Maurice Washington Faces Charges

boach_clack said:
I agree. I have seen it happen.  Its not a big deal, until its a big deal.  I have seen kids expelled for the entire year.
Click to expand...


Maybe we were the same way before the internet, but a lot of kids have no understanding of actions and consequences. 

But the internet changes a lot of it. Kids actually post videos of themselves committing crimes as some kind of brag, then seem befuddled when they get arrested.

Even the non-criminal kids need to be reminded that future employers can run simple internet searches and learn an awful lot about you. Are you sure you want that thing you posted to last forever, available to anyone?

 
StPaulHusker said:
I disagree
Click to expand...
It could've meant something, it could've meant nothing. I don't think there's enough information to have an informed opinion either way. Washington has the right to remain silent and no charges were brought against him last fall. And, according to Bruning, the CA county attorneys were being hostile and unprofessional at the time. So, legally speaking, they had no obligation to do anything and it could actually benefit them in court.

 
Enhance said:
It could've meant something, it could've meant nothing. I don't think there's enough information to have an informed opinion either way. Washington has the right to remain silent and no charges were brought against him last fall. And, according to Bruning, the CA county attorneys were being hostile and unprofessional at the time. So, legally speaking, they had no obligation to do anything and it could actually benefit them in court.
Click to expand...
If they cops weren't being forthright in what they wanted to discuss (they usually won't be), then you definitely don't talk to them without a lawyer. We've already established that they were vague with the University, and I doubt they were any less vague with Mo and his lawyer.

 
Enhance said:
No, that's not true. The state where an alleged crime happened can have jurisdiction to prosecute the offense. Although MW may have been out-of-state when the alleged text was sent, the text was received in California, thus making it a crime in California. There's already legal precedent for this with cyber crimes.
Click to expand...
No I actually just talked to a lawyer friend I have, and he confirmed jurisdiction would lay where the alleged evil act occurs. If he was out of state California has no jurisdiction 

 
ndobney said:
No I actually just talked to a lawyer friend I have, and he confirmed jurisdiction would lay where the alleged evil act occurs. If he was out of state California has no jurisdiction 
Click to expand...
Then you need to consult with a different lawyer because that's not accurate to this case. At all.

I believe @Redux was selling timeshares if you're interested.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
Then you need to consult with a different lawyer because that's not accurate to this case. At all.

I believe @Redux was selling timeshares if you're interested.
Click to expand...
My guess is your talking about extradition.  California can not or will not extradite for a misdemeanor, but can for a felony.    This explains the child porn charge!

 
ndobney said:
No I actually just talked to a lawyer friend I have, and he confirmed jurisdiction would lay where the alleged evil act occurs. If he was out of state California has no jurisdiction 
Click to expand...
You should tell your friend that the Supreme Court ruled on the detrimental effects way back in 1911. Summary:

To satisfy the minimum requirements for an exercise of criminal jurisdiction over out-of-state conduct,
there must be (1) an act occurring outside the state, which is (2) intended to produce detrimental effects
within the state, and (3) is the cause of detrimental effects within the state. Unlike the jurisdictional
analysis in civil cases, the "minimum contacts" analysis does not apply when determining criminal
jurisdiction.6
In criminal cases, the analysis focuses on the intent of the defendant and the effects within
the forum state.
Click to expand...

 
SouthLincoln Husker said:
My guess is your talking about extradition.  California can not or will not extradite for a misdemeanor, but can for a felony.    This explains the child porn charge!
Click to expand...
It's not about extradition. @ndobney was talking about jurisdiction and prosecution.

The alleged victim in this crime received the text in California. It does not matter if the perpetrator was in Nebraska or Tibet. The alleged text was a crime in California and they can prosecute it under California law. It's the exact same way we prosecute other inter-state cyber crimes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
It's not about extradition. @ndobney was talking about jurisdiction and prosecution.

The alleged victim in this crime received the text in California. It does not matter if the perpetrator was in Nebraska or Tibet. The alleged text was a crime in California and they can prosecute it under California law. It's the exact same way we prosecute inter-state cyber crimes.
Click to expand...


Correct.  It wouldn't make any sense in saying the jurisdiction is where the perpetrator is instead of the victim in cyber crimes since so many perpetrators are outside the country.  You would never be able to prosecute them in the US.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top