K-9

I’m furious that I don’t have more places to vent my self righteous indignation.

I don’t know how many times I’ve addressed the issue and linked the legal info, but California law allows defendants to prove they had a reasonable and actual reason to believe the victim was 18 or over at the time. It’s not cut and dried at all that Araiza admitted to felony statutory rape.

No.

I don’t think the lord has forum privileges to do that.

I meant it as a question and should have used a question mark.

I’m inclined to believe it was the discovery of facts that exonerated him and not a news conference.

Here are the three things the prosecutor needs to prove under CA law. It’s rather easy to establish the age of the victim, perhaps the easiest. The onus is on the defendant to prove he had a reasonable expectation to believe the victim was of legal age. Defenses are also in the linked article. Interesting stuff. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/261-5/

Any lawyer worth his salt would never let his defendant client give a press conference to answer questions about the crime he’s accused of.

Actually, it’s the defendant that has to prove there was a reasonable and actual expectation to believe the victim was 18 or older. Evidence could include attire, appearance, venue, testimony, etc. The prosecutor merely has to establish the victim was under 18 at the time.

I submit that the punting game is built around much more than the punter’s leg.

Been saying this since the story broke: each year, teams and the league spend multi millions of dollars on pre-draft background checks and deeper investigations of hundreds of potential draft prospects. Unless the league and/or Bills private investigators were totally inept, I find it unbelievable that they couldn’t have known. It defies logic. That said, and because it happens often, private investigators may have been fed less than entirely truthful information at some point along the way.

I haven’t seen that, but I’ll take your word for it.

According to the plaintiff’s lawyer only at this point.

Like I said, “according to some in this thread.” Point is, it’s not up to the victim to drop anything police or the DA may be pursuing relative to bringing criminal charges.

There’s no reason a victim can’t pursue both criminal and civil litigation. According to some in this thread, the victim dropped the criminal pursuit because she and her family grew weary of the scrutiny, the time it takes to conduct a proper investigation, and frustration that the SDPD wasn’t concerned enough ( which I find ludicrous given her injuries). But that doesn’t mean the SDPD stopped their investigation. Victims don’t dictate that anyway. I suspect the reason there hasn’t been a criminal charge made is because the SD County DA didn’t have enough solid evidence to prosecute and, like most DAs, wasn’t gonna bring anything less than a slam dunk in front of a jury.

This is often the nature of civil litigation before settlements are reached, if they are reached at all. I doubt Araiza’s lawyer would be seeking the publicity had the plaintiff’s attorney not already fired the first salvo in the court of public opinion.

Not if Goodell allows them to place him on the reserve/suspended list. I’d be surprised if the team isn’t pursuing that permission.

That article only makes brief mention of the notion of mistaken age. California’s “Mistake of Facts” provision allows a defendant the opportunity to present evidence that he had a “reasonable and actual belief” the victim was 18 or older. This evidence may include appearance, attire, where you met the victim i.e the venue, adult party, etc.

Which is precisely why states have provisions to address legal gray areas.

The usual answer is that the DA’s investigation didn’t find enough evidence to bring criminal charges.

What is the logic behind this statement? Lying about your age has nothing to do with your level of promiscuity one way or the other. From a legal standpoint, I think it’s interesting that many states have exemptions for statutory rape defendants if there is a reasonable expectation for the defendant to have believed the victim was of legal age. For example and as I mentioned yesterday, California has the “Mistake of Facts” provision allowing defendants to present evidence that there was a “reasonable and actual belief” that the victim was 18 or older. Things like attire, appearance, presence at an adult party are all elements a defendant may use to prove he believed the victim was of legal age. So Araiza’s lawyer has some legal arrows in his quiver when it comes to the allegation that he had sex with a minor. But participating in a gang rape is an entirely different matter. If it can be proved that he participated, he deserves to be punished to the fullest extent.

Not available.

Fugly.

I didn’t think that was possible.

Piss poor safety and LB play on that TD.