Savannah Dietrich case

[Hunt]

<p>

I don’t understand how an individual could ever be bound by an agreement (the plea deal) to which she was not a party. The victim isn’t even a party to the case, technically; only the prosecutors/people are. So what would be the source of a judge’s power to tell a private citizen that she would be in contempt for telling her own story? I don’t get it.

Was she present in court when the “gag order” was issued?</p>

[kayf]

<p>Yes, Hunt she was. But that does not mean a judge can tell her not to report the facts of that night. Not in this country. And her superior judge smacked her down.</p>

[kayf]

<p>abs --its like saying nananana – oh little girl who misbehaved has to take it. </p>

<p>How could the boys’ parents not be civilly liable? Does anyone think these were not the parent’s cell phones used?</p>

[Hunt]

<p>Judges typically feel they can issue orders to anybody they can see. They don’t always stick, of course.</p>

<p>In many states, parents are civilly liable for certain kinds of harm done by their unemancipated children. I just took a quick look, but it appears that Kentucky may not have such a law. If it doesn’t, then the issue would be whether the parents themselves acted in a negligent fashion that caused the harm. I’m not aware that there’s evidence that they did. The fact that they provided cell phones to their children probably wouldn’t be enough. Failing to raise their sons properly wouldn’t be, either, unfortunately.</p>

[07DAD]

<p>I think 63 SW3d 602 provides a good discussion by a Ky intermediate appellate court on a non party gag order under Kentucky law. Seems there is a balancing test.</p>

<p>kayf --I thought the boy’s (or boys") attorney dropped the motion for contempt. Did some judge strike the order or was it that they unsealed the file, if you know?</p>

[kayf]

<p>The superior judge - not certain of title, issued an order than basically said the first judge never issued the order, but it would have been wrong if she did.</p>

<p>07dad – do you really think any rape victim should not be allowed to come forward? did that case deal with rape? Sorry, can not access.</p>

[kayf]

<p>Hunt – there has been such discussion here that the girl, a minor, should have been more aware of sexting, surely the BOYS parents, Frey and Zehnder, would have been negilgent to have been aware of sexting and directed their boys not to use the phones for such?</p>

[07DAD]

<p>That is interesting from a technical point if the reviewing court found no such order had been entered. Usually, court’s avoid issuing advisory opinions. kayf–do happen to have a link handy on this narrow issue that you would be willing to post.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

Newly released videotape shows that a Jefferson County juvenile judge strictly admonished 17-year-old sexual assault victim Savannah Dietrich and her two attackers to keep quiet about the attack, telling them no one should speak about it “for any reason.”

</p>

<p>

Rebecca DiLoreto, a juvenile specialist and post-trial division director in the state Department of Public Advocacy, watched the hearings and looked at court documents at the request of the newspaper and said it appears McDonald overstepped her authority.</p>

<p>DiLoreto said a judge can order that court proceedings not be discussed but Kentucky’s juvenile code “does not prohibit a victim from speaking about the incident for any reason to anyone. … That was essentially the prohibition set upon the case and upon all in the courtroom.”

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.indystar.com/article/20120913/NEWS01/120913020/Judge-warns-teens-not-speak-about-Louisville-girl-s-sexual-assault-any-reason-[/url]”>http://www.indystar.com/article/20120913/NEWS01/120913020/Judge-warns-teens-not-speak-about-Louisville-girl-s-sexual-assault-any-reason-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[kayf]

<p>07dad, I am having trouble opening here – but this may be it</p>

<p>[Court</a> Ruling](<a href=“Court Ruling | PDF”>Court Ruling | PDF)</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Hunt – there has been such discussion here that the girl, a minor, should have been more aware of sexting, surely the BOYS parents, Frey and Zehnder, would have been negilgent to have been aware of sexting and directed their boys not to use the phones for such?

I think it would be unlikely that you could show negligence by trying to show that parents didn’t specifically instruct their children not to commit a crime. Anyway, the parents and the children might well testify that the parents did tell their sons not to “sext” (whether it’s true or not). Perhaps if there were evidence that the boys had misused the cell phones in similar ways before, and the parents knew about it and did nothing, there might be a case. But I’m not aware that there is any such evidence.</p>

[kayf]

<p>Hunt, the parents gave the boys the specific tool they needed to commit a crime. Yes, the phone can be used for other things, but it can also be used to commit a crime. One of the boys’ mothers was president of the mothers club at Trinity. I suspect during any civil trial, she will be asked if she was aware of any sexting, etc at Trinity, and did she tell her son not to do that. I think it would strain a reasonable persons credibility to accept that the boys were warned, and nonetheless gave the police statements they did.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>I don’t know how accurate this is but one law firm lists the laws of various states regarding parent liability. Parents are rarely liable for the criminal acts of their children unless there is a statute creating such liability. Vandalism, auto liability, and owner entrusting vehicle to minor might be basis for parent liability in Ky. Maybe there are more. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.mwl-law.com/CM/Resources/Parental-Responsibility-Chart.pdf[/url]”>http://www.mwl-law.com/CM/Resources/Parental-Responsibility-Chart.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Hunt]

<p>

Hunt, the parents gave the boys the specific tool they needed to commit a crime. Yes, the phone can be used for other things, but it can also be used to commit a crime.

This might be a good argument if it were, say, a gun, but it’s not negligent to give your child a phone (or a hammer, or a bicycle, etc.). There would have to be some evidence of negligence on the part of the parents–it’s not enough that something they gave their children was misused.</p>

<p>On a second look, it does not appear to me that Kentucky has a law imposing liability on parents for the wrongful acts of their children, except for the limited situations razorsharp found. The boys themselves could be sued, and it’s possible that they have assets.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

The boys themselves could be sued, and it’s possible that they have assets.

</p>

<p>Certainly possible, but it would surprise me if they had assets other than clothing etc. If they have trust set up for them, I bet the trust are spendthrift or I bet the parents are quickly dissolving the trusts before any civil judgment can be entered.</p>

[07DAD]

<p>Well, it appears Ky does recognize a common law negligence claim against the parents for negligent control/supervision as discussed in 249 SW3d 174.</p>

<p>The example case tried to establish the negligence of the parents relating to their underage son driving drunk and causing brain damage to one of the kids in the car with him when he hit a tree. No negligence in part because every time they discovered their son had been drinking they took stern measures to punish him.</p>

[OhioMom3000]

<p>“My larger point was that I do not have any reason to question the “methodology” of the Texas study.”</p>

<p>1000 teens from one area of Texas is not a representative sample of the population of US teens. You may not question the methodology of the survey. I do.</p>

<p>“I don’t have any reason to believe, though, that the Texas study or any other study is flawed just because it was limited in scope!”</p>

<p>I suggest reading up a bit on statistical studies. A study will not be accurate without a representative sample of the population it is examining. That is why the most reliable surveys on US population are national surveys. Otherwise, there is bias.</p>

[LasMa]

<p>

do you think a young woman exposes herself to any risk if she wears “provocative” (defined however you like) clothing to a party at a frat house where there will be heavy drinking?

</p>

<p>Hunt, the assumption behind this question is the notion that rape is a crime of lust. It is not. It is a crime of power and control. The goal is to degrade and dehumanize the woman. Sex is merely the weapon.</p>

<p>

Myth: Wearing sexy or provocative clothing makes rapists take action. Fact: Rapists are fully responsible for their actions. Most convicted rapists admit they don’t remember what the victim was wearing. Furthermore, in interviews with convicted rapists, many say they mostly look at the shoes of the victim to determine the ability to run away or fight back.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://lookingglasstheatre.org/trust/Rape_Myths.pdf[/url]”>http://lookingglasstheatre.org/trust/Rape_Myths.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[razorsharp]

<p>From the case O7Dad cited:</p>

<p>

Kentucky’s highest court has cited, with approval, the following description of a parent’s duty to supervise or control the minor child:
A parent is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his minor child as to prevent it from intentionally harming others or from so conducting itself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, if the parent</p>

<p>(a) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his child, and
(b) knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.

</p>

<p>

Parents are not required to be prescient, however. Thus, in James v. Wilson, this Court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the parents of a high-school student, who shot several classmates, on the claim of negligent supervision because there was no evidence that the son had exhibited any behavior that should have placed his parents on notice that they needed to prevent him from shooting his classmates.

</p>

<p>If that is the Ky law and there is no liability for the crime of shooting someone, there is probably no liability for sexual assault. Then again, you never know.</p>

[kayf]

<p>Razor, I suspect it will all be individual specific. In the shooting case, the parent’s may have had a reasonable expectation that there son would not shoot anyone. Based upon some of the statistics being bantered here, Frey and Zehnder’s parents should have had no reasonable expectation that they would not use their phone for sexting, etc. Did they tell them not to? Again, hard to believe that the boys had been made aware of this, and still gave the statements they did to the police.</p>