Steff

Thanks Greg! Now is the time I get reeeeeaalllyy into listening to the talk. And just for the heck of it I pulled out my "we just might be dumb enough to win this thing" compliments of Robin in 1997. Maybe it'll bring us some good luck...

CK.. you are a cop, right..? I think you are... and if you are, have you ever seen the Rape Shield law in action..?

No thoughts until the prelim. Class 3 assult is the most difficult to prove though. That says a lot about what evidence they may or may not have though..

Ick! No way!! I have 2 friends that are lawyers and one that is a legal assistant.. their hours suck! This case just intrests the heck out of me. Having been through something similar where the media runs with BS stories I can kind of feel her pain. I hope that if this is all true she sues the crap out of them!

Maybe one of the guys here can help...?

From this, looks like her past will not be an issue. This is a case where it was used: http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/9...6-1380.wpd.html And for some reason the link to this will not copy, so her is the law. The Rape Shield Law Under certain circumstances, the Rules of Evidence prohibit the introduction into evidence of the victim’s previous sexual history in criminal cases of sexual assault and incest. Called the rape shield law and codified in KRE 412, this exclusionary rule extends beyond cases of rape to all prosecutions brought under KRS Chapter 510 ( i.e., sexual offenses), for incest, and for conspiracies or attempts to commit any such offenses. While the analogous Federal Rule of Evidence extends the rape shield law into both civil and criminal proceedings. The Purpose of the Law: The purpose of KRE 412 is "to prevent the victim in a sexually related crime from becoming the defendant at a trial." Smith v. Commonwealth, App., 566 S.W.2d 181, 183 (1978). Before the enactment of the rape shield law, "evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct was admissible to support the proposition that if she consented to have relations with one or more persons then she consented to the relations with the defendant." Smith, 566 S.W.2d at 183. While KRE 412 does permit the introduction into evidence of the victim’s sexual history under limited circumstances, its "balancing test contains ‘an obvious tilt toward exclusion over admission.’" Commonwealth v. Dunn, 899 S.W.2d 492, 494 (1995), citing R. Lawson, The Evidence Law Handbook Section 2.30 (3d ed. 1993). Type of Evidence Excluded: Whether a victim’s past sexual history will be excluded under KRE 412 depends, in part, upon what form of evidence is presented. Reputation and opinion evidence of the victim’s past sexual behavior is never admissible. KRE 412(a). This prohibition means that no witness may take the stand in a rape case and testify, for example, that the victim had a reputation in the community for morally loose conduct. In contrast, evidence of particular acts by the victim is generally not admissible, unless it comes within three exceptions specified in the rule. KRE 412( b. While the rule does provide for admission of evidence concerning prior sexual behavior pursuant to these three exceptions, these exceptions are to be construed very narrowly. "KRE 412( b is to be used sparingly and carefully." Violett v. Commonwealth, 907 S.W.2d 773, 776 (1995). See, e.g. Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 838 S.W.2d 376 (1991)(in trial of step-father for raping his step-daughters, evidence that one stepdaughter had requested birth control devices and that another had prior sexual activity with individuals other than the defendant was excluded under the then existing rape shield law). Limited Circumstances Where Past Sexual Behavior May Be Admitted: The first exception to KRE 412 provides for admission of evidence of past sexual behavior with persons other than the accused, offered by the accused upon the issue of whether the accused was or was not, with respect to the alleged victim, the source of semen or injury. KRE 412(. b(1). This exception would be most commonly used when the issue at trial was the identity of the assailant. If, for example, a defendant in a rape case asserted that he was not the rapist and that the attack was committed by another, the defendant would use this exception to argue that another person with whom the victim had been sexually involved was the one who actually committed the assault. The second exception to KRE 412 permits the introduction of past sexual behavior if it is evidence of past sexual behavior with the accused and is offered by the accused upon the issue of whether the alleged victim consented to the sexual behavior with respect to which an offense is alleged. KRE 412(. b(2). This exception targets cases where the consent of the victim is at issue. If, for example, the defendant and the victim had a previous sexual relationship, the defendant may attempt to offer that into evidence to demonstrate that she consented to the sexual act at issue in the trial. Finally, KRE 412 contains a general relevancy exception permitting the introduction of "any other evidence directly pertaining to the offense charged." KRE 412(. b(3). Procedural Requirements When Attempting to Offer Past Sexual Behavior Into Evidence: If the defendant intends to offer evidence of the victim’s previous sexual behavior, he is required to comply with certain procedural requirements for its admission and may not simply wait until trial to present the evidence. The defendant is required to make a written motion to offer the evidence, as well as an order of proof, and must do so no later than fifteen days before trial. If, however, the court determines that the evidence is newly discovered and could not have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence or that the issue to which the evidence relates has only newly arisen, then the defendant may file a written motion to offer the evidence at later date, including during trial. KRE 412(. c(1). If the court determines that the offer of proof contains evidence within the specified exceptions of KRE 412(.b, then the court shall conduct a hearing in chambers, meaning spectators will not be permitted to be present. Both parties are entitled to call witnesses and present evidence at the hearing. Evidence of past sexual behavior may be admitted only if the court finds that it is relevant and "that the probative value of such evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice." KRE 412(. c(3). If the evidence is admitted, however, the defendant is limited in the extent of the evidence offered and the manner in which he may present it: the court shall issue an order specifying the evidence which may be offered and "areas with respect to which the alleged victim may be examined or cross-examined." KRE 412(. c(3). Questions about Crimes of Rape and Sexual Assault and the Use of the Rape Shield Law Can a perpetrator be prosecuted for rape or sexual assault even if there were no witnesses to the attack and no physical evidence? Yes, the victim’s testimony is sufficient to support a conviction in cases of rape and other kinds of sexual assault. Such testimony is not required to be corroborated: Even if the evidence of the alleged victim is viewed as uncorroborated, standing alone it is still sufficient to prove all the elements of the crime charged, and to create a jury issue. It has long been the rule in rape cases that "the unsupported testimony of the prosecutrix, if not contradictory or incredible, or inherently improbable, may be sufficient to sustain a conviction." Dyer v. Commonwealth, 816 S.W.2d 647, 651 (1991)(holding that there is no corroborative requirement for sodomy cases) (citations omitted), see also Commonwealth v. Cox, 837 S.W.2d 898 (1992). Will a perpetrator who is intoxicated at the time of the offense be permitted to argue that intoxication as a defense? No. Voluntary intoxication can be a defense only to crimes which are "intentional and knowing offenses." Malone v. Commonwealth, 636 S.W.2d 647 (1982). The statutes defining rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse do not require any specific intent on the part of the perpetrator. Therefore, "once the prohibited acts are done, the crimes of forcible rape and sodomy are complete without regard to the effect of voluntary intoxication on the accused’s mental state." Malone v. Commonwealth, 636 S.W.2d 647 (1982). If a sexual assault victim files a civil action against the perpetrator will the rape shield law apply in the civil context? Maybe – it depends if the victim files her suit in state or federal court. In Kentucky state courts, the rape shield law does not apply. In federal courts, however, the rape shield law applies to both criminal and civil cases. Given that Congress recently passed a federal civil rights remedy for crimes of violence motivated by gender, the federal courts will prove an increasingly important forum for victims of sex crimes who are seeking to recover civil damages from their perpetrators. The federal rape shield law, FRE 412, has different standards in criminal cases and in civil cases for excluding past sexual behavior of the victim. In the civil context, FRE 412 provides: In a civil case, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual predisposition of any alleged victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible under these rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. Evidence of an alleged victim’s reputation is admissible only if it has been placed in controversy by the alleged victim. FRE 412(. b(2). If a victim had a previous sexual relationship some time ago with the perpetrator, will that previous relationship still be admitted into evidence under KRE 412(. b(2)? The remoteness of the relationship should dictate that it not be admitted, but much depends upon how much time has elapsed since that relationship. The Supreme Court has held that KRE 412 "still clearly vests a circuit court with the discretion to refuse to permit remote evidence of [an] alleged past sexual relationship between the accused and the alleged victim." Dunn v. Commonwealth, 576 S.W.2d 492, 494 (1995). In the Dunn case, the Court ruled that evidence of a previous sexual relationship which had existed between the victim and her rapist seven years before the assault had been properly excluded by the circuit court. In Reneer v. Commonwealth, Ky., 784 S.W.2d 182 (1990), the Court excluded evidence of a sexual relationship which allegedly existed between the sodomy victim and the perpetrator one month before the attack. The Court found that "key elements" in ruling to admit evidence of a previous sexual relationship were whether there were other direct witnesses and physical evidence in addition to the testimony of the victim. Since the Reneer case had two witnesses who testified that the victim did not consent, the Court held that the evidence of the previous sexual relationship was "neither material nor relevant to consent." Reneer, at 183. What is the difference between the rape shield law and the rules on psychotherapist and counselor privileges? The rape shield law is an evidentiary rule which excludes evidence because that evidence has been determined generally to be irrelevant and prejudicial to the criminal trial. The rules of privileges, contained in KRE 506 and 507, in contrast, exclude possibly relevant information because the harm to the victim and to society caused by revealing such information generally outweighs the benefit of admitting that information in a court proceeding. These privileges belong to the client or patient, and must be either asserted by them or by someone on their behalf or they will be waived.

Mine were too big, too. So I resized them. The program I have did it for me - I just requested to reduced the size.

No kidding! Ya like that tree.. We have one on the other side of the driveway, too. We're the only house left that's built that doesn't have grass. Waiting for the sprinkler morons to put the system in before the sod is put down. With all the rain it keeps getting put off. Hopefully soon though.. I don't want to have the BBQ without grass and horseshoe pits.

With what we've heard so far.. I agree. Not a good chance at all. But that's the way it should be. Nothing should come out until the prelim. But like I said the other day.. that DA looked scared s***less. I think the reason he held off on charging him was because he wanted an air tight case. He consulted with law enforcement around the state. They all agreed he should proceed. I don't see that many people agreeing and there not being some ace in the hole.

cw, you brought up a great point and I did a little research looking for such case law to support the relevance of a witnesses "stability" in a matter such as this. I was unable to find any ruling in any of the 50 states, as well as federal court (supreme court appeals - 21 rape cases since 1998) where the "mental stability" of the witness was called into question and used as the primary defense. Several attempts, but not 1 was allowed. I'm sure there are a few cases out there (with 1365 rape cases being filed since 1998) that have been able to enter some "stability & credibility" evidence.. but not one where the case was based solely on that. If he doesn't get a change of venue, he's screwed. This is the girls only strike.. and to be honest.. after just loosing her best friend I wouldn't be surprised if a jury has sympathy for her. BTW, sources are FindLaw.com and CourtTV.com

Spiff.. I just wanted to clarify that her friends "opinions", IMO will not be admissable. You're probably right that her mental state (and whether she was on anti-depressents after the suicide attempt, etc.. ) will more then likely be an issue the defense will be all over.

Great pics!! You were pretty close to our season seats. We're 107, first row behing the patio, nearer to the foul pole, last 4 seats.

Completely agree. Although, this is a fairly small town 30K in the entire 51 mile are I think I heard. Odds are that since they are a pretty prominent family that they are known and probably liked. I'm guessing that they've been in the public eye a long time. During jury selection they will be told to disregard all that they've heard and that it can't be a factor in their decision. Yeah... I know, it'll be too late, but I guess you just have to hope that jurors will deliberate based only on the pertinant information of what took place that night. I was on jury duty 2 years ago on a fairly public case. With all the information that was thrown at us in court I totally forgot about what I had heard the previous 11 months leading up to the trial. Regardless.. I have total sympathy for whomever is on this jury (if it even gets that far). It is not a easy task deciding the fate of another person.

Not to say he is innocent because I believe he is guilty based on what I know so far, but this could be a huge piece of damage to her credibility. It's too bad her dumb friend had to open her mouth. If it were your sister, mother, girlfriend, etc... would you think something that happened months ago should hurt her credibility? And I agree with CK 100%. No change of venue and they might as well fit him for a jumpsuit right now. For every 1 person talking s*** about her, there are 100 who have had nothing but positive things to say. This girl seems to be very well liked in the community. Doesn't have a scratch on her record (other then this) and what her "friends" are saying about her "looking for attention" is not admissable in court.

I've not heard that he is wealthy, can anyone confirm this?

For every one good article there will be 50 bad ones. And it's the media.. of course they are going to protect their "darling" superstar. Wait for the facts in court. Even if half this stuff is true, the other half are lies.

Umm capn.. I'm not sure you understood. He was blaming MANUEL for Koch's problems. Koch get blamed... noooo.

I can't make any promises. I'm sure I can get a few because of the amount of $$ the company spends. But I would say call the AT&T outlets. I'm sure they are like everyone else and if they see an opportunity to make a buck they'll start selling them..

I'll check tomorrow. We also have a national account with AT&T so maybe the'll send a bunch.

Oh.. I'm sure this will get the standard "boys will be boys" idiot reply, but you're right. It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt. Why can't the idiots who do this crap get hurt..? A little poetic justice would go a long way, IMO.

Unfortunately, and sadly, an expected occurance since everything is avaliable via the internet. Love to see how those asswhipes would deal with seeing their mother's or sister's information being flashed all over the place. How WITHOUT facts either way, hearing and seeing their relatives name with "whore, slut, and b****" after it would make them feel.

If anyone is interested. She's a former choir singer... oye ve!! http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/sports/6340428.htm Also, supposedly the girls father is a billionaire. Majority stockholder in Boeing and Lockheed. And Jim Gray from ESPN as well as some of the girls friends were on LKL. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/18/lkl.00.html Pretty interesting and detailed forensics stuff. And it appears it's not just he said, she said. Blood, torn clothes, skin under her nails.. etc, etc. Not good.

AT&T by my work is still giving them away.. have you called them in your area yet? I can see if they have any more tomorrow and if they do get one and send it to you if you want.

Jeff Brantly on Baseball Tonite puts the whole Koch fiasco and failure in the lap of Jerry Manuel. Said when Koch struggled early he should have been nurtured and brought along into situations that he would succeed in and build up his confidence. Instead, Manuel pushed him aside until he lost his confidence, his mechanics and his fastball, and now he is lost. Why not blame it on Koch screwing up? Why must a grown man be nutured..? Why not blame the pitching coach? Everything is not JM's fault, MO of course..

Cerb.. relax.. he's just a kid. Give him some time...