foby
- Bonnaroo Land
Only the game thread when we are losing.
TSJ Thread
- Status
Not a slight at you nor picking on your comment, but why do people think that a simple battery would result in his return? Is there a precedent for it at UI or just wishful guessing by fans? In my opinion, it would have to be completely dismissed or a NG. No trial is happening before April. No way there is a finding of no probable cause at a preliminary hearing. I know a young man that was suspended for a year by UI over a complaint by another student that was never charged criminally. He was removed from campus after the hearing and had to reapply. Yes, that occurred at UI and makes it different. But I think the administration at UI takes a hard stance on discipline of students. And I think the allegations against TSJ are complete nonsense and want him vindicated and back on the court as much as anyone. I just have no confidence in the Kansas system nor the UI system for hat to occur anytime soon.
As I may have mentioned earlier, I was on a jury for a particularly brutal crime and we found the accused guilty. We were the second jury to do so after a new lawyer got another trial based on having evidence that another person had committed the crime, hoping, I suppose, that we would reach a not guilty on a second look at the original evidence. They were wrong. We sent him back to jail and he was there for another ten years before DNA evidence, a technology that hadn't been invented when we convicted him, exonerated him.
We were conscientious and tried hard to get the correct verdict. But even the best efforts don't turn out the way they should. Justice isn't always served.
I see. If the DA is the one firmly entrenched in their position on this one, that seems problematic, because one would think the DA wouldn't have much obligation or incentive to be persuaded by any timeline that isn't their own. In fact it stands to reason that this is more likely to drag out as she can always take a "moral high ground" stance of not giving special treatment to public figures or taking rape allegations extremely seriously and leaving no stone unturned regardless of guilt, non-guilt, or innocence of the person being accused. And that would be exacerbated if there are other factors involved, like political, ego, moral stance, racism, or even just flat out disdain for the defendant or athletes. And if this is a DA who thinks she is on her way out anyways, taking a strong moral/ethical based stance on a major case for the purpose of trying to embarrass the state by saying they're firing her to cover up rape cases doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.
Overall, I think this is more worrisome than other possibilities. Thanks for informing us- it's really appreciated.
Mr. Tibbs
- southeast DuPage
yea, I have a real hard time seeing any realistic possibility of this ending well for the team in the next 10 weeks , and I would not feel much better really if this all occurred in Champaign County vs in Kansas
That makes sense, but the DA can drop or change charges at any time up until the start of the trial, right? And so long as they were to say something like "new evidence came to light resulting in the dropping of charges" and that they were doing their "due diligence", there's not all that much recourse for the person being accused is there, even if this were to drag out for a long time, right?
Yes. The accuser can recant or information can show her credibility is suspect. Or new evidence That is the easy out if you want it and you are correct no recourse. Hint from insider the DA is the main obstacle which is no surprise. The word coming out of Douglas County is recall and that was before this ill advised prosecution. She had enough issues already which is why this type of prosecution made no sense unless you had done your homework in advance. If it turns out an F then you have more problems. We can be sure there is big time pressure from the Shannon side. If she has dug her heels in the pressure has to come from Douglas County. I am assuming even a committed ideologue does not want to commit political suicide. Where else does she go. Not burned bridges more like obliterated. I also think she bends but yes it could take time
sacraig
- The desert
We all know IllinoisLoyalty is also an addictive pastime that's bad for our productivity, but I'll give it a pass anyway.
We actually took our entire program to the Tech Vs Texas game last night thanks to Dylan Disu being one of our players cousins. I couldn’t figure out why the students kept booing number 2. When one of my players told me, I turned to my friend who was with me and told her why they were booing and about our TSJ situation.
Their #2 has been accused (can’t remember if charged) with sexually assaulting a minor during their trip to the Bahamas. Tech’s Title IX office has cleared him to play. After reading about the situation, and comparing to ours, while it sounds like TSJ is innocent and I’m hoping for the best, I came out pleased that we’re treating it the way we are. It was kinda gross to watch #2 cook in the second half knowing what he might have done, no matter how bad I was secretly cheering against UT.
As a final aside, I firmly believe that even in our current state, we are better than both of those teams, and they’re both pretty good.
I don’t think TSJ gets back on the court with a plea to simple battery. I’m sure Whitman has expressed outcomes that would allow him back on the court this season to TSJ’s camp.
They filed a civil suit against him I guess that is the difference. I am firmly in the belief that Terrence should be allowed to play until found guilty. Watching that game last night when he was at the line hearing the crowd chant "No Means No" was pretty interesting.
Not a lawyer so I don’t know if it would even be an option in this situation. But I bet he would if it was an Alfred Plea.
What I read was the parents filed the civil suit. Also, the girl was 17 and the age of consent is 16 in the Bahamas, so despite headlines, she was not legally a minor. The suit alleges she had been drinking and was unable to consent.
Someone needs to remind DA Valdez about what she wrote in 2019 as a co-author of the law school textbook: Prosecutorial Ethics: Third Edition.
"In the six years since publication of the second edition of PROSECUTORIAL ETHICS, issues of misconduct by government lawyers in criminal cases continue to capture the national headlines and the attention of courts and legislatures". . . Unlike other advocates, who have an ethical duty to pursue their clients’ interests vigorously within the bounds of the law, the prosecutor has obligations of even-handedness precisely because he does not represent an individual but rather the collective good. Procedural and substantive fairness to persons accused of crime is a necessary element of a just society. Therefore, by nature the prosecutor’s loyalties are not undivided. While society certainly has an interest in crime detection and deterrence, as well as public safety, society also has an interest in ensuring that all of its members—even those individuals purported to be public safety risks—are treated fairly and protected from governmental overreaching. In trying to achieve what is best for society as a matter of justice, the prosecutor must thus heed society’s interest in fairness to the defendant as well as to the victim. . . .Due to their obligations to represent society as a whole, het prosecutor’s ethical obligation is not to “win,” but to pursue a just result through a fair process. . . . The second justification for why a prosecutor has heightened ethical responsibilities derives from the extraordinary power vested in that office. The prosecutor in our society has tremendous discretion to choose whom to investigate and whom to prosecute."
In this (and most all other) legal cases, there is...
The ‘Victim’s’ version of the truth.
The Accused’s version of the truth.
The DA’s version of the truth.
The strict legal/law/court system version regarding truth.
The ‘Fair-Minded Person’ version of the truth.
The ‘Not-Very-Fair-Minded’ version of the truth.
And then...
THE TRUTH.
Hope ‘The Truth’ wins out here.
Perhaps, assuming the stories alluded to here are accurate, but that’s a tough precedent to set. Maybe if pleads down to disorderly conduct, but a battery charge against a woman is a bad look for Josh and the university if he returns (polling error of +/- 100% given sample of 1 persons opinion)
Just a guess, but the acting DA would probably be the Asst. DA who signed off on the charges.
IlliniKat91
- Chicago, IL
Those would all be issues raised if the accuser brought a civil suit against TSJ. That typically only happens after the criminal issues are resolved. At that point, he could countersue her.
Right now, they're only trying to determine if he committed the crime he's been accused of.
Yes. If she is suspended she cannot call any shots. Unlikely she can even go in the office. Still get paid? Good question
Would calling shots constitute practicing law? If so, that would definitely stop her from calling the shots. I don't really care if she is or is not paid in the interim.
Only one assistant in that office has three or more years of experience as an ADA. My guess is that is the woman who signed the charging document. I'd like to think she has a lot less invested, both ideologically and as a potential defendant in a civil suit than does the current DA.
I wish we had some clue as to when to expect a ruling on her suspension. Her attorney all but admitted she should be sanctioned in some way, but argued suspension was too strong a punishment. Seems like it shouldn't take forever but then again I've never been involved in such a hearing in any jurisdiction, so that is completely guesswork on my part.
Yes calling shots would be practicing law. Why I suspect she cannot go in the office. Too much potential for some non verbal influence. If suspended she will probably spend her time making public statements trying to spin things. But that might not go so well. She has tried to keep public information she did not like away from the press which is like waving the red cape. Maybe not burned but smoldering for sure. No mandatory timeline for a decision on her disciplinary case. The hearing was in front of a state supreme court appointed panel who makes a recommendation. The state supreme court is who has authority to yank your license. Not seeing any good chance of help there
Yeah…that’s what I meant. Didn’t realize I typed it wrong. Good catch.
- Status