We have one person quoting the actual statutes versus another person stating falsehoods in this situation such as "mis representation falls under rape in Kansas law".
TSJ Thread
- Status
Original comment I was responding to stated there would be a "huge burden on TJ to prove consent" and I don't agree with that.
I do, however, agree with what you've put forth here: that every case or scenario isn't the same.
I do not know what he did or did not tell her (nor does hardly anyone). But hypothetically, if a person was going around Kansas and telling women he was a KC Chiefs football player to obtain consent and then had consensual sex with said women then the argument is that that is not consent because it was obtained under false pretenses.
I am by no means saying he is guilty of this or even that he did this or that his alleged misrepresentation was material. I’m just saying what appears to be the prosecution’s argument.
If the facts are more or less as we currently understand them, even if the prosecution can prove 1. The “inappropriate touching” occurred and 2. It was non consensual, I still think the prosecution will have a hard time securing a conviction on the rape charge given the stakes. If you were in the box would you be willing to send a guy to prison for 12 years based on the facts as we know them?
I realize prosecutors routinely overcharge to use as leverage to try and secure a plea to a lesser charge but I wish they wouldn’t.
And I stumbled across this story of a similar rape charge based on “inappropriate touching” that resulted in acquittal, so it does look like this DA’s office is willing to take rape charges based on inappropriate touching to trial:
lawrencekstimes.com
I realize prosecutors routinely overcharge to use as leverage to try and secure a plea to a lesser charge but I wish they wouldn’t.
And I stumbled across this story of a similar rape charge based on “inappropriate touching” that resulted in acquittal, so it does look like this DA’s office is willing to take rape charges based on inappropriate touching to trial:
Jury acquits ex-Lawrence police officer charged with rape
A former Lawrence police officer was found not guilty of rape and numerous computer crimes Friday following a weeklong trial in Douglas County District Court.
lawrencekstimes.com
Misrepresentation involves all aspects of law specifically consent and acceptance and agreement. Just because the statute does not specifically mention this or that it highlights more egregious examples does not mean misrepresentations are legal in all other situations.
So the success of their prosecution will hinge on how effectively they can convince the jury that the victim was under the influence of "fear or force". The defense will seek to undermine the credibility of that testimony. It is a tough situation when the jury has to make such a determination as to the authenticity of the victim but probably not uncommon in cases of this type. If there were video that confirmed her distress or seemed to show that there was nothing to indicate her concern that would be another issue. If the DA determines that this might be too tough a sale they will like look for a way out.
Tacomallini
- Washington State
Over/under on this thread getting shut down? 2 hours
I'm growing tired of the legal debates. Can we just sit and wait for more news?
No, if this goes to trial the jury will be read that the charge is rape by use of force or fear. If the prosecution starts talking about consent based on false pretenses then the judge and jury will be confused. Again, a quote from the Kansas City Star, "While Kansas does not have a general deception law like Missouri, it does criminalize certain types of deceit when used to obtain sex. Those portions of the law involve the “knowing misrepresentation” of the sex act as a “medically or therapeutically necessary procedure” or if it was a “legally required procedure within the scope of the offender’s authority.”
Here we go.... nothing like a subtle mention to get the ball rollin eh...
Stop reading them then. No one forces anyone to read the thread. You guys are ridiculous trying to control conversation.
Tacomallini
- Washington State
I’ll take that as “under”
IlliniKat91
- Chicago, IL
Amended: we have one person with access to a Bronze Tablet Scholar from Illinois Law who has more information than anyone else here, and someone who may or may not have a legal degree parsing out the language on the law.
Still going with option 1.
First time poster with a few questions for everyone. What are the spillover effects and unintended consequences from a trial that will attract attention both nationally and in the Chicago area? Will parents of high school boys hesitate to send their sons to a campus ruled by this DA? FYI, 40% of students at KU come from out-of-state, led by Illinois at 7.08%. Will other universities and colleges make Lawrence, Kansas a "no-go zone" for their men's athletic teams? What happens to the future of bars, restaurants, and any other gathering establishments in Lawrence? How do they react/over-react to this situation?
I am an attorney and I’m very much presenting facts. The term in Kansas is called “rape by fraud”. Numerous scenarios have been prosecuted.
The cases that I am familiar with the misrepresentation was more material than what appears to be in this case but still the argument is essentially “rape by fraud” or “rape by a misrepresentation”. And if you don’t think that is a real thing then there are people in prison in Kansas who disagree with you.
I would find it interesting to have a poll on what people’s thoughts are
1. Shouldn’t play until legal issue clears
2. Let him play but need actual facts first
3. Let him play he is innocent until proven guilty
4. Undecided
1. Shouldn’t play until legal issue clears
2. Let him play but need actual facts first
3. Let him play he is innocent until proven guilty
4. Undecided
In those situations, how would the charge read? In this particular case, there’s no mention of the word fraud, but “force or fear” are there.
Actually, we no longer have option 1 since they ran him off.
sacraig
- The desert
All we know about this situation is that it took place in Kansas at a bar per Whitman, and that the official charges are rape by force or fear or unlawful touching. Any mention of misrepresentation is speculation at this point and is only coming from one perspective. We do not know the alleged victim’s side of the story and probably will not until an affidavit is released.
A couple questions i am still curious about. 1. It appears misrepresentation of being a football player doesn't fall under felony charge by statute language but does it apply to voiding consent under misdemeanor charge? 2. When would we expect the defense to get all the prosecutions evidence? 3. If the 3 personal panel upholds suspension (for now anyway - which i expect they will unless TSJ reschedules until he has more evidence for his case with panel) is JW then in charge of decesion making or would the panel have to reconvene with new evidence until JW would take over when the legal process concludes?
Buried in 20 pages of repetitive argument and speculation, there has been actual relevant information posted. That's why I come back here.
I don't actually expect anyone to listen to me, I'm just complaining. I guess the smart thing to do is just read posts from 0440
chiefini
- Rockford, Illinois
I’ve read every single post on every single thread here, and I haven’t seen this question asked. Was TSJ still wearing Newton’s Illinois football jersey at the bar that he wore during the game that day? I’m wondering if the girl presumed that he was a football player because he had a football jersey on. Asking the attorneys here: would simply wearing that jersey be considered misrepresentation?
- Status