texillwek
🔶🔹🔸🔷
I guess I should have called it beach house cheese. Apologies.
TSJ Thread
- Status
And one other question: How do we get rape by fraud out of the current, very specifically drafted statute. Seems to me that if they wanted to keep "rape by fraud" as a criminal offense, they'd figure out a way to include "rape by fraud" either in the definitions or somewhere else in their criminal code. How can you commit a crime if that crime appears nowhere in your criminal code?
Note: The fraud by doctors and medical fraud exceptions have no relevance here.
This is how I will keep my sanity..
1. TJ will not play for Illinois again.. He has more life issues to deal with. I wish the young man good luck if innocent. If guilty, he needs to pay for his crimes.
1A. Illinois Basketball will roll with what we have. The existing roster will need to step up to compete.
2. In the chance he is reinstated, I will be happy and grateful for the bonus time we get with him as he bolsters our roster. I will cheer like the rest of you.
That is all and how I can keep my mental health.
1. TJ will not play for Illinois again.. He has more life issues to deal with. I wish the young man good luck if innocent. If guilty, he needs to pay for his crimes.
1A. Illinois Basketball will roll with what we have. The existing roster will need to step up to compete.
2. In the chance he is reinstated, I will be happy and grateful for the bonus time we get with him as he bolsters our roster. I will cheer like the rest of you.
That is all and how I can keep my mental health.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
GOD, I would love if that happened in the next couple weeks … not only is TSJ back, not only is the ruining of his life halted, but it also means no one was assaulted - the most important and best outcome.
Your point is correct in that it is a very slippery slope and extremely undefined and gray. I think materialistic misrepresentations would fall outside of the scope.
An actual case in a different state, a person falsely misrepresented he was a porn producer and victims thought they were auditioning for a job when in reality he was lying about everything he was found guilty. I am not familiar of any case when someone pretended to be a race car driver or Brad Pitt’s brother and was convicted of a crime.
I’ve worked around prosecutions and this is totally correct. No prosecutor who is confident in a charge carrying a mandatory minimum of over a decade in prison gives the judge or jury the option of finding the defendant guilty of a misdemeanor in the alternative unless the felony is really shaky.
It’s the same crime but that the alleged victim did not provide consent if what she was consenting to was misrepresented. The alleged victim consented to A not B.
The prosecutor does not have a rape by fraud statute as you point out but he does largely have the same argument by saying the alleged victim never consented to the actual facts. She consented to separate facts.
Again, I’m not speaking to the validity of the prosecution’s argument only trying to explain the likely argument. I have actually spent time attempting to research a rape felony in which someone slightly misrepresented who they were and could not find any especially for touching with a hand.
"ALTERNATE COUNT 1" seemed weird to me also
In my mind touching with the hand is substantially less invasive than the alternative. The statute doesn’t seem to differentiate though. Is the penalty the same or is that for the judge/jury to decide?
Last edited:
Me thinks DA is being heavy handed for plea bargain negotiations. Throw everything on the wall and see what sticks.
In this case in Indiana, the man was acquitted because Indiana laws, like Kansas (with exception to the medical/authority subsections), don't have rape by fraud/deception statutes
ELSEWHERE: Rape by deception should be a crime
In her freshman year at Purdue University, Abbi Finney was visiting her boyfriend in his dorm room.
Goillinikobd
- Southeastern US
I think you finally nailed it.
thanks
Then you have more experience with rape cases than do I. I did have a case where the woman alleged rape, but thanks to some very strange facts, the prosecutor never filed charges.
But that is neither here nor there. The Information is based on a section providing: "When the victim is overcome by force or fear." I don't see how even the very best trickery translates to "force or fear." I don't see how a prosecutor ever gets around the plain meaning of those words.
Thanks for finding that. If a legislature wants to create a crime of "rape by fraud", they need to draft a statute and not pretend some unrelated statute somehow does the same thing.In this case in Indiana, the man was acquitted because Indiana laws, like Kansas (with exception to the medical/authority subsections), don't have rape by fraud/deception statutes
ELSEWHERE: Rape by deception should be a crime
In her freshman year at Purdue University, Abbi Finney was visiting her boyfriend in his dorm room.www.goshennews.com
What the DA may be relying on is sub paragraph (e) of the statute that he is charged under. I’m sorry if this has already been pointed out, but I didn’t see it discussed. It says “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.” That’s really strange language and kind of troubling. It seems to imply that a person reporting a rape can claim that there was no consent or she was afraid even if there was no reason for the other person involved to think that was the case, and that would not be a defense. I don’t know if there is case law in Kansas that limits that, but the plain language seems problematic.In this case in Indiana, the man was acquitted because Indiana laws, like Kansas (with exception to the medical/authority subsections), don't have rape by fraud/deception statutes
ELSEWHERE: Rape by deception should be a crime
In her freshman year at Purdue University, Abbi Finney was visiting her boyfriend in his dorm room.
Goillinikobd
- Southeastern US
Boiled Rabbit, anyone ?
Absent, or in addition to any formal training concerning sexual (mis)conduct in today’s society, I think the situation TSJ finds himself in will get the attention of other student athletes.
For for us old guys, remember how the movie Fatal Attraction scared all of us off extra marital fooling around at the office
This case is different, in my opinion this Purdue case is rape.In this case in Indiana, the man was acquitted because Indiana laws, like Kansas (with exception to the medical/authority subsections), don't have rape by fraud/deception statutes
ELSEWHERE: Rape by deception should be a crime
In her freshman year at Purdue University, Abbi Finney was visiting her boyfriend in his dorm room.
While I see what you are saying with this, it is disgusting that it happened. I hope TJs situation is nothing like this. Everything I’ve seen on here doesn’t make it seem like this but I’m not sure we know a lot of facts.In this case in Indiana, the man was acquitted because Indiana laws, like Kansas (with exception to the medical/authority subsections), don't have rape by fraud/deception statutes
ELSEWHERE: Rape by deception should be a crime
In her freshman year at Purdue University, Abbi Finney was visiting her boyfriend in his dorm room.
Well, fortunately for that defendant you opinion is irrelevant.
Too much here to respond to individually. Instead, here is a long and tedious legal post that I would recommend skipping or blocking if you are bored to death with this stuff by now.
(1) All that has been filed is a felony complaint. The purpose of the felony complaint is to commence the case. It basically functions as notice to the defendant and a summons to appear in court. It also serves as grounds to set bail or hold someone in jail. But that part of it is not relevant here because the court did not deem TSJ a flight risk and did not set bail. There is not a high standard of proof to sustain a felony complaint. Basically all you need are sworn allegations. The felony complaint also does not necessary reflect the charges that will later be brought. The charges may be more serious or less serious. That depends on what the prosecution can establish in the grand jury.
(2) The nature of what this case actually involves in terms of the factual allegations will likely only become clear after it is presented to the grand jury. (As I said in an earlier post, the police or DA could have issued a press release that provided some explanation of what crime they believe occurred but they opted not to do that, which is a judgment call I find highly questionable and unprofessional, but in any event, that’s what they did.) Grand jury proceedings are always secret. But if they vote to induct, the charges in the indictment (which is not secret) will be an indication of what actual crime or crimes are being alleged. That’s the roadmap going forward. Also, the grand jury will typically be instructed to charge every crime that is supported by the evidence, including any less serious charges. That is done for procedural reasons and generally it is not significant in and of itself. If you ever look at an indictment for a murder case, there will typically also be numerous weapons possession counts tagged on too. It doesn’t mean the prosecution thinks they can’t prove murder or want to plead the case out with a weapons charge. The indictment is meant to be inclusive of everything. Every defendant has a constitutional right to be charged by a grand jury indictment for all felony counts. A person cannot be convicted of a crime at trial that was not charged in the indictment (unless the charge is by definition a lesser-included offense).
(3) People love to point out how easy it is to get a grand jury to return an indictment. That’s sort of true, but it’s more nuanced than that. The standard of proof is not high—all that needs to be shown in probable cause. And the evidence isn’t challenged. There is no defense attorney present to object or cross examine witnesses. There is no judge present. It is 100% the prosecutor’s show. It is not, in other words, like a mini trial. The purpose to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the grand jurors that evidence exists that, if true, would establish every element of the crime being charged. This is sometimes referred to as the legal sufficiency or prima facie case requirement. But there is a check on prosecutorial excesses. The defendant can file a motion for the court to review the grand jury transcript and dismiss any counts that were not adequately supported by evidence.
(4) The significance of the grand jury in this instance is that the Kansas prosecutor must produce evidence that, if true (meaning, if we assume all the witnesses are telling the truth and all the evidence is valid) would establish a forcible rape as defined by statue and cases interpreting it. This is the reason I am still highly dubious regarding this “misrepresentation as rape” theory that is floating around. Misrepresentation is not force and it is not fear. It just isn’t. Unless there is case law in Kansas that says it is. Which I very highly doubt, because that would be far out of line with the legal definition of forcible rape in every other jurisdiction that I am familiar with. That interpretation would also contradict the plain language of the statute. I don’t have a lot of confidence in this Kansas DA based on how they have proceeded so far, but nevertheless, I’d would be absolutely shocked if they are not holding in their hand a sworn deposition from the accuser in this case that says, in sum and substance, “I did not consent to the sexual contact but the accused engaged in that sexual contact by force despite my objections.” Whether that claim is credible or that 12 jurors would believe it is a different question to be resolved much later at trial. But if the accuser claims it, then it can be charged. Then you put it to the grand jury.
(5) I keep seeing references here to the prosecution’s “misrepresentation as rape” theory. There is nothing to suggest the misrepresentation version originated with the prosecution or police. In fact logic would tell us it’s the opposite, that the “misrepresentation” theory sounds much more like a defense (which could be true or not, we don’t know) that somebody close to TSJ has put out there and that the internetverse then picked up and ran with. I would be absolutely flabbergasted if it turned out that “misrepresentation” was the theory of criminality that the police and DA are operating under. Especially the police—they are going to expect the victim to tell them she said stop and the alleged perpetrator kept going anyway and overcame the victim’s attempts to resist. That’s the common thread in every forcible rape case. For some reason, this one is different? Why?
(5) In any event, likely none of these legal questions will be resolved in the short term. Unless the Kansas DA does a sudden about face and drops the charges. But I haven’t seen or heard anything to would give us any reason to expect that. The felony complaint is something that gets filed at the end of their deliberative process, not the beginning. Absent some reason to think otherwise, it must be presumed the Kansas DA is ready to go forward with whatever they have.
(1) All that has been filed is a felony complaint. The purpose of the felony complaint is to commence the case. It basically functions as notice to the defendant and a summons to appear in court. It also serves as grounds to set bail or hold someone in jail. But that part of it is not relevant here because the court did not deem TSJ a flight risk and did not set bail. There is not a high standard of proof to sustain a felony complaint. Basically all you need are sworn allegations. The felony complaint also does not necessary reflect the charges that will later be brought. The charges may be more serious or less serious. That depends on what the prosecution can establish in the grand jury.
(2) The nature of what this case actually involves in terms of the factual allegations will likely only become clear after it is presented to the grand jury. (As I said in an earlier post, the police or DA could have issued a press release that provided some explanation of what crime they believe occurred but they opted not to do that, which is a judgment call I find highly questionable and unprofessional, but in any event, that’s what they did.) Grand jury proceedings are always secret. But if they vote to induct, the charges in the indictment (which is not secret) will be an indication of what actual crime or crimes are being alleged. That’s the roadmap going forward. Also, the grand jury will typically be instructed to charge every crime that is supported by the evidence, including any less serious charges. That is done for procedural reasons and generally it is not significant in and of itself. If you ever look at an indictment for a murder case, there will typically also be numerous weapons possession counts tagged on too. It doesn’t mean the prosecution thinks they can’t prove murder or want to plead the case out with a weapons charge. The indictment is meant to be inclusive of everything. Every defendant has a constitutional right to be charged by a grand jury indictment for all felony counts. A person cannot be convicted of a crime at trial that was not charged in the indictment (unless the charge is by definition a lesser-included offense).
(3) People love to point out how easy it is to get a grand jury to return an indictment. That’s sort of true, but it’s more nuanced than that. The standard of proof is not high—all that needs to be shown in probable cause. And the evidence isn’t challenged. There is no defense attorney present to object or cross examine witnesses. There is no judge present. It is 100% the prosecutor’s show. It is not, in other words, like a mini trial. The purpose to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the grand jurors that evidence exists that, if true, would establish every element of the crime being charged. This is sometimes referred to as the legal sufficiency or prima facie case requirement. But there is a check on prosecutorial excesses. The defendant can file a motion for the court to review the grand jury transcript and dismiss any counts that were not adequately supported by evidence.
(4) The significance of the grand jury in this instance is that the Kansas prosecutor must produce evidence that, if true (meaning, if we assume all the witnesses are telling the truth and all the evidence is valid) would establish a forcible rape as defined by statue and cases interpreting it. This is the reason I am still highly dubious regarding this “misrepresentation as rape” theory that is floating around. Misrepresentation is not force and it is not fear. It just isn’t. Unless there is case law in Kansas that says it is. Which I very highly doubt, because that would be far out of line with the legal definition of forcible rape in every other jurisdiction that I am familiar with. That interpretation would also contradict the plain language of the statute. I don’t have a lot of confidence in this Kansas DA based on how they have proceeded so far, but nevertheless, I’d would be absolutely shocked if they are not holding in their hand a sworn deposition from the accuser in this case that says, in sum and substance, “I did not consent to the sexual contact but the accused engaged in that sexual contact by force despite my objections.” Whether that claim is credible or that 12 jurors would believe it is a different question to be resolved much later at trial. But if the accuser claims it, then it can be charged. Then you put it to the grand jury.
(5) I keep seeing references here to the prosecution’s “misrepresentation as rape” theory. There is nothing to suggest the misrepresentation version originated with the prosecution or police. In fact logic would tell us it’s the opposite, that the “misrepresentation” theory sounds much more like a defense (which could be true or not, we don’t know) that somebody close to TSJ has put out there and that the internetverse then picked up and ran with. I would be absolutely flabbergasted if it turned out that “misrepresentation” was the theory of criminality that the police and DA are operating under. Especially the police—they are going to expect the victim to tell them she said stop and the alleged perpetrator kept going anyway and overcame the victim’s attempts to resist. That’s the common thread in every forcible rape case. For some reason, this one is different? Why?
(5) In any event, likely none of these legal questions will be resolved in the short term. Unless the Kansas DA does a sudden about face and drops the charges. But I haven’t seen or heard anything to would give us any reason to expect that. The felony complaint is something that gets filed at the end of their deliberative process, not the beginning. Absent some reason to think otherwise, it must be presumed the Kansas DA is ready to go forward with whatever they have.
Last edited:
Unfortunately Kansas state law does not require a grand jury. The prosecutor can initiate the case with a complaint without ever putting the case before the grand jury.
Second, bail was set in this case. I’m guessing in those bail conditions, there are geographic restrictions. Since Shannon returned to Champaign, he is likely prohibited from leaving Champaign without court approval (or possibly the probation officer assigned to the case). The exception would be to attend court appearances.
(Im a lawyer in the court system for anyone who cares)
I’ve been thinking about the geographical restrictions and the panel’s upcoming decision. While I unfortunately can’t see them reinstating Shannon with a felony case pending, even if they do, Shannon would have to get court approval to travel.
There’s the old joke that goes something like this:
A: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
B: Sure!
A: How about $10?
B: Hell no! What do you think I am?
A: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just negotiating the price.
Interesting choice of words
"For for us old guys, remember how the movie Fatal Attraction scared all of us off extra marital fooling around at the office"
The wife explained to me what she'd do in this situation.
The movie was tame in comparison.
- Status