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.