By NEWS9
JEFFERSON COUNTY, Ohio —
Attorneys gathered in Jefferson County Juvenile Court on Friday to address issues surrounding the upcoming trial of two Steubenville High School student-athletes charged with rape.
The only written motion that was ever entered for a Motion For Closure was filed by defense attorney Walter Madison — and he withdrew that motion today.
Prosecutors from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office didn’t file a written response, but said in open court they would like the trial closed to the public and the media. Prosecutors said their position since the original probable cause hearing has changed, and they want the trial closed.
Judge Thomas Lipps also listened to attorneys representing different media outlets who argued why they feel they trial should be open to the public.
Attorney Justin Wiater with Fitzsimmons Law Firm is representing the teenage girl who is the alleged victim on a civil basis. Wiater said he asked the judge to allow them to file a motion if necessary to argue their point to close the trial. However, he said he didn’t know if he had a legal basis to file that motion.
The judge is expected to make a ruling next week based on what was said today.
http://www.wtov9.com/news/news/attorneys-plead-case-keep-juvenile-rape-case-open-/nT627/
Do the accused need to submit to STD testing in case they infected the victim?
This post has so many more players than the one of 1/23, or 180 degress differnt. The victim’s attorney wanted no media coverage and now he doesnt know if a motion will be allowed to do so or not? Not a big confidence boost.
Either way,(altho i think it totally wrong for the trial to be broadcast) I dont think the images of these teens, either the abusers or the victim, will deter rape in any way shape or form. THat will only happen when people truly get that throwing out the c word or making snide remarks about fat women, or by trying to be “funny”, get it is not okay to act like the accused teenagers, and then question where were the adults to teach appropriate morales.
It was not only their “parents” that failed these kids, IMHO a whole lot of social media, internet, and so called adults spouting their extreme prejudices also share blame. I find it unfortunate that I have a regular dialog with my daughter about the bs that is written or filmed regarding women…..why adult women put up, participate or talk/write such crass, I simply cant understand.
THis is not simply one case of an innocent girl being violated, unfortunately is a much larger problem.
PS Lets hope STD, HIV, etc testing took place along time ago..
First they say they do, then they don’t. Then they say they will and then they won’t. The attorneys (defense and prosecution) are all over the board. Open trial--non-open trial. Change of venue--no change of venue. The photos are staged--they’re not staged. She’s awake--she’s asleep. Consent-non-consent.
My humble opinion (not based upon Harvard or Yale Law Professor caliber) is that the two juveniles are going to be found guilty. Period. Most defense attorneys, keeping in mind that there is always a distinct possiblity that their client will be found guilty, try to preserve the court record for appeal of a conviction. In my humble opinion, again, I don’t see that happening in this case. The defense seems to be simply preparing a case for not guilty. In my humble opinion, again, it won’t happen.
What the defense should be doing is, in addition to trying to refute the allegations, is to set up and preserve ways to mitigate any possible sentence or penalty that may be handed down.
This case is a perfect case for the defense to utilize all the criticism of cover-up, why weren’t others charged, where were the school officials, why not the prosecutor’s son, why were some given immunity, our clients are scape goats, etc. etc. to their benefit.
Since it appears that the defense wants more time to prepare, they should file pleadings that charges should be dismissed against their clients based upon “SELECTIVE PROSECUTION” of their clients.
Modern prosecutors have enormous authority in every phase of a criminal case, from the start of an investigation through the sentencing of a defendant after conviction. The source of that authority is the discretion the criminal justice system vests in prosecutors to decide whether to initiate an investigation, what charges to file, when to file such charges, and whther to offer a plea bargain or request leniency.
When prosecutors abuse their broad authority, the vexing questions are whether such prosecutorial misconduct violated a defendant’s constitutional rights, and, if so, what remedy to afford.
In this case, Jane Hanlin-the County Prosecutor, has made herself, based upon her actions and conduct, the perfect patsy. Instead of a full investigation and recusal of herself at the outset based upon conflicts, she chose to select who to charge, who not to charge and who to ignore. Her allegiance to the Steubenville School System and their protection can be shown to be the overriding reason why only these two (scapegoats) were chosen to “throw under the bus.”
It’s all out there! So defense attorneys—-”go with the force Luke!!!” Fight Darth Jane and the storm troopers with the ammunition they have left you. File motions for dismissal based upon the legal concept of “SELECTIVE PROSECUTION.” You may not be successful, but in the long run, it will expose the system your clients were faced with and may mitigate any type of punishment.
Selective prosecution cases are notoriously difficult to prove. Courts presume that prosecutors have not violated equal protection requirements, and claimants bear the burden of proving otherwise. But in this case, the proof is crying out!!.
Selective prosecution is the enforcment or prosecution of criminal laws against a particular class of persons and the simultaneous failure to administer criminal laws against others out-side of the target class. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that selective prosecution exists where the enforcement or prosecution of a criminal law is “directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons…with a mind so unequal and oppressive” that the administration of the criminal lw amounts to a practical denial of equal protection of the law.
Specifically, police and prosecutors may not base the decision to arest a person for, or charge a person with a criminal offense based on “an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classificaiton.”
The defense attorneys should be able to come up with a class to which their two clients fall into which is discriminatory in nature. Maybe just the class that they were underclass football players and not needed for the football season or other sports like the proseuctor’s son or others.
Now is the time for the defense to do more than merely appear for media photo shoots or network broadcasts. ‘SEIZE THE MOMENT”.
P.S. In my humble opinion.
Case authority: United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996)
Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962)
Bravo Harold! I greatly appreciate your time putting a legal perspective and agenda for that plaguing question… Why the defense was not utilizing the early investigation alleged mishaps, or obvious corruption that appears to exist, to their clients’ benefit in some way?
And with so much seemingly valid speculation of others involvement in the committing of the crime, why the defendants aren’t singing like canaries? To not would imply they had something to gain for their silence as the fall guys? IMO
Although I don’t wish to see the accused get off lightly, being tried as juveniles already establishes that fact to some degree.
If I may ask a question? Is there any possibility of, and if so a benefit to, awaiting a guilty verdict to bring further criminal charges on others? And in the same scenario, addressing any misconduct by officials? The civil matters I understand.
Thanks again for yet more brilliant insight! Dare I say you should compile all these posts into a book! RRR- Roll Retribution Roll
I so look forward to the posts by Mr. Harold Star and inSTA KARMA.
I really hope the defendants or at least someone that can relay the information has seen your comments. For the record the nickname “Darth Jane” is the best I’ve heard thus far. It is incredibly unfair to only prosecute the two youngest boys whose families aren’t in influential positions within the community. That alone doesn’t prove anyone else’s guilt but when looking at all the information and taking into the consideration the actions of the adults the appearance of impropriety is so completely overwhelming.
WTRF.com (Ch 7) is reporting that defense attorneys need more time because of new information coming in all week, “even today.” Is this the result of increased examination of their existing evidence or of all new evidence uncovered because of outside pressure? It sounds like new info is possibly flooding in.
CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE FOR JUVENILE RAPE CASE:
OPINION: Defense counsel are “playing the system.” Do they really need more time to examine and uncover new evidence? All of a sudden, just before trial date, this new, important and revealing evidence has been uncovered? Where was it a half year ago?
If the judge doesn’t grant the continuance and trial proceeds, will the failure to grant a continuance be a good grounds for appeal? Are they preserving a record?
Now the judge has to do a balancing act, which I am sure he does not appreciate. He can’t, on the record, indicate that he believes the defense are simply playing a stalling game (which they are--in my humble opinion). It all depends upon how “cautious” the judge feels he has to be.
Ohio Juvenile Rule 23 simply states: CONTINUANCES: “Continuances shall be granted only when imperative to secure fair treatment of the parties.”
If it were my call, which it’s not because I couldn’t qualify for a professorship at Harvard or Yale, let alone a judgeship, I would not grant the continuance. I would make sure the record gave strong and legitimate reasons though. I would put the attorneys to task on the record.
“The power of a trial court in a juvenile proceeding to grant or deny a continuance under Juvenile Rule 23 is broad and is reviewed under an a buse of discretion standard.”
“An appellate court will not find error unless it clearly appears, from all the facts and circumstances, that there has been an abuse of discretion operating to the prejudice of the party in the final determination of the case.”
“Nevertheless, the right of due process requires that a defense cousel be afforded the reasonble opportunity to prepare his case.”
“The Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized: There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary to violate due process. the answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particuarily in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.”
[LEGAL CITATIONS]: For the Harvard/Yale Law professor types that practice law in Steubenville for the sole joy of serving the public, the following legal cases support the statements above. In re Jordan B., Ohio 6th District Court of Appeals, 2007-OHIO-2537:State v. Thompson, Ohio 6th District Court of Appeals, 2000-OHIO-2665; State v. Sipes, Ohio 5th District Court of Appeals, 2008-OHIO-6627; Garrett v. Garrett, (1977) 54 Ohio App.2d 25,34; Blakemore v. Blakemore (1984), 5 Ohio St. 3d 217; State v. Sowders (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 143,144; State v. Unger (19810, 67 Ohio St. 2d 65, 67 and Ungar v. Sarafite (1964) 376 U.S. 575,589
Also see an article published inthe July-August issue of Judicature (Magazine) Volume 83, Number 1 by Jeffery A. Butts and Joseph B. Sanborn, Jr. entitled: “IS JUVENILE JUSTICE JUST TOO SLOW.”
Should the case proceed to trial as scheduled? As NIKE would say: “JUST DO IT.”