Labrie was a prefect, so yes, he knew exactly what the rules were. It’s also clear from his emails.
@doschicos I get what you’re saying about the state proving it’s case. I’m making the assumption about why the jury came to its decisions. I should have said that if the jury thought the state proved its case that the sex was not consensual they would have found him guilty of aggravated sexual assault.
By the same token, I should have said that the guilty verdict on the counts of misdemeanor sexual assault resulted from the jury believing that the state proved that the victim was under the age of 16 and the defendant sexually penetrated her.
Here’s a summary of NH’s age of consent law.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/new-hampshire-statutory-rape-laws.htm
@ baseballmom You still aren’t getting it. We don’t know that the jury found the young woman consented to sex. We ONLY know that the jury found that it was not beyond a reasonable doubt that she consented OR that Labrie knew or should have known that she did not consent.
So, if the jury thought there was a reasonable doubt that the victim consented, they would not convict, even if they believed it was PROBABLE that she did not consent.
Yes, I am “getting it.” Labrie was charged with three counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault. If the jury had found that the state proved its case that by “speech and/or conduct that she did not freely consent.’’ they would have found him guilty. At this point, it’s semantics.
The three misdemeanor sexual assault charges, and guilty verdicts, are as a result of the jury believing that the state proved that she had not yet achieved the age of 16 and that there were three instances of penetration.
The felony luring charge, and guilty verdict, is a result of a 1990’s law regarding communication to solicit sex with a minor via computer. If he had communicated with her via a letter, a text, or called her on her cell with the exact same exchange occurring between them, there would be no luring charge.
@baseballmom one of the reasons for minors being restricted in their “capacity” to consent is that a very young teen may well regret choices that seemed ok in the moment. That’s why the law says “no” as the default for them.
@fretfulmother NH law dictates that since she was under 16 she was unable to consent to sexual penetration. The Romeo and Juliet law in NH would have protected him against prosecution if the sexual activity had not included penetration. She could have willingly engaged in non-penetration sexual activity, and regretted it later, but there would be no crime.
A person that I feel sorry for in all of this is the young man that Labrie persuaded to get the young woman to change her mind, after she had said “No” to the whole idea of the Senior Salute. That young man was presumably not party to Labrie’s email commentary. It appears that he was about the same age as the young woman. From what I can tell from the story, Labrie prevailed upon the young man to represent his (Labrie’s) intentions as honorable. When one considers why the young woman went with Labrie “willingly,” I think it is important not to lose sight of this element of the story.
Correction (I think) to my luring comments above. I think that the misdemeanor verdicts triggered the guilty verdict in the luring charge. If there had been no penetration, there would be no legal sexual assault. I’m not an attorney, obviously, but if there was no misdemeanor sexual assault guilty verdict, I would assume the luring charge would have to be not guilty.
@baseballmom No, you aren’t getting it. There doesn’t have to be a sexual assault guilty verdict for a luring charge. In fact, in many cases, the “minor” is in fact an undercover cop and no penetration takes place. This week in an April Fools operation, one town near Disney World picked up 18 men who thought they were meeting minors for sex. The minors were cops. http://www.newsflow24.com/florida-crazies-18-pervy-pedophile-men-arrested-in-child-sex-sting-operation-t9l9 Yes, I know, it isn’t NH.
Labrie’s counsel’s argument is that the “luring” statute is aimed at situations in which strangers entice kids for sexual purposes using the internet and should not be applied to situations in which a male teenager used the internet to lure someone who knew him IRL.
If I were on the jury, and just couldn’t decide whether or not there was consent, I would in all good conscience have to acquit on that charge. Meaning, I absolutely don’t know whether or not there was consent. That is nowhere near the same as saying I determined there was consent, so therefore acquitted.
Unless we know where each juror stood on that issue, there is absolutely no way to conclude that the jury believed the acts were consensual. We don’t know that they did, and we don’t know that they didn’t.
What is interesting I think is that Labrie’s legal counsel has filed a stay on the appeal in conjunction with the motion requesting a retrial. So, basically he’s highly likely to do his full year in jail no matter what, one would assume. Despite receiving no jail time for the felony conviction, overturning that felony conviction seems to be the main motivating reason for all this legal response from his attorneys, to remove the felony from his record and the burden of being on the sexual offender registry list for life, or at least 15 years. Do we assume from this latest twist that his lawyers believe that an appeal is unlikely? That a motion for retrial for ineffective counsel is a better bet? A legal expert on ABC news said that retrials for ineffective counsel are usually given only for things like a drunk lawyer not because you don’t like the way your lawyer presented your case or because they didn’t work every angle.
I don’t understand why he is appealing and keeping his name in the spotlight. He will now be in jail until his appeal is heard. Now he may possibly spend more than a year in jail. Who is the lawyer giving poor advice now? She’s just racking up the billable hours and he must have someone funding it.
It’s interesting that his current attorney was part of his counsel team during his trial, obviously taking a small role (maybe because of her NH bar?), yet she is also filing for retrial for ineffective counsel.
I don’t think the billable hours or the $ is the focus here. For trial attorneys in these types of cases, publicity is everything. Win or lose it gets their name out there. So again I am wondering who is guiding this boy? Does not appear to me that anyone is managing the attorneys.
It’s in his best interests to get this case behind him, not so for the attorneys.
@jonri Yes, again, I do get it. We are talking about THIS case. Labrie was charged with luring her via computer. His contact with her is only criminal because there was penetration. If there was no penetration there would be no luring in THIS case because nocrime would have occurred. Are YOU getting it?
Is Labrie appealing just the felony charge? Is it possible to appeal only that one verdict? It doesn’t seem to make any sense to appeal the misdemeanor sexual assault. If he can appeal just the felony, that seems like a logical step to take.
Does anyone know the impact of being a registered sex offender? Would he be prohibited from dropping his future children off at school, attending their soccer games, having a birthday party at his home, taking them to a pediatrician’s office, driving his kids to other homes where children reside, etc.?
I would hope that registered sex offenders would not be allowed to be around other peoples children. That’s why on they are checked on Halloween. I’m not going to get into who may or may not actually do anything that is on the list. But I assume they are not going to be at one of my kids games or at school during the day.
“A legal expert on ABC news said that retrials for ineffective counsel are usually given only for things like a drunk lawyer not because you don’t like the way your lawyer presented your case or because they didn’t work every angle.”
I have no idea about NH case law, but as a general rule, yes. It’s almost impossible to have a conviction thrown out for ineffective assistance. Texas let a case stand where the lead lawyer was ASLEEP. (That’s Texas, but still.) I can’t believe the odds on direct appeal wouldn’t be higher than the odds of winning retrial on an IAC argument.
Even a successful civil suit against your lawyer for malpractice wouldn’t necessarily mean you’d get your conviction overturned.
So from your professional experience and education, @Hanna, what do you make of this latest play by defense counsel? Desperation? Bill padding? Lack of any other option so lets roll the dice, what the heck?