redwingillini11
White and Sixth
- North Aurora
Terrence Shannon Jr. suspended
- Status
If an alleged victim is being examined relatively soon after the incident, hospital staff can be called on to testify as to the alleged victim’s state of mind and demeanor. Was she intoxicated? Was she emotional? Was she in shock? Etc.
This can be particularly relevant if the hospital staff is someone who specializes in post-assault examinations and can testify as to prior experience examining persons in similar situations. “In your experience is this behavior typical of survivors of sexual assault?”
drsmitty74
- Rochester
Good to see you posting over here. I do enjoy your insider info on the WBB posts.
Look at it from the inverse, of what the prosecution will say. They will smear him and paint him in a terrible light in a trial whether it is true or not.
23 year old adult versus 18 year old kid.
18 year old can't consent because of alcohol.
out of state predator.
believes he is above the law.
stack the jury with women and men with daughters.
Have her tell her side of the story on the stand, sympathetic waterworks.
*above is not my personal opinion of what is true but what a trial likely entails.
How can he go to trial, and not plea bargain, knowing that the prosecution will smear him and if the jury find her at all believable he gets a decade plus in jail even if he is steadfast with his innocence?
texillwek
🔶🔹🔸🔷
oh my god
This 1,000% true. The State brings charges all the time to leverage certain individuals whether it be because they're high profile, connected to a bigger target or just trying to satisfy the accused and not look "soft on crime."
Once again, I'm not saying this is the case here but a DA from what's seen by some as a volatile jurisdiction as of late, filing charges means minimal from a burden of proof perspective. I've seen the state file charges on "he say, she say" all the time and it's just a matter of who they choose to believe that's the victim.
If she was in a bar or under the influence of alcohol TSJ would assume she is of drinking age, if she was in a bar knowingly underage that is on the bar & her for knowingly be under age.
Shes an adult, she’s 18.
Intent is not really relevant, except to the point that the defendant intended to engage in the sexual contact at issue. It is not necessary to show that the defendant was aware that the accuser did not consent or was not able to consent.
Statute | Kansas State Legislature
www.kslegislature.org
"Except as provided in subsection (a)(2), it shall not be a defense that the offender did not know or have reason to know that the victim did not consent to the sexual intercourse, that the victim was overcome by force or fear, or that the victim was unconscious or physically powerless."
Illini2010-11
- Sugar Grove
Glad you are not the defense attorney. If someone truly believes they are innocent, and has facts to support their position, why would they plea bargain?
The job of the prosecution is to smear and prosecute; the defense to defend. Also the prosecution cannot simply stack the jury the way you mention. It does not work like that. If it did happen that way, it would be the World's worst defense attorney.
If the facts are on the accuser's side, then a plea deal makes sense, otherwise it is silly to try to get a quick plea deal. We simply do not know enough information.
There's still a giant risk here for TSJ, but if I were innocent, it's what I would do: fight it.
So you're saying that intent is "not really relevant" except for when it is.
"The job of the prosecution is to smear and prosecute"? That's as ridiculous as saying the defense attorney is there to attack the victim, lie, cheat steal, or any means to get his client off. All of you posting about prosecutors and their motives, defense attorneys, guilty until proven innocent, prove himself innocent, what jury's do, don't do, what they consider, how they are "stacked", etc... watch far too much TV. I understand there are a million different Law and Order shows out there but I suggest watching more building, renovating and house hunter's shows. Then we can set up a new topic for how to build a house, remodel, sell, or buy. Maybe another one for how to retire before you're 40!
No, I'll try to make this simpler.
The prosecution must show that the defendant intended to make sexual contact with the accuser (i.e., it wasn't an accident or something like that).
However, the prosecution does not have to show that the defendant intended to make sexual contact with the knowledge that the accuser did not consent. A defendant who made sexual contact with the accuser could be convicted even if the defendant honestly believed that the accuser consented.
Yep, if the Twitter post is close to accurate and that is a big IF. Then it seems more likely to be a case alcohol and regret being the issue rather than consent. I am not saying the Twitter post is true. I just don't see TSJ working so hard to achieve goals and then forcibly take a young woman to third base and risk it all. He doesn't need to do that.. I believe folks that say TSJ is a great young man. If he is good then he wouldn't force himself of any woman. Could I have seen some others over the years do this. Maybe but not TSJ.
Also, there are reasons to keep underage teenaged young adults out of bars. The law is to protect them from consuming booze environments they shouldn't be in. Does this mean they should be sexually assaulted. Of course not but stay out of the bar. A part of the issue is they did break the law by being there, consuming alcohol illegally is on them the bar and contributed to this situation. It sad because if this Twitter is true then this could have been easily avoided and shouldn't be in our courts.
I am very interested to hear the facts. I just can't fathom him forcing himself on any woman when I am sure he easily find a willing female and has worked so hard for his goals to piss it all away.
100% on the money. This is legal not some frat house suspension on animal house. He is basically looking at spending 1/2 his life in prison. The UofI (BU and Whitman) have their own issues to deal with - why was he even allowed to play at all knowing this was going on Since September. Now I personally believe they believe him and their hands were somewhat tied as he had not even been charged with anything. That being said, you would be naive to think there wont be those with an “Illini” bias that will believe somehow he should not have been allowed to play at all this year.
Don‘t kill me for saying that as I believe they had to let him play and his past does give him great credibility, but that does not mean there wont be those that do?
Good point, if she was in the bar she was either at least 18 or passing herself off as that. Most bars I have been in you are not allowed unless 21. So as far as the age variable of all of this she possibly lied and has a fake id or the bar looked the other way. This However has no bearing on any of the rest off the story.
IlliniKat91
- Chicago, IL
Being underaged and around booze is too common in college to lay any of the blame on that in this instance. This could have easily happened at a house party as a bar. If she'd been 21 and legally able to drink alcohol, the situation would be the same. It's a wrinkle, not a determining factor here.
I'd also caution against the narrative of "why would he force a woman when he could have one willingly." There are plenty of people who commit sexual assault because it's about the power play, not getting off. Or rather, the power play is what gets them off.
Not saying that's TSJ at all, just cautioning against a very slippery slope.
I said in my posts that the evidence could be weak and the defense strong. Or the opposite. None of us know, and I don’t see how the DIA knows. They have one side of the story at best. My point was to push back on the speculation that some dramatic new information will emerge that blow this case up and undo the pain of the past 24 hours and restore everything to the way it was. That’s just not how law enforcement operates. 90% of what can be known is already known to the police and DA. they will have to go before a grand jury now and produce something to support the charge, and they clearly believe they have that.
It would be helpful at this stage to keep in mind there is a distinction between the standard of proof required for a guilty verdict at trial (beyond reasonable doubt) and the standard in the preliminary proceedings such as the grand jury (probable cause). Probable cause just requires a simple showing there is a basis for the charges and it’s not something just pulled from thin air. If a victim is willing to testify under oath that a forcible rape occurred, and the allegations meet the definition of the crime in the statute, and that the accused person is the one who did it, that’s probable cause. You don’t need other evidence. Whether you will need other evidence to convince 12 jurors is a separate issue.
Not to get too deep into the woods here, but domestic violence cases aren’t particularly representative of how the criminal justice system works. When cops respond to a domestic call, they often make an arrest for the purpose of de-escalating the situation. Their worst fear is walking away after making a judgment call that there is no proof and then getting called back to the same location two hours later, except now it’s a homicide investigation instead of a domestic abuse investigation. The arrest also enables the courts to get involved and issue an order of protection which is one of the only tools cops and prosecutors to at least attempt to deal with serial abusers. So it’s more like social work than police work. Is that totally fair to every person who ever was arrested and charged with a DV crime? No, of course not, but typically if there is truly no evidence of actual abuse, e.g. bruises, scrapes, welts, etc., and the defendant has no priors for the same thing, that case will result in some kind of non-criminal disposition, an order to attend stop-DV class, or such.
Since we’re speaking anecdotally here, when a trial goes forward despite the only evidence being the victim’s testimony, the reason is probably that there is a lot of evidence that cannot be admitted (typically, what’s referred to in the courts as “prior bad acts”) which demonstrates the defendant is a monster who does a lot of really awful things. Despite the public perceptions, prosecutors are busy and generally don’t have time to waste pursuing convictions in weak cases against defendants who are sympathetic and appear to be generally decent people.
So you are "simply" saying that intent does indeed need to be proven.
I think we agree on this, just nitpicking on the details.
Illini2010-11
- Sugar Grove
Sorry, I used the term "smear" way more loosely than my intention. I was simply referring to the job of prosecution is to put on the best case, regardless of how it makes the defendant look (even if they perceive being smeared) -- they prosecute. I was responding to a post that the prosecution would smear. This does not happen very often at all - at least in the sense we view a smear campaign.
Last edited:
I suppose so, but while we don't really know anything at this point, I find it hard to fathom that TSJ's defense will be that he accidentally made contact with the accuser or that he was touching her for a non-sexual purpose, such as to provide medical care.
To those aghast that a plea bargain is mentioned. I say this not because it is fair or right. It most certainly isn't. The system stinks. But if 98% of federal and 94% of state cases result in a plea deal, I guess I see a likelihood from the statistics that others don't.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...utors-are-coercing-plea-deals-yes-ncna1034201
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...utors-are-coercing-plea-deals-yes-ncna1034201
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice
I will just say my experience with them has been vastly different.
- Status