Posted on 03/17/2005 3:13:30 PM PST by SmithL
SANTA ANA, Calif. - A jury began deliberating Thursday in the retrial of a wealthy former assistant sheriff's son and two other young men accused of sexually assaulting an intoxicated teen in an encounter captured on videotape.
The jury of eight men and four women must choose between two starkly different scenarios: that three young men violently abused an unconscious teen, as prosecutors contend; or that a 16-year-old girl was a willing participant in what the defense claims was a "weekend sexcapade."
The key evidence in the trial - the second after a jury deadlocked last year - was the 21-minute video of the 2002 incident, which occurred at the Newport Beach home of businessman and former Orange County Assistant Sheriff Don Haidl.
"It's ridiculous to argue that she knew what was going on," Prosecutor Chuck Middleton said while jurors watched the tape. "Are you going to believe your eyes, or their lies?"
Greg Haidl, the 19-year-old son of the former assistant sheriff, and two friends, Kyle Nachreiner and Keith Spann, each face up to 23 years in prison if convicted of nine charges that include rape by intoxication and assault with a deadly weapon. The three are accused of assaulting the teen, identified in court only as Jane Doe, with a pool cue, juice bottle and cigarette.
The case has drawn attention in Orange County in part because of the prominence of Don Haidl, who resigned his post to focus on his son's legal battle and has also paid for the attorneys for Spann and Nachreiner, both 20 and from Rancho Cucamonga.
Defense attorneys sought to discredit the video, which sparked the investigation when a young woman turned it over to authorities after finding it in a house where Greg Haidl had been showing it to people shortly after it was made on July 6, 2002. The video has not been shown to the public.
The defense claimed Jane Doe wanted to be a porn star and pointed out that she willingly had sex with two of the alleged assailants and kissed the third days before the videotaped encounter.
"This was a weekend sexcapade," defense attorney Joe Cavallo told jurors. "It was a sexual adventure for Jane Doe."
Defense lawyers also concentrated on inconsistencies in Jane Doe's testimony to discredit her claims that she doesn't remember the encounter and they sought to portray her as someone who is dishonest, promiscuous and has a drinking problem.
The prosecutor urged jurors not to focus on Doe's conduct, but on the alleged assault.
"Don't let passion and prejudice override justice," Middleton said.
First, rapists shouldn't get prison, they should get the noose.
Second, what kind of IDIOT commits a heinous crime, makes sure to get the whole thing on video, and then shows it to his pals? If you videotape a crime, you're practically BEGGING for a conviction.
rich kids + California legal system + character assassination of victim = acquittal
"First, rapists shouldn't get prison, they should get the noose."
I couldn't agree more. Rapists have no excuse: you can kill a person in self defense, or even by accident, but not so with rape (at least violent rape: statuatory rape doesn't fit the bill, and some date rapes, while reprehensible, can be understood as terrible misunderstandings)
The jury in the previous trial failed to convict.
I predict again, they will fail to convict.
I think a juror could have "reasonable doubt" as to the girl's claim she was out-cold-drunk.
That coupled with her admitted promiscuity with the defendants, might be enough for one juror.
That is all it takes, film and all.
That said, I think he's a guilty little punk.
>>>>>with a pool cue, juice bottle and cigarette<<<<<<
What ever happened to the old fashioned rapist who used his penis?
Just two?
Two words: Clinton, Cigar.
The prosecutor urged jurors not to focus on Doe's conduct, but on the alleged assault.
Sounds like the prosecutor is admitting that there are problems with the prosecution case.
Somewhat reminiscent of the Kobe Bryant trial, It doesnt matter how big a slut she was or what she has done previously, Did she or did she not go along with the program on this occasion.
Although legally and probably, morally a good theory, its a hard sell to a jury.
The victim of this crime very probably was a slut - but sluts can be raped too.
The courts have many times ruled that a previous concentual sexual encounter does not automatically mean concent for subsequent contact.
The evidence that the girl was incapacitated is evidence enough in many states that this was a rape.
Well, actually more, but those were the only points that came to mind immediately.
;-D
"The victim of this crime very probably was a slut - but sluts can be raped too."
She can even be a prostitute. She can be in the middle of servicing a line, each paying her.
If she says "no" to the next guy, and he goes ahead and forces himself, that IS rape.
The case at hand is somewhat different, for it is alleged the woman was not conscious.
In that condition she cannot give "consent" because unconscious people lack "capacity."
Using intoxicating substances to "knock out" the woman, is a crime if she reports it, which happened in this case.
Maybe the attorney could argue "implied consent" since she gave consent yesterday to two of them, when she was conscious.
I think the whole bunch of them are low-lifes, inspite of the boy's father's money.
Money does not equal "class" and here is proof.
just like OJ....just like Blake...people on juries nowadays think its their responsibility to disbelieve anything the victim says or his/her attorney...instead of going with the "beyond reasonable doubt" ......it sickens me....
you mean, if one consents to sex once, its can be a free for all then after...
I am impressed with how quickly people discredit her and find reason to find her at fault...
I think its difficult for some, even freepers, to find fault with young men....they seem to get a pass not matter how outrageous their behavior....
and yet, we get all these cries that boys need to be boys...
there was no trial...in criminal court...
yep, boys will be boys....
this case was in Chicago and when the verdict was read, the boys mother broke out laughing....
Uh, no, what is meant is that lack of consent on the part of the alleged victim becomes more difficult to prove.
I am impressed with how quickly people discredit her and find reason to find her at fault...
And I'm impressed with how quickly everyone assumes the accused must be guilty. After all, the prosecutor says so. And, it's a man accused of a crime against a woman. Case closed. However there is the small detail that no one here has actually seen the tape. Maybe it's not so clear that she was actually intoxicated, in which case the rape charge goes into the toilet. And assault with a "deadly" pool cue? I'll have to see that one to believe it.
I think its difficult for some, even freepers, to find fault with young men....they seem to get a pass not matter how outrageous their behavior....
Well, it's just that some of us want more than just the word of the prosecutor before we are willing to have them put away for 20 years. And as for "getting a pass" perhaps you missed the "hang 'em high" earlier posts on this thread.
But it's difficult for you to see the big picture. The fact of the matter that, thanks to feminists, rape has become, with "intoxication rape", "date rape", and so on, a political crime more than a personal one. And no prosecutor can afford to be accused of being "soft on rape". Thus, many of us look askance at charges of rape, especially when the victim's credibility is less than sterling. If you don't like this, are you willing to not give women a "pass" for false accusations of rape, but insist that they be punished severely. If not, then you are part of the problem.
and yet, we get all these cries that boys need to be boys...
Take your misandrist, male-bashing crap and shove it. Believe it or not, there is nothing wrong with normal boyhood or normal male behavior. Some of us played cowboys and indians on the school playground and even (gasp) pretended to shoot the indians, and ended up just fine.
What likely happened here, although they can not prove it, is that she was given GHB, which knocked her out. They are really lucky they did not kill her, but even without all that, these guys are nothing more than necrophiliacs. And her father, he might as well be the Columbine shooters' parents. /endrant
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.