Skip to comments.Minnesota Files Papers Against Larry Craig's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea
Posted on 09/25/2007 1:57:28 PM PDT by shrinkermd
Papers filed Monday in the case of the State of Minnesota v. Larry Craig contain some stinging rebukes of Craig's accusations of pressure to plead guilty and pick apart his rationale for requesting a withdrawal of his guilty plea in August to disorderly conduct. Craig, a U.S. senator from Idaho, was arrested in June during a sting operation by Minnesota Airports Commission police in a Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport restroom. Craig's lawyer argued that his client could not make an intelligent plea of guilty because of pressures stemming from an Idaho Statesman investigation into the Republican senator's alleged homosexuality.
The state does not agree. In a memorandum filed Monday with the Hennepin County District Court, the state wrote, "The pressures felt by the defendant from a newspaper investigation were not improper and were no greater than the pressures on many defendants in the criminal system."
Andy Birkey :: Minnesota Files Papers Against Larry Craig's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea Christopher Renz, the prosecuting attorney in Craig's case, entered an affidavit on Monday as well. He says Craig had plenty of time to consider the consequences of a guilty plea and that Craig never expressed "panic" in multiple phone conversations with Renz. "Until his plea of guilty became public, the defendant did not proclaim any concern, remorse, or regret with having accepted the plea agreement that afforded him the ability to plead guilty to the lesser of the two charges, have a stayed jail sentence and pay a portion of the total fine," Renz said. The state agreed that Craig had plenty of time to think about the consequences of a guilty plea. "Unlike a plea that is entered in open court...a plea by mail allows a defendant to carefully consider the plea. In the instant case, the defendant was completely informed as to that which he was pleading guilty," the state wrote.
The state also pointed to the fact that Craig had widely discussed his actions in the restroom. "The defendant in this case admits to the very elements of the offense," the state wrote. His "wide stance" and that he was picking up a piece of paper off the restroom floor are seen as admissions that he did indeed touch the officer's foot and that his hand went past the stall divider. The state, in its memorandum, says Craig's explanations are hard to believe.
"The defendant's explanation for his hand being down underneath the stall divider -- that he was picking up a piece of toilet paper in a heavily trafficked public restroom -- stretches the bounds of credibility, particularly considering: the hand observed underneath the divider was palm up," the state wrote.
The state told the court that denying Craig's motion to withdraw his guilty plea "prevents further politicking and game playing."
The state also urged the court to reject the friend of the court brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The judge will make a decision in the case Wednesday.
Court documents for the case can be found at the Hennepin County District Court web site's special Larry Craig section.
I think that they’re right, foot tapping is a major societal scourge and must be dealt with harshly, lest it spread and destroy civilization as we know it!
Senator “Wide Stance” just won’t go away.
He only plead guilty to disorderly conduct, though.
Yeah, repeatedly peeping through the stall door crack at a man on the toilet is harmless.
That guy is so annoying!
Happens all the time. It doesn’t say anything about whatever greater charge the DA might have wanted to file.
DA’s overcharge all the time with the express purpose of getting you to plea to something. It doesn’t mean you are guilty of the higher charge.
If the prosecutor thinks Craig is gulity of the Gross Misdemeanor, then he should not have accepted the DC plea.
The prosecutor should have prosecuted Craig if he was peeping into bathroom stalls.
His voluntary guilty plea was unfair to him?
Hey, soon there’ll be those squatting toilets in the airport for the pleasure of the peepers...
No, it was unfair to the community if the higher charge was supported by the evidence.
“Yeah, repeatedly peeping through the stall door crack at a man on the toilet is harmless.”
I know what he did and I don’t approve. That said, with all of the violent crime in this country, I think that both the cops and the courts have better things to do than chase down this kind of thing.
Yeah, we need to leave the perverts alone.
No, the papers are online at the Smoking Gun, so there’s no doubt about what he plead to.
“Chase down” ? You’re ‘man’ was ‘chasing’ someone else.
The Senator, a victim of Restless Leg Syndrome, will win because he was not represented by council.
Case closed then already.
Although it's IMO, an unimportant issue as far as wrong doing against anyone goes, the guy is a Senator and it is demanded of him that he act like one and show an example.
We can do well for to divest ourselves of victims in the Senate.
If one's hand is across the wall of a stall, chances are that it wasn't to pick up a piece of lost paper.
That space was someone else's at the time and if they wanted to clean their space they would have done it all on their own. ; )
But where is the crime?
Tomorrow is 9/26. Keeping in mind that Craig announced he “intended” to resign effective 9/30, tomorrow’s decision could determine whether he actually resigns or not.
I hope this sorry episode is over soon.
I don't see where the crime is.
That's my point, if he weren't a Senator, it wouldn't be an issue and shouldn't be an issue.
Unless more was involved and the cop was being nice, it appears to be more of an entrapment than anything else for IMO, the peace officers here in Minnesota are more appreciated keeping tab's on criminals bringing true harm to other's for this scenario is still way too rampant.
However a sitting Senator has no business risking his seat on such a trivial pursuit and since he plead guilty, "case closed"!
He can live with a misdemeanor, obviously for he plead guilty to one, however when it threatened his seat in the Senate, that is no reason to change his plea like he did.
He made his bed as a Senator, now he should gracefully lay in it.
I am guilty of reading the first few paragraphs.
No one has demonstrated that there was one (except that the prosecutor browbeat him into a minor plea bargain). I think the guy is homosexual, but that's not a crime.
Eight days ago, my wife and I flew back from Yellowstone. The food there hadn't agreed with me, so I went to the Denver airport restroom. All stalls but one were full. I ran in and hung my bag up. Then I looked and saw feet on both sides. I sort of panicked, because I don't know what the communications signs are. So, I just yelled, "I don't care if you're a cop or a queer, I'm not interested."
It got quiet. Then one guy started laughing and clapping. Then everyone started clapping.
Isn’t it time for Senator Tappy Toes to tiptoe out of the Senate?
And there was no way that your feet would have touched either one of them.
Nor, would you have put your hand in either stall.
The absurdity answers itself. the court will have to rule against Craig or the whole system will be caught up in second-guessing.
“That said, with all of the violent crime in this country, ...”
... Er, he pled to something that had a $100 fine. You get more than that in texas just for speeding. It was a nuisance charge to clean up the airport bathrooms of filth. And its a pity a Senator with a good voting record was caught in it.
“I think that both the cops and the courts have better things to do than chase down this kind of thing.” I agree, but we Republicans cant hide behind that. If someone breaks a law, no matter how inane, fess up and move on.
I still think he should check with Billie Mays. Dudes got the ultra powerful toilet cleaners, and a money back guarantee... :)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
That is true.
Cannot find word yet re the judge’s decision... should be coming back from lunch break soon, MN time.
I like at times go to the court house and sit and watch how the system works. Every time a person enters a guilty plea for the 1st time the Judge will ask them if they are sure they want to do that and tell them what the consequences of doing so could be. He will ask if they are entering the plea under duress? A Judge gives every opportunity to not enter a guilty plea. If I recall correctly if they still want to enter guilty they are told if they do so it would be very hard to change. So I think the Judge who he was before will not be very sympathetic to him.
The discussion moved over here, Spunky:
I guess shrinker doesn’t use a ping list.