[News] Patrick Kane being investigated for rape. UPD: DA announces no charges

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

I actually know that one of my head oddly enough. The whole 12 person grand jurors thing was started by King Henry II. It represented the 12 jurisdiction he governed. The Grand Jury was introduced to cut down on frivolous travel time if he wasn't actually needed.

Later King Henry III doubled it to 24 but resulted in too many ties so he cut it to 23. Back in the day this would have been the method. In todays Grand juries you need a supermajority(2/3 or 3/4 depends on jurisdiction) to get a Grand jury indictment making ties irrelevant in that sense. Even if you had a 12 jury vote 7- 5 to indict to charge it would still not be enough anyways as you would need 8 infavour for charging.


The one thing to note with this case and others that even if grand jury does not indict Kane that the prosecutor still can formally charge him afterwards if he feels he has enough evidence to proceed to trial anyway.

Just as a timeline reference for this case a Grand jury term in New York is around 4 weeks ( from when it starts) hearing the case.

Edit .. This is a good read to what to expect in a grand jury.

http://www.queensdefense.com/courtprocessnewyorkcity/

So four more weeks before he is charged or not. I wonder if he'll go to training camp while he's before a grand jury. My guess is no. It would be too much distraction. The team will either suspend him with pay or he will be granted personal leave (with pay).

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality;5414128[B

]So four more weeks before he is charged or not[/B]. I wonder if he'll go to training camp while he's before a grand jury. My guess is no. It would be too much distraction. The team will either suspend him with pay or he will be granted personal leave (with pay).

It could be shorter or longer thats just the average tem of a grand jury. Like I stated earlier even if a grand jury does not indict the prosecutor can if he beleives there is enough evidence.

[d_phaneuf]

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...s-say-20150908

A grand jury investigation into rape allegations against National Hockey League star Patrick Kane set to begin Tuesday afternoon has been abruptly postponed, according to three current and former law enforcement sources with knowledge of the case.

The reason for the delay appears to involve the possibility of ongoing settlement talks between attorneys for Kane and the victim, two of the sources said.

if he settles does the NHL just let him play? that's a horrible look

[Locke]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...s-say-20150908

if he settles does the NHL just let him play? that's a horrible look

So its sort of come full circle.

[pseudoreality]

See this is where the law and Lawyers make me sick. If he's raped a women he should go to jail and should not be able to pay her off. If he didn't rape a women, there should be no financial incentives for false allegations.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

See this is where the law and Lawyers make me sick. If he's raped a women he should go to jail and should not be able to pay her off. If he didn't rape a women, there should be no financial incentives for false allegations.

Name one woman who got a big payday for an allegation that was proven false.

And why shouldn't a woman get financial compensation if the allegation is true, jail or no?

The Crown/DA doesn't accept a plea bargain because a woman got paid. They accept it because a trial is hard to win, hard on the victim, and a speedy resolution is often a good alternative. Do you think every charge should go to trial, and none should be settled?

[d_phaneuf]

this isn't a plea bargain though, she would be dropping charges and I imagine signs an NDA

[jar_e]

The NHL has already started to shun Kane...

http://sabres.buffalonews.com/2015/0...otional-image/

The National Hockey League and the Chicago Blackhawks do not want Patrick Kane representing their brands.


The Buffalo News has learned Kane was not invited to the NHL’s annual preseason media tour Tuesday and Wednesday, when 40 of the top veteran players gather to make television promos that will appear throughout the upcoming season.


The NHL and Blackhawks mostly have been silent on Kane’s status since a woman accused him of raping her Aug. 2 at his lakefront mansion in the Town of Hamburg. Not inviting the four-time All-Star to this year’s media tour helps the NHL and the Blackhawks keep their distance from one of the world’s most identifiable players.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

this isn't a plea bargain though, she would be dropping charges and I imagine signs an NDA

There's actually no such thing as a victim "dropping charges". The prosecution is in charge of whether charges are dropped" or not. And an NDA can't override a subpoena in a criminal case.

Obviously the prosecution takes into account the willingness of the victim to continue the accusations and/or testify but it's not the latter's choice, once a charge is made.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There's actually no such thing as a victim "dropping charges". The prosecution is in charge of whether charges are dropped" or not. And an NDA can't override a subpoena in a criminal case.

Obviously the prosecution takes into account the willingness of the victim to continue the accusations and/or testify but it's not the latter's choice, once a charge is made.

Are you sure about that, especially in the states? And in this type of a crime, if the victim decides there was no crime, there was likely no crime and no way for the prosecution to press charges.

If there is a settlement in this case, I can't imagine that it wouldn't involve a "drop of charges" or else what's the point of settling (if you are Kane).

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Name one woman who got a big payday for an allegation that was proven false.

Well I'm not sure what proof you would accept, but there has been numerous cases where the wealthy just pay off women to go away without admitting guilt.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

And why shouldn't a woman get financial compensation if the allegation is true, jail or no?

This shouldn't happen because there should not be financial motivation for allegations and the situation shouldn't be different due to the wealth of the accused. Is a women raped from a poor guy less of a victim?

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The Crown/DA doesn't accept a plea bargain because a woman got paid. They accept it because a trial is hard to win, hard on the victim, and a speedy resolution is often a good alternative. Do you think every charge should go to trial, and none should be settled?

I think guilty people should go to jail regardless of their bank account. I believe the two-tiered legal system is a disgrace to civilized society. People freak out in Canada over private medical clinics because it is bringing us down the road of the evil two-tiered medical system they have in the US. However, somehow our lawyer politicians have convinced us that is perfectly acceptable to have a two-tiered justice system because it lines their pockets.

[cam_wmh]

Wouldn't the victim have undergone a disposition though?
Does that ever go on public record? When?

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There's actually no such thing as a victim "dropping charges". The prosecution is in charge of whether charges are dropped" or not. And an NDA can't override a subpoena in a criminal case.

Obviously the prosecution takes into account the willingness of the victim to continue the accusations and/or testify but it's not the latter's choice, once a charge is made.

She could recant her statement couldn't she?

[codynw]

Forgive my ignorance, but why would they even discuss a settlement if he's innocent? I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I think the whole thing screams "guilty".

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by codynw

Forgive my ignorance, but why would they even discuss a settlement if he's innocent? I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I think the whole thing screams "guilty".

Because it could be long drawn out trial.

If they settle and she signs a NDA, then it goes away.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Are you sure about that, especially in the states? And in this type of a crime, if the victim decides there was no crime, there was likely no crime and no way for the prosecution to press charges.

If there is a settlement in this case, I can't imagine that it wouldn't involve a "drop of charges" or else what's the point of settling (if you are Kane).

The victim doesn't decide if there was a crime or not. Law Enforcement and the DA determine if there was a crime committed and can proceed against a victim's wishes if they are so inclined. From what I understand.

Normally they would still pursue charges provided they had evidence to go to trial with (i.e. theft). With a rape case, however, they may not pursue charges if the victim is not going to be cooperative or if the victim doesn't want to relive it etc etc etc. Often victim testimony is key to such cases and not having the cooperation of the victim make sit a difficult case to win.

I do wonder how many innocent people pay a settlement to a victim....not trying to be slanderous I just really wonder.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Because it could be long drawn out trial.

If they settle and she signs a NDA, then it goes away.

For awhile. IF, and I say IF, this was indeed a sexual assault it likely wasn't the first nor will it be the last. Eventually it'll catch up to a person. See Bill Cosby.

[CliffFletcher]

The recidivism rate for sex offensives (24.5 per cent in a 15 year window) is lower than the overall recidivism rate for crime (37 per cent).

Scientific American article

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by ernie

For awhile. IF, and I say IF, this was indeed a sexual assault it likely wasn't the first nor will it be the last. Eventually it'll catch up to a person. See Bill Cosby.

I meant why would a innocent person settle.. I suggested to make it just go away.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Name one woman who got a big payday for an allegation that was proven false.

And why shouldn't a woman get financial compensation if the allegation is true, jail or no?

The problem I see with people getting financial compensation for any law infraction, is that some people might see it as a "get rich quick" scheme.

If money is never introduced into law issues, it takes that whole money angle right out of play.

Maybe nobody has ever been paid for making false allegations (impossible to prove), but I'm sure people's names have been ruined or at the very least tarnished by false allegations made by certain gold diggers.