OK, some lawyers SHOULD be shot.

[Rsak]

Sorry but you were the one stating people should volunteer to test this theory that one could be awake while these acts were performed in response to a general statement at the all of those forming premature conclusions and hate filled rhetoric for the defense lawyers.

The knotted panties seem to be in your pants not mine!

[Laylee]

The chick is not that one persueing the case... The State is... IMO the chicks credibility is not on trail she is not the one that filed the charges... The case here is that she is under age (leagaly unable to provide consent anyways) and the fact she was out cold and thus why the defence will loose...

I think its sad the defence has to mear her she probably didn't report it becouse of that very reasion..

Geli and I got into a similar discussion last night. When is a crime a crime against a person and when is it a crime against the state?

Case in point: here in Michigan, a 16 year old girl gave consent to her boyfriend to whack her in the stomach with a mini-baseball bat over a period of several weeks. The object of this was to force a miscarrige of the child she was carring.

Now, the state has pressed charges against the boyfriend under the "fetal protection" laws we have here. One cannot do violence against a woman with the intent to harm a fetus. However, they have not charged the girl with anything because no one ever thought that a woman would "consent" to such violence in order to harm her child and therefore, nothing for the mother was written into the law.

So, several defense organizations have stepped up to defend the boyfriend, most notably, pro-choice ones. They contend that abortion is legal, she was well with in her rights to terminate the pregnancy and that what the boyfriend did, he did with her full consent.

The girl doesn't want charges pressed against the boyfriend. But the state is charging him anyway. When is a crime a crime against a person and when is it a crime against the state?

Now the State of Michigan is trying to pass through a new law covering violence against a pregnant woman by both the mother and any other person. It's being fought against by the people that say abortion (in any form) is legal and that a law of this type would be unconstitutional and erode Roe V. Wade.

Now, the tangent I took was that people can consent to be beaten without charges being filed against them (think Lucy Lui in "Payback"). The exception to that are things like domestic violence where legally a woman can't consent to beaten. Rather like a student in HS can never legally consent to sex with a teacher because of the authority figure a teacher represents.

So, was it a crime, or not?

Laylee

[Ddrak]

Yes, it was a crime. If the law says you can't do something to someone else then consent means nothing. Euthanasia is the prime example here.

Dd

[Syeni Soulslasher MK6]

IMO if the chick consented to it with full knowledge of what would happen, No its not a crime IMO. Sadly the law books say difrent.

Legal age of consent should be lower then 18 as well..
I've know plenty of 21 year olds with the mentality of 12 year olds and neave, and knew plenty of 14-15 year olds that know exactly what they are doing and what they want.

[superwalrus]

lol, no 14-15 year old know what they want, you're a fucking sick fuck. Statch laws are fine the way they are. Most states its 18 years or old OR 18 months younger than you is okay, so a just turned 18 year old can still fux a 16 and a half year old.

Walrus

[Cartumandua]

IF the tape is described accurately, then the defense is doing the best job they can, and they're going to go down in flames.

Obviously, the prosecution thinks so too, or they would have plea bargained at least one out to nail the other two.

[Aabe]

HAY THE ONLY REASON MY SEX PARTNER WOULD FALL ASLEEP IS FROM EXHAUSTION LOLOLOLOLOL

heh heh heh.

[vandir]

Case has been over for some time.

NEWS Vol. 9 No. 44 July 9 - 15, 2004
Justice Takes a Pool Cue
Assistant sheriff, OC dailies miss the irony as Haidl Three elude conviction


by R. Scott Moxley

The Orange County Register

Moments after Judge Francisco Briseño declared a June 28 mistrial in Orange County’s infamous gang-rape case, millionaire Assistant Sheriff Don Haidl wrapped his arms around his son, defendant Gregory Scott Haidl, and squeezed. During the embrace, the 19-year-old whispered in his father’s ear. The elder Haidl spun around, fixed an angry stare and jabbed his finger at an Orange County Register photographer. Silencing the packed courtroom, he yelled, "Don’t ever point that thing at me!"

It was impossible to miss the irony unless you were Los Angeles Times reporters Claire Luna and Stuart Pfeifer, who were busy trading smiles and congratulatory handshakes with defense lawyers. On July 6, 2002, Greg Haidl and two buddies supplied alcohol and drugs to a 16-year-old and, after she likely fell into a stupor, videotaped her as the object of their deviant sexual fantasies. By the time it was over, the drunken, laughing defendants had filmed themselves shoving a Snapple bottle, lit cigarette, Tree Top Apple juice can and pool cue into the near-motionless girl’s vagina and anus. Later, a proud Haidl showed his 21-minute video to acquaintances, some of whom thought the girl was a corpse and alerted police.

Fastforward to June 28 inside Briseño’s courtroom after the jury deadlocked on all 24 felony counts. Although neither was lying naked on a pool table with foreign objects protruding from his ass, Haidl and his son were incensed that someone tried to take their picture. Still seething at the Register photographer who’d aimed his camera at the 19-year-old defendants, the red-faced senior Haidl shouted, "Don’t do it! Do you understand me?"

A more appropriate emotion for the chain-smoking assistant sheriff might have been joyous relief. After all, it was his million-dollar-plus campaign that convinced some members of the jury the villain was Jane Doe, the alleged victim. Defense lawyers—who secretly hired a focus group to test trial strategies—called Doe a "slut" and a "whore" who loved giving "blowjobs" and enjoyed "doggy-style" sex. On flimsy or nonexistent evidence, they even insinuated that Doe pressured her partners for anal intercourse, dreamed of becoming a porn star, craved four-way encounters and liked to swallow. Lead defense lawyer Joe Cavallo told the jury Doe should have been charged with raping Haidl, Keith Spann and Kyle Nachreiner, a laughable claim given how the defendants manhandled the girl throughout the gangbang.

In California, it’s illegal to have sex with someone so intoxicated or drugged she cannot resist. Setting aside the DA’s contention that the defendants laced Doe’s drink with GHB or some other fast-acting narcotic, there was no dispute that the high school sophomore drank beer, smoked marijuana and gulped an eight-ounce glass of Bombay gin. Haidl captured her fall on video. Within minutes, Doe’s speech was slurred and her body displayed the rigidity of a rag doll. She said, "Greg, I feel ill" and 30 seconds later, "I’m so fucked-up." Those were her last words. Eight minutes and 15 seconds later, the defendants had Doe stripped and, as the normally reserved Superior Court Judge Everett Dickey observed during preliminary hearings, "used her like a piece of meat" on a wicker sofa and pool table in Haidl’s garage. As Spann began fucking the incoherent girl for a second time, it was Haidl—described as a kind, shy "little boy" by his father—who shouted, "Put it down for the militia, bitch!"

The defense and their well-paid medical experts offered several theories: the defendants had no "reasonable" way of knowing Doe was incapacitated and that her ingestion of stimulants was meaningless because Doe faked unconsciousness for a pre-arranged, necrophilia-themed porno directed by the assistant sheriff’s son. According to Cavallo, the mastermind behind the video was Doe, not Haidl—the film student who owned a top-of-the-line Sony Hand Held camera and recorded everything from sex with his girlfriends to skateboarding practices.

As a sign of the defense team’s contempt for this jury’s intellectual abilities, they even offered a third, contradictory version of events. After Dr. Peter Fotinakes, the prosecution’s neurologist, told jurors to use their "common sense" about Doe’s "obviously" diminished consciousness, defense lawyer John Barnett argued Doe’s coma might have been "self-induced" because of teenage "post-traumatic stress disorder." Said Barnett, "[Doe] has low esteem. She’s morally conflicted. It’s gonna cause acute situational stress." With all the sincerity he could muster, Barnett then explained to jurors that the defendants couldn’t be guilty of rape by intoxication if Doe had voluntarily willed herself into a coma.

Never mind that a self-induced comatose person can’t give consent, either. Never mind that Nachreiner disappeared for at least 15 minutes when he was making Doe’s iceless gin drink, even though the gin bottle and cup were in the garage with them, or that police later found a powerful prescription sedative on a bathroom countertop in the Haidl house. Never mind that the defendants repeatedly signaled to one another on the video that Doe was knocked out. Never mind that Doe, facedown on the pool table, didn’t flinch when she urinated on herself as Haidl slapped her genitals and Nachreiner vigorously plunged a pool cue into her vagina. Never mind that Doe vomited that night. Never mind that she reeked of alcohol and looked like hell the next morning. Never mind that those who saw Doe in the aftermath testified that her last memory was drinking Nachreiner’s foul-tasting concoction.

The jury—dominated by low-income men—was oblivious to those clues as they were to the shameless defense tactics. A lone female juror refused to be suckered. She voted "guilty" on all counts. For others, the defendants were guilty of just some of the charges. Because it takes a unanimous vote to obtain a conviction, the trial was over the moment Doe admitted she’d had consensual, one-on-one sex with two of the three defendants on prior occasions. If a jury doesn’t like an alleged victim, they’re going to look for ways to nullify the law. Speaking of District Attorney Tony Rackauckas’ June 29 decision to retry the case after Aug. 6, one juror told the Times, "I think that the hardest thing for the prosecution is going to be Jane Doe."

Before deliberations, Briseño explained to the jury that if the defendants should have reasonably known Doe was incapacitated, they were compelled to vote guilty, but 22-year-old juror Michael (he declined to give his last name) of Garden Grove ignored that instruction. The girl’s sexual history "weighed heavily" in his decision to support the defendants, he said. "[The videotape] was compelling but not, in my opinion, sufficiently convincing."

It was easy to see why Michael had been one of the defense team’s top choices for the panel at the outset of the trial. "I could understand why some people would [watch the video] and view it as a crime," he said. "But I can also see how [the footage] can be misunderstood, too."

It’s amazing what a nine-member legal defense team can accomplish. Of course, that tally does not include O.J. Simpson jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, an army of private investigators led by a retired FBI agent and several ex-sheriff’s deputies, an audio-visual expert (who made dozens of colorful, anti-Doe charts for jurors to ponder), several lurking fellows with unknown assignments, a full-time publicist, and the editorial support from the two local daily newspapers.

The Register’s Steven Greenhut, who never bothered to visit the courtroom, opined on May 9 that it’s less of a crime if a girl is sexually assaulted by someone she knows. He chastised prosecutors for not granting the defendants leniency. "There’s real questions here about justice," said Greenhut.

Dana Parsons of the Times showed up for less than 10 percent of the trial and, as best I can determine, never bothered to read the case file or interview anyone on the prosecution’s side. In discussions with his colleagues, he ridiculed the Weekly’s exclusive description of the content of Haidl’s tape, but he’s never seen the video. He must have been content to rely upon his regular, private briefings with Haidl publicist Tori Richards and Barnett.

In a trial-eve, May 2 column that shamelessly regurgitated defense-supplied lies about Doe—she liked to use "a pool cue on herself" and "agreed to have sex on videotape"—Parsons called on the jury to ignore the state’s rape-by-intoxication law. Why? "Given what they knew about the girl," wrote Parsons. "Did it even occur to the boys that they were committing a crime? I doubt they did." When he drew that conclusion, not one piece of evidence had yet been presented in court.

Journalism at its best exposes injustice. For Parsons, the most condemnable person in the Haidl case wasn’t the twisted defendants or their obnoxious families who routinely mad-dogged court observers or even Cavallo, who set a new low in defense-lawyer conduct. Instead, the veteran columnist wrote five articles blasting Rackauckas for treating the case so seriously. It’s no wonder the Haidls are confident they can escape accountability.

It should be no surprise Parsons has also led the cries for Rackauckas to cut a deal with the defendants. As with the rest of his coverage, he isn’t bothered that the Haidls of fashionable Corona del Mar believe they deserve special treatment because of their money and power. Parsons pretends it’s only the DA who has been stubborn and misguided. He conveniently didn’t report that the defendants have refused guilty pleas unless they receive probation or, at worst, nine-month maximum sentences.

The arrogance doesn’t end there. Through his numerous legal representatives, Haidl has demanded Rackauckas give his son an additional concession: no state prison time. If there’s a deal before a second trial, he wants Gregory in a more comfortable, private security facility where karma and a pool cue aren’t as likely to find his rear end.

[Cartumandua]

Except for the poor victim, a mistrial isn't a bad outcome. Dad's out a million bucks, and he gets to do it all over again.

[Relbeek Einre]

No, fortunately the case isn't... and apparently the judge for the retrial is putting up with a lot less crap from the defense attorneys.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... &cset=true

[Ddrak]

Good work by the judge, though he'll have to walk a fine line to avoid a mistrial on appeal.

In a lot of ways, having mistrial after mistrial could be even a better outcome than a guilty verdict. Drain daddy's bank account, because you can't tell me the prosecution's case is that expensive (hi, yeah, look @ video).

Dd

[Shallon]

All this wonderful publicity should help daddy get booted out of office hopefully.

[Klast Brell]

Despite the defense violating the shield laws, the jury still had to be removed twice during opening arguments. It's almost a certainty that the defense will appeal if there is a conviction. I can only hope that the lawyer bills exceed their wealth.

[Ddrak]

Daddy left office a while ago, Shallon.

Dd

[Relbeek Einre]

Here's another fun one. The first jury deadlocked, and to "prepare" for the second trial, Cavallo hired the first jury as consultants for $50 an hour each to talk about how they viewed the evidence.

Now, it's smart to get information from the jury about tactics on the second trial and such, but the payment thereof taints the whole jury system - the next jury now knows if they deadlock they stand a very good chance of getting a similar payoff.

[jookkor]

its quite possible that $50 is a paycut for most of the jurors

[Klast Brell]

50/hour = 100k a year

Sure it's possible that they would have them in the jury, but I seriously doubt it. That kind of paycheck implies that the person is intelligent enough to qualify for a 100K + job. Defense lawyers using dodgy arguments don't like these types of jurors.

[vandir]

Haidl Wept
Judge concedes the gang-rape suspect is ‘in great need,’ but says no to Get Out of Jail card

by R. Scott Moxley

His latest doctor says Haidl
desperately needs counseling
. . . and a hug.
Courtesy pool photographer
Michael Goulding/The
Orange County Register


It appears Greg Haidl now knows his actions carry consequences. Locked up since Nov. 16 for repeatedly violating the conditions of his $100,000 bail, the 19-year-old son of a wealthy, ex-assistant sheriff doesn’t want to spend another minute incarcerated. Jail is apparently uncomfortable.

And on Jan. 10, after a judge refused to move him from the Orange County Jail to a private mental-health facility in Costa Mesa, Haidl wept.

The gang-rape suspect’s tears and sniffling seemed genuine. Twice, he buried his face in a white handkerchief and noisily sobbed while his usually hard-nosed lawyers patted his back and offered soothing words.

In making his decision, the judge considered a complaint list compiled by Haidl’s team of nine attorneys and four doctors: the jail atmosphere is stressful. He can’t sleep comfortably. His back hurts. He isn’t satisfied with visitation procedures. He wants more privacy. He’d like a new cell and more time on the phone. He thinks scary inmates shouldn’t be housed nearby. He’s tired of deputies listening to his conversations with other inmates. He’s pissed jail officials won’t give him better anti-anxiety drugs.

Oh, and he wants something else: affection.

"The kid needs love," testified Dr. Jeffrey I. Barke, co-owner of Newport Medical Consultants and Haidl’s latest physician. "He needs TLC . . . and they’re not giving him that in jail."

Haidl had already been given one break. Back in November, Superior Court Judge Francisco Briseño made sheriff’s department supervisors guarantee this rape defendant won’t be sodomized in jail. And though the judge blocked efforts to release Haidl to a private mental hospital at this latest hearing, he says he wants to be sensitive to the defendant’s feelings.

"I’m reluctant to take him off 24-hour surveillance," said Briseño, who then noted he’d "try to get a greater degree" of concessions for Haidl from the sheriff’s department. "I accept the doctor’s [Barke] estimate that he’s in great need."

While officials study how to make Haidl more comfortable, jury selection began Jan. 11 for the upcoming retrial on gang-rape charges. Opening statements are likely to begin the first week of February. Prosecutor Chuck Middleton says Haidl and two buddies (Kyle Nachreiner and Keith Spann) videotaped themselves raping and molesting an unconscious underaged girl on a pool table during a 2002 Newport Beach party.

The alleged crime began after the defendants, who were drunk, gave a 16-year-old girl beer, marijuana and a glass of Bombay Gin. When the girl became incoherent, they used her for sex and ended the night by shoving a pool stick, Snapple bottle, lit cigarette and juice can into her vagina and anus as they laughed and danced to sexually suggestive rap music. Haidl lost the tape after showing it to friends. Police who recovered the video initially thought the female body in the film was a corpse.

Defense lawyers have offered varying claims, some of them contradictory. In one instance, they claimed the girl had given permission for sex before passing out (which isn’t supposed to be a legal defense in California), and then that she’d faked unconsciousness for a necrophilia-themed porno. Elsewhere, they maintained law enforcement doctored the tape to remove exonerating scenes in an effort to ruin Haidl’s father, then a multimillionaire assistant sheriff who was close friends with the county’s top cop, Sheriff Mike Carona.

If convicted, Haidl, Nachreiner and Spann face sentences ranging from probation to 23 years in prison. In plea negotiations last year, a defense lawyer insisted Haidl receive nothing worse than probation or a short sentence in a privately owned prison. A jury deadlocked last June. Less than a month later, Haidl was arrested and charged with statutory rape of a second underaged girl he’d met while celebrating the jury deadlock. That case also involved alcohol abuse.

The next jury should prepare for mind twisters. Tracking defense-team assertions often requires a flow chart. For example, in October, Haidl violated bail by drinking alcohol, getting high on painkillers and then crashing his 2005 car into oncoming traffic. At the scene, he said he was sober and blamed his appearance on "spicy Indian food." Later, we learned Haidl was extremely intoxicated and had been searching for his Santa Ana drug dealer before the crash. In November, a Haidl psychiatrist—hoping to keep Haidl out of jail and in a mental hospital for alleged suicidal tendencies—testified that his patient had been trying to commit suicide the night of the crash.

That having failed, the defense team offered a new spin on the October crash. On Jan. 10, Dr. Barke said, "The car accident was the result of medication he took and was his way to ease the pain of his depression. I don’t think the purpose was to kill himself."

Deputy District Attorney Brian Gurwitz asked Barke if he’d be surprised to hear Dr. Irwin Rosenfeld, Haidl’s psychiatrist, had given the court conflicting information about the night of the crash. "No," said Barke, who described himself as a "doctor, counselor and friend" to Haidl. "How we interpret that night is variable."

What’s not variable, at least to Barke, is Haidl’s condition.

"He’s suffering from severe clinical depression, severe anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and he desperately needs counseling," said the doctor, who called the rape suspect’s experiences "horrendous."

Barke didn’t offer any sympathy for the alleged rape victim and her family.

"Greg’s a very conflicted young man," said Barke. "Greg’s suffering from medical and mental illness. Greg needs help. . . . In a perfect world [in jail], we could go to Greg every day and say, ‘How’s your anxiety?’"

The doctor says the rape cases have put an unfair burden on Haidl. "Greg is understandably very, very angry, depressed and frustrated that he has no way to vent," he said.

A worried-looking, soft-spoken Briseño asked the doctor what would make Haidl feel better under the circumstances. Sitting on the witness stand, Barke looked at the defendant and said, "Greg desperately needs a caring environment." The doctor wants him housed at College Hospital because Haidl "isn’t being treated fairly" in jail. "It’s pretty far from a therapeutic environment."

After the judge left the bench and most reporters filed out of the courtroom, a deputy did what deputies never do for rape suspects: he, too, patted Haidl on the back, whispered something in his ear, smiled warmly, winked at Haidl’s nearby father—the former assistant sheriff—and then gently placed the defendant in handcuffs for his trip back to cell 13. Before leaving, Haidl turned, lifted his bound wrists and gave his parents the "hang loose" sign.

Poor guy just needs a little TLC.

[Narith]

Awwww poor thing drugs and gang rapes a 16 year old girl and is upset that he got caught and has to go to prison, excuse me while i weep for the sick bastard.

[Rsak]

Narith do you know how to read?

The poor thing allegedly drugs and gang rapes a 16 year old and is upset that while violating his bail and is being sentenced to 24 hr surveilance while awaiting a complete trial.

The detainment has nothing to do with the crime he is being tried with, only the inability to follow the stipulations of his bail.