No charges after assault allegation tied to Huskers' home

[gtgphd]

 

 

 

 

I stayed out of the original thread completely.

 

But the comment by the prosecutor is very troubling. He-they claimed not enough proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". The problem with that as I understand it is that it's not the prosecutors job to make that decision... that's the job of a jury. It would appear that the prosecutors have anointed themselves as prosecutor and jury.

 

I don't ever remember seeing a prosecutor say something like that about filing charges. Plus it would appear to say that in fact there was some evidence just not enough for the prosecutor-jury-deciders. That's why we have jury's. The prosecutor seems to have overstepped his authority.

 

I'm not taking sides in this... but the statement by the prosecutor is troubling. I'm pretty sure that's not how things are supposed to work.

 

It's the prosecutors job to look at the case to determine if there is enough evidence there to file charges and secure a conviction. If not there would be so many cases going to court it would be insane and also a waste of tax payers money. Sure, they could've worded it differently, but regardless, there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with charges apparently.

 

 

But the prosecutor did not say there was not enough evidence. He used the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" which would imply that in fact there was evidence but that he made an assumption on how a jury would decide, even though that's not his job... that's a jurys job. That type of action by a prosecutor should be troubling in any case... this one or any other case.

 

 

I'm sorry but that's not how it works. Maybe ideally that's how it should work but it's not. Most cases don't actually go to a trial before a jury, regardless of whether they involve high profile defendants or not.

 

A prosecutor ethically should not bring a case which s/he does not believe he can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. S/he might believe the accused has committed a crime, but not beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. If s/he brings a case for which s/he does not have that level of evidence, that would be unjust and a waste of the public money. The standard of evidence for the title IX investigation is much lower -- based on weight of the evidence and preponderance of evidence. If a title IX investigator believes that all of the evidence (including hearsay evidence) supports a complaint, then the accused can (must?) be held responsible, according to the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education. Like it or not. However, the title IX person quoted in the JS article says that investigation will completed within 60 days, so that covers the rest of the season, easily. findings could affect player eligibility next year, though, as title ix sanctions include expulsion. If the reporting party is not satisfied with sanctions, then s/he can appeal or complain to the OCR.

[Saunders]

 

Husker Psycho, would it have sounded better if the prosecutor said "we did not find enough evidence to substansiate a case" ?

 

It probably should have been stated that way, but it wasn't. If the DA doesn't feel confident, I know I wouldn't want to miss work to sit in on that jury.

 

Yes

 

But he didn't say that. The term he used was not in his authority... and if the prosecutor does not know what his own authority is then that is very troubling.

 

IDK, but I think you're making a mountain of a tweet by a sportswriter that was summarizing. One would think the prosecutor would know if he has enough evidence to build a case. I'd rather we not waste resources and throw every single case in front of a jury.

[zoogs]

Oh, OK. I should probably shut up about what I don't know

 

Anyway, I'm hopeful that UNL will fulfill its Title IX duties faithfully. What that might mean, we'll just have to see.

[funhusker]

edit: nevermind, what others have said better than myself

[Husker Psycho]

 

 

Husker Psycho, would it have sounded better if the prosecutor said "we did not find enough evidence to substansiate a case" ?

 

It probably should have been stated that way, but it wasn't. If the DA doesn't feel confident, I know I wouldn't want to miss work to sit in on that jury.

 

Yes

 

But he didn't say that. The term he used was not in his authority... and if the prosecutor does not know what his own authority is then that is very troubling.

 

I say "god dammit" a lot, that isn't in my authority.... Hopefully God doesn't rework his methods because of a few wrong words I chose. I would hate to see that spilled beer actually go to hell...when I can just sip it up off the table, or floor...

 

 

Lawyers stock and trade are words.

 

The "prosecutor" is the number one weakest link in our criminal justice system. That position has been mishandled-abused more than any other in our legal system and the result has been a disaster for many victims.

 

I'm not taking sides in this issue, my comments are about the prosecutors actions and words.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

Husker Psycho, would it have sounded better if the prosecutor said "we did not find enough evidence to substansiate a case" ?

 

It probably should have been stated that way, but it wasn't. If the DA doesn't feel confident, I know I wouldn't want to miss work to sit in on that jury.

 

Yes

 

But he didn't say that. The term he used was not in his authority... and if the prosecutor does not know what his own authority is then that is very troubling.

 

I say "god dammit" a lot, that isn't in my authority.... Hopefully God doesn't rework his methods because of a few wrong words I chose. I would hate to see that spilled beer actually go to hell...when I can just sip it up off the table, or floor...

 

 

Lawyers stock and trade are words.

 

The "prosecutor" is the number one weakest link in our criminal justice system. That position has been mishandled-abused more than any other in our legal system and the result has been a disaster for many victims.

 

I'm not taking sides in this issue, my comments are about the prosecutors actions and words.

 

But you are taking sides. You're asserting the alleged victim didn't get a fair shake because the prosecutor didn't feel he had enough to build a case, and it should be up to a jury to decide.

 

The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. I think we need to do a better job of vetting cases, and throwing less people in the for profit prison system.

[gtgphd]

 

 

 

Husker Psycho, would it have sounded better if the prosecutor said "we did not find enough evidence to substansiate a case" ?

 

It probably should have been stated that way, but it wasn't. If the DA doesn't feel confident, I know I wouldn't want to miss work to sit in on that jury.

 

Yes

 

But he didn't say that. The term he used was not in his authority... and if the prosecutor does not know what his own authority is then that is very troubling.

 

I say "god dammit" a lot, that isn't in my authority.... Hopefully God doesn't rework his methods because of a few wrong words I chose. I would hate to see that spilled beer actually go to hell...when I can just sip it up off the table, or floor...

 

 

Lawyers stock and trade are words.

 

The "prosecutor" is the number one weakest link in our criminal justice system. That position has been mishandled-abused more than any other in our legal system and the result has been a disaster for many victims.

 

I'm not taking sides in this issue, my comments are about the prosecutors actions and words.

 

And a disaster for more than a few accused people.

[Husker Psycho]

 

 

Husker Psycho, would it have sounded better if the prosecutor said "we did not find enough evidence to substansiate a case" ?

 

It probably should have been stated that way, but it wasn't. If the DA doesn't feel confident, I know I wouldn't want to miss work to sit in on that jury.

 

Yes

 

But he didn't say that. The term he used was not in his authority... and if the prosecutor does not know what his own authority is then that is very troubling.

 

IDK, but I think you're making a mountain of a tweet by a sportswriter that was summarizing. One would think the prosecutor would know if he has enough evidence to build a case. I'd rather we not waste resources and throw every single case in front of a jury.

 

 

If the sportswriter was summarizing and the prosecutor did not actually say that then OK.

 

But that's the way it's being "reported"... for whatever something being reported by a reporter is worth... LOL

[Enhance]

 

Husker Psycho, would it have sounded better if the prosecutor said "we did not find enough evidence to substansiate a case" ?

 

It probably should have been stated that way, but it wasn't. If the DA doesn't feel confident, I know I wouldn't want to miss work to sit in on that jury.

 

Yes

 

But he didn't say that. The term he used was not in his authority... and if the prosecutor does not know what his own authority is then that is very troubling.

 

The term he used was in his authority.

 

A jury is responsible for finding guilt. They're not required to gather evidence and now you're confusing yourself on an attorney's job, or, at least appear to be. A prosecutor's burden is to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt, enough proof/evidence that a probable cause affidavit can be filed that leads to an arrest.

 

If the attorney can not find proof beyond a reasonable doubt then he has no case. As another poster accurately pointed out, if there was no need to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt then we could have cases going to trial all the time.

 

Here is a quote from the Executive Director of the National Attorney's Association during the Winston case.

 

Pay particular attention to the bolded.

 

"Across the country prosecutors will tell you that these kinds of sexual assault cases are the most difficult cases they screen and prosecute, without a question," says Scott Burns, the executive director of the National District Attorney's Association.

 

"A prosecutor's burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt," he told CBS News' Crimesider. "And many of these cases, even if there is physical evidence, are he-said she-said."

[Husker Psycho]

 

 

 

 

Husker Psycho, would it have sounded better if the prosecutor said "we did not find enough evidence to substansiate a case" ?

 

It probably should have been stated that way, but it wasn't. If the DA doesn't feel confident, I know I wouldn't want to miss work to sit in on that jury.

 

Yes

 

But he didn't say that. The term he used was not in his authority... and if the prosecutor does not know what his own authority is then that is very troubling.

 

I say "god dammit" a lot, that isn't in my authority.... Hopefully God doesn't rework his methods because of a few wrong words I chose. I would hate to see that spilled beer actually go to hell...when I can just sip it up off the table, or floor...

 

 

Lawyers stock and trade are words.

 

The "prosecutor" is the number one weakest link in our criminal justice system. That position has been mishandled-abused more than any other in our legal system and the result has been a disaster for many victims.

 

I'm not taking sides in this issue, my comments are about the prosecutors actions and words.

 

And a disaster for more than a few accused people.

 

 

Much less there because there is the counterbalance and leveling affect of a judge and jury... more eyes watching etc.

[funhusker]

 

 

 

Husker Psycho, would it have sounded better if the prosecutor said "we did not find enough evidence to substansiate a case" ?

 

It probably should have been stated that way, but it wasn't. If the DA doesn't feel confident, I know I wouldn't want to miss work to sit in on that jury.

 

Yes

 

But he didn't say that. The term he used was not in his authority... and if the prosecutor does not know what his own authority is then that is very troubling.

 

I say "god dammit" a lot, that isn't in my authority.... Hopefully God doesn't rework his methods because of a few wrong words I chose. I would hate to see that spilled beer actually go to hell...when I can just sip it up off the table, or floor...

 

 

Lawyers stock and trade are words.

 

The "prosecutor" is the number one weakest link in our criminal justice system. That position has been mishandled-abused more than any other in our legal system and the result has been a disaster for many victims.

 

I'm not taking sides in this issue, my comments are about the prosecutors actions and words.

 

His "actions and words" don't change the evidence or lack thereof in this case, however. He misspoke, I think we all agree he could have chosen wiser words; or the reporters could have paraphrased better.

 

Bottom line: the prosecutor is paid to look at evidence and present a case if there is enough damnig evidence. It is his/her discretion; some do a great job, some don't. But just because they word one sentence poorly doesn't mean the justict system has to take a case with insufficient evidence when the only outcome will be wasted taxpayer time and money. I understand we are talking about a sensitive case here because we are on a Husker forum, but I hope that standard is true across all crimes.

[Enhance]

He misspoke, I think we all agree he could have chosen wiser words; or the reporters could have paraphrased better.

I'll reference you to my post, #39. According to the Executive Director of the National District Attorney's Association, Kelly's wording was on point.

[broganreynik]

 

 

 

Husker Psycho, would it have sounded better if the prosecutor said "we did not find enough evidence to substansiate a case" ?

 

It probably should have been stated that way, but it wasn't. If the DA doesn't feel confident, I know I wouldn't want to miss work to sit in on that jury.

 

Yes

 

But he didn't say that. The term he used was not in his authority... and if the prosecutor does not know what his own authority is then that is very troubling.

 

IDK, but I think you're making a mountain of a tweet by a sportswriter that was summarizing. One would think the prosecutor would know if he has enough evidence to build a case. I'd rather we not waste resources and throw every single case in front of a jury.

 

 

If the sportswriter was summarizing and the prosecutor did not actually say that then OK.

 

But that's the way it's being "reported"... for whatever something being reported by a reporter is worth... LOL

 

 

No, that is actually what he said.

 

I know I wouldn't want to be raped in Lincoln. Only 15% of reported rapes actually end up with charges filed and someone convicted. 15! You take into account how many go uncharged, and I could see how a rape victim in Lincoln would feel hopeless.

[funhusker]

 

He misspoke, I think we all agree he could have chosen wiser words; or the reporters could have paraphrased better.

I'll reference you to my post, #39. According to the Executive Director of the National District Attorney's Association, Kelly's wording was on point.

 

I agree it was on point. His words were appropriate for most laypeople and all justice system professionals. However, may I reference you to post #29 where Husker Psycho admits he would feel differently if different words were used. The most important job of a prosecutor is to determine if there is a case or not. A peripheral job function is to relay information to the public in a way to make them feel comforted and that justice is being served. Did he do his "most important" job?: yes Did he accomplish the public comfort?: in most cases yes, but some questionable...

[Enhance]

 

 

He misspoke, I think we all agree he could have chosen wiser words; or the reporters could have paraphrased better.

I'll reference you to my post, #39. According to the Executive Director of the National District Attorney's Association, Kelly's wording was on point.

 

I agree it was on point. His words were appropriate for most laypeople and all justice system professionals. However, may I reference you to post #29 where Husker Psycho admits he would feel differently if different words were used. The most important job of a prosecutor is to determine if there is a case or not. A peripheral job function is to relay information to the public in a way to make them feel comforted and that justice is being served. Did he do his "most important" job?: yes Did he accomplish the public comfort?: in most cases yes, but some questionable...

 

That's an argument for someone else to make. Husker Psycho said the "term" was not in Kelly's authority to say and that was unequivocally false, which is why I responded.

 

Furthermore, contextually, him saying "no proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is a succinct way of saying "we didn't have enough evidence to substantiate a criminal case." I guess if people are looking for something to criticize then they go for it, but his his intent and meaning was 100% clear to me.