicted of assault are reiterating their arguments that his most serious conviction be thrown out.”
"In a new court filing, his lawyers said a felony computer-related charge carries too harsh a penalty, requires him to register as a sex offender and is inconsistent with lawmakers’ intent that someone convicted of misdemeanor sex assault should not have to register.’
I have no idea what the latest filing is; I don’t practice criminal law; and I don’t practice in New Hampshire, BUT:
in most courts the briefing on a motion would consist of the moving party’s moving papers, the opposing party’s opposition papers, and the moving party’s reply papers (in which the moving party responds to points made in the opposition papers).
Therefore, in the ordinary course in most courts, the moving party would be expected (or even required) to file additional papers at around this time.
This would not be considered a “do over,” but instead just part of the normal briefing process.
Again, I don’t know the specifics of this filing. The news article is ambiguous.
Thanks for the info, @nottelling. I feel like I’m get an education in the legal process following this case more closely than I typically follow others.
This case is not the one we’re following but it raised a question in my mind:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/20/us/dating-app-sex-offender-sentence/index.html
In this case, a young man who was 19 at the time had sex with a girl he met online who claimed to be 17. It turns out she was 14.
Does this mean anyone planning to have sex with a teenager should first ask to see some ID? Seriously, how can a 19-year-old be expected to know that the girl is only 14? And assuming she is physically mature, how can anyone know that she’s only 14?
(I remember right after 9/11, my family and I were flying. My 12-year-old son was pulled aside for “special screening” and was being yelled at for not having photo ID, until I intervened to tell the TSA person that he was only 12. The TSA person snapped back, “Well, I don’t know how old he is! He could be 18!”)
Well, anyone soliciting sex from strangers on the internet probably should ask for ID. Everyone knows that people lie on the internet.
VH, here is my non-lawyer knowledge of the subject: if the state treats it as a “strict liability” offense, then the perpetrator’s state of mind or beliefs about the victims’s age did not matter.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/is-strict-liability-criminal-law.html