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

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by DJones

I don't know what needs to be done but something has to change. At this point I think I would tell my daughter to be quiet about it, no point going to police, send her to therapy and pay Bubba to deal with the situation personally.

WTF?

There are so many things wrong with this statement.

1. By hiring a thug to rough up the person, you are risking jail time.
2. Do you really want the person that did this to your daughter, to go legally unpunished, so he could hurt other women?
3. You are indirectly teaching your daughter not to go to the Police when she is victimized by a crime, and to take matters into her own hands.

Our legal system is not perfect, but it is far better than the alternative that you suggest.

[Greybeard]

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...s-say-20150904

Link to Buffalo News story saying Kane rape case to go before Grand Jury next week.

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by Greybeard

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...s-say-20150904

Link to Buffalo News story saying Kane rape case to go before Grand Jury next week.

I'm not sure how long that process takes, but it sounds like there will either be criminal charges or not before training camp starts.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by Greybeard

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...s-say-20150904

Link to Buffalo News story saying Kane rape case to go before Grand Jury next week.

Could it be assumed that in a case this high profile, they wouldn't bother going to a grand jury, unless there was sufficient evidence to convict? With all the media attention it will garner.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Could it be assumed that in a case this high profile, they wouldn't bother going to a grand jury, unless there was sufficient evidence to convict? With all the media attention it will garner.

Usually the DA in high profile cases dosent want to be responsible for taking it to court. They can then claim its out of their hands then if it dosent go to court. In the states a D.A. has enough power to charge you instantly with or without any evidence. My friend got his law degree in the States and he told me that his law professor would joke about cases going to a grand jury. If the D.A wanted to charge a sandwich there would be no problem because thats how easy a it is for them to charge you if they want to.

[Illuminaughty]

Kane has to be found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. I could see him skating on these charges, will be interesting to see if he testifies or not.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Usually the DA in high profile cases dosent want to be responsible for taking it to court. They can then claim its out of their hands then if it dosent go to court. In the states a D.A. has enough power to charge you instantly with or without any evidence. My friend got his law degree in the States and he told me that his law professor would joke about cases going to a grand jury. If the D.A wanted to charge a sandwich there would be no problem because thats how easy a it is for them to charge you if they want to.

Wow, that's scary how much power a D.A. has, to charge without evidence, yikes!

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Kane has to be found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. I could see him skating on these charges, will be interesting to see if he testifies or not.

Thats not how a grand jury works tho. Its not based on if he is guilty or not. He hasn't been charged so there is no charges to skate by.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Thats not how a grand jury works tho. Its not based on if he is guilty or not. He hasn't been charged so there is no charges to skate by.

You are right, I missed that the first time I read it.

[PugnaciousIntern]

So this case (again) will possibly raise the question of whether somebody deserves to lose their job when charged with a criminal offence, before being found guilty. Especially when as explained above, a DA can lay charges with minimal limitations. Of course a grand jury is different, but in no way can be mistaken for proof of guilt.

I don't want rapists and domestic abusers in the NHL. But I also don't want lives to be ruined because of a situation entirely out of a possibly innocent man's control. This issue has been fascinating to watch for the last year in professional sports, although I don't like where it's headed.

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

So this case (again) will possibly raise the question of whether somebody deserves to lose their job when charged with a criminal offence, before being found guilty. Especially when as explained above, a DA can lay charges with minimal limitations. Of course a grand jury is different, but in no way can be mistaken for proof of guilt.

I don't want rapists and domestic abusers in the NHL. But I also don't want lives to be ruined because of a situation entirely out of a possibly innocent man's control. This issue has been fascinating to watch for the last year in professional sports, although I don't like where it's headed.

Well if he does get charged and he does get suspended, it will almost certainly be with pay. It won't be until a conviction that he'd might lose out on a paycheck. If he doesn't get charged, I doubt he'd face any suspension even if he's found liable in a civil court.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Could it be assumed that in a case this high profile, they wouldn't bother going to a grand jury, unless there was sufficient evidence to convict? With all the media attention it will garner.

Very seldom does a high profile rape charge not go to a grand jury to get charged, DA's don't want to make a high profile "mistake" either way.

Mike Tyson's case was exactly like this and recently the Tennesse football players Vandenburg, Banks, McKenzie and Batey went threw the Grand Jury.

As for Kane testifying, His mouth isn't the smartest, I would put a muzzle on him.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

If the D.A wanted to charge a sandwich there would be no problem because thats how easy a it is for them to charge you if they want to.

That's plain silly, The D.A. is an elected official, he wouldn't last very long being stupid and reckless.

Prosecutors are not advised to take cases to the grand jury unless they believe there's enough evidence that the grand jury will turn an indictment otherwise it's a huge waste of public money and time. A grand jury is made up of 20+ citizens.

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Wow, that's scary how much power a D.A. has, to charge without evidence, yikes!

Kane hasn't been charged with anything, But, The D.A. must believe there is enough evidence to charge Kane and now he will leave that decision to the grand jury. As stated this is extremely common when celebs are involved.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by T@T

That's plain silly, The D.A. is an elected official, he wouldn't last very long being stupid and reckless.

Prosecutors are not advised to take cases to the grand jury unless they believe there's enough evidence that the grand jury will turn an indictment otherwise it's a huge waste of public money and time. A grand jury is made up of 20+ citizens.


Kane hasn't been charged with anything, But, The D.A. must believe there is enough evidence to charge Kane and now he will leave that decision to the grand jury. As stated this is extremely common when celebs are involved.

1. You took the qouted out of context.

2. Grand jury sizes vary. 6 -12 in regular courts and between 16 to 23 people in the Federal system. Kanes not being charged Federally so it will be 6-12 people.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

1. You took the qouted out of context.

2. Grand jury sizes vary. 6 -12 in regular courts and between 16 to 23 people in the Federal system. Kanes not being charged Federally so it will be 6-12 people.

According to ABC news it's 23.

According to legal experts in Chicago, this is a signal that prosecutors in Buffalo, N.Y., believe they have enough evidence to charge Kane with a crime. But they will leave that ultimate decision to a panel of 23 citizens.

According to reports, a grand jury of 23 people in Erie County, N.Y., will begin hearing the evidence next week. The prosecution will likely call the alleged victim and the friend who allegedly accompanied her to Kane's home to testify.

http://abc7chicago.com/sports/patric...t-week/970916/

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by T@T

According to ABC news it's 23.


http://abc7chicago.com/sports/patric...t-week/970916/

Thats rather odd to me they have so many.

Edit. It seems New York state is one of the few that allow so many jury members apon further investigation.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Thats rather odd to me they have so many.

Edit. It seems New York state is one of the few that allow so many jury members apon further investigation.

Since your into investigating US law I'm told the odd number is for a "yay or nay" vote if necessary, is that true?

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by T@T

Since your into investigating US law I'm told the odd number is for a "yay or nay" vote if necessary, is that true?

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/

The Prosecutor is not required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

The Prosecutor is only required to convince the Grand Jurors that it is possible that the defendant might have committed a crime.

The Prosecution witnesses are not cross-examined by an attorney.

Prosecution witnesses are not usually challenged in any way

The defendant's attorney is not permitted to make opening or closing statements.

The defendant's attorney is not permitted to call witnesses on behalf of the defendant.

In fact, the proceedings are considered secret. The defendant and the defense attorney are not entitled even to know who testifies in the Grand Jury or what they said.

Although the defendant is permitted to testify, it is only by way of one long statement. A defendant who is not a professional or natural public speaker may not do very well, regardless of the justness of his cause.

There is no judge directly involved to make rulings of law. (Curse and a Blessing)

[T@T]

Pretty crazy to think the idea of the United States Grand Jury came from 12th century England

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by T@T

Pretty crazy to think the idea of the United States Grand Jury came from 12th century England

Yup. They are also the last country on earth to have grand juries. Japan is the only other one I can think of that has something that similair.