@Consolation: I think you mean “civil asset forfeiture,” not “adverse possession.” Adverse possession has to do with private parties acquiring real property from its owner.
Actually, I believe the term I should have used is “constructive” possession. Thanks for picking up the error.
I agree, Consolation. I think Labrie is scum, and want him to do real time. But I really worry about that kind of broad application of the law in future cases.
The law should be changed, if indeed it was applied correctly (which I guess is the subject of the appeal). But I’m not going to cry if a scummy entitled guy is found guilty of violating a law he violated.
The law that allows police to expropriate property of people who weren’t convicted of crimes needs to be changed, too. Has that law ever been vetted by the Supreme Court?
@Consolation: For the non-lawyers, constructive possession is when someone is charged with having possession of something without actually having physical possession of it. For (common) example, if you’re pulled over and they find drugs in your car, you can be charged with possession of those drugs even though you weren’t actually carrying them. You’re deemed to have “constructive” possession of them.
I should note that constructive possession wasn’t invented to deal with drug mules though, that was just a happy accident.
@Cardinal Fang: Yes, the Supreme Court has looked at civil asset forfeiture several times and generally upheld it.
Civil asset forfeiture is another thing that has been widely abused. But getting into that would be OT for this thread.
No wonder Owen felt destined for Harvard! Was he planning to play soccer there?
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/10/25/harvard-mens-soccer-2012-report/
Harvard just canceled the remainder of this year’s season, citing that “the practice was not isolated to 2012 and had continued into this year.”
If he wanted to play soccer, he would have had to try to walk on. He was not recruited and did not have a roster spot. His soccer skills were not Ivy caliber. His admission to Harvard was based solely on his academic record and he had a very good one.
Thanks, @doschicos. I wasn’t sure whether or not he was a recruited athlete. Clearly, he had the academic chops. I like to think Harvard Admissions was fooled about his character, but that soccer team story makes me wonder. It’s depressing, frankly.
It’s disappointing to me that that behavior and those kind of comments are still made in 2016. It also floors me that people think that anything posted online will remain private. The documents and court filings from the Labrie case are evidence on how unwise that is.
Those Harvard soccer players had those, er, player evaluations on a public Google Doc. Talk about stupid!
Not sure it’s so much stupid as entitled…
I have some experience with Ivy League sports. There is a lot of really bad stuff going on- steroids, violence, sexual aggression, other drugs… People want to point at the SEC and other big athletic conferences, but the Ivy sports are really no better. It goes way beyond the big sports, too.
In other news- Branden Vandenburg was sentenced to 17 years today in the Vandy rape case. Thank goodness. My fellow lawyers and I were predicting 20.
Relieved to hear of a suitable punishment, one that Brock Turner should have received as well.
Oh, for Pete’s sake, Lucie, that’s quite a stretch to connect Owen Labrie to the Harvard soccer team. What about the other 17K plus men who apply each year? Or, is it just all admitted males?
@fretfulmother, it’s both stupid and entitled. They’re not mutually exclusive traits. Like my dad used to say: an educated jackass is still a jackass (and I’d add a Harvard-educated jackass…)
moderator’s note
All of the bickering threads have been deleted and the thread will be re-opened. If we cannot stick to the topic at hand thread will be permanently closed.
Owen Labrie is trying for a mistrial
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2017/02/22/lawyer-says-she-failed-owen-labrie-at-sex-assault-trial
“…Labrie, now 21, is free while he appeals his conviction and seeks a new trial. His appeal to the state Supreme Court is on hold while a Merrimack County Superior Court judge considers his request for a new trial based on ineffective counsel. A hearing on that matter began Tuesday and continued Wednesday…”
Oh, God, I’m not even reading that link. I clicked over to do so, then read the headline, and can’t stomach what I know will make me nauseous.
Wow, just wow. From the article:
"Jaye Rancourt, who served as local counsel to Labrie’s out-of-state defense team, said during cross-examination Wednesday that she was virtually shut out of the case.
Rancourt said she was so troubled by lead attorney J.W. Carney Jr.’s handling of the case that she considered asking for a mistrial, particularly after witnessing a conversation he had with a DNA witness in which he appeared wholly unprepared.
“That was the turning point,” she said. “The train was off the tracks.”
Under questioning from prosecutor Catherine Ruffle, Rancourt acknowledged that she did not approach either the judge or Labrie with her concerns, and said she realizes that amounts to ineffective counsel on her part.
“I didn’t want to scare him. I didn’t want to freak him out. This young man was on trial, he could go to prison. I didn’t think it was the best time to step in and say, ‘I think your counsel doesn’t know what they’re doing,’” she said.
“Looking back, there’s no question I should’ve come in this court room told your honor ‘There’s a huge problem,’” she said. “That’s my failure. I own it 100 percent.”
What a crock. She didn’t say anything because she thought he would get off. Now that he didn’t she’s trying to rewrite the story…What does this do to her reputation as a lawyer?