Patrick Kane: [Updated] D.A. Decides Not to Prosecute; NHL Determines Claims "Unfounded"

[Taro T]

It will fade. It always does. Going after her just keeps it in the spotlight and also brings up even more of the victim shaming stuff that people like to rant about.

And IF no charges are filed, how many people outside of Buffalo or Chicago are going to remember this by next season? If he lets it fade, it will quickly in at least 25 of the 27 metro areas that have NHL teams.

[nfreeman]

Maybe in this case. But in other cases you could prove that there's no way the rape could happen taken place. There could be surveillance footage. You could prove the timeline doesn't work out. Sometimes they can prove the wounds the supposed victim had were self-inflicted.

 

Yes, there are ways to prove accusations are false. And in those cases, the person making the false accusations should be punished.

 

We should punish false accusations both to protect people from having their lives ruined by a false accusation and to discourage false accusations from even happening. In the long run, it'll help the legitimate victims.

This.

[That Aud Smell]

Local paper reports that the accuser has submitted an affidavit declining prosecution.

 

What an awful circus.

 

I sensed things were going downhill for her once her civil attorney (a Baptist deacon!) wrote that bizarre open letter asking that we pray for, among other things, the Pope.

 

It sounds like her camp got wind that the DA wasn't going to present to the grand jury, so she got in there preemptively and said she would no longer cooperate. Sort of a "you can't fire me, I quit!" deal.

Edited November 3, 2015 by That Aud Smell

[Eleven]

I think your logic is backwards.  The crowds at games are chanting "no means no" to him.  He HAS to pursue a defamation suit if he can to help clear his name. 

As this thread illustrates, just having the case dismissed won't be enough PR for Kane or the Blackhawks.

 

It's not going to happen.

 

Local paper reports that the accuser has submitted an affidavit declining prosecution.

 

What an awful circus.

 

I sensed things were going downhill for her once her civil attorney (a Baptist deacon!) wrote that bizarre open letter asking that we pray for, among other things, the Pope.

 

It sounds like her camp got wind that the DA wasn't going to present to the grand jury, so she got in there preemptively and said she would no longer cooperate. Sort of a "you can't fire me, I quit!" deal.

 

Catholic deacon, no?

 

It may well be that the DA will not take it to the grand jury because his main source of evidence is refusing to testify--for whatever her reasons are.  As we all discussed upthread, a DA isn't going to force an alleged rape victim to testify.

[That Aud Smell]

Catholic deacon, no?

 

I had thought the same thing. But he's Baptist, evidently. Associated with the Mount Olive Baptist on East Delavan.

[Eleven]

I had thought the same thing. But he's Baptist, evidently. Associated with the Mount Olive Baptist on East Delavan.

 

Oops, yep.

[That Aud Smell]

Oops, yep.

 

Which made the whole thing all the weirder.

[Hoss]

Is it illegal to settle outside of the court/DA's knowledge?

[That Aud Smell]

Is it illegal to settle outside of the court/DA's knowledge?

 

We kicked this around upthread a bit.

 

The distinction to keep in mind here is that the D.A.'s jurisdiction is criminal, and does not extend to the civil.

 

There was nothing to prohibit Kane and the accuser from resolving any potential civil liability arising from this matter, and from doing so without the D.A.'s input or knowledge.

 

Of course, I'm not sure why Kane would settle the civil aspect of this matter if, as it appeared, the D.A. has resolved not to present the matter to a Grand Jury. 

[Hoss]

Of course, I'm not sure why Kane would settle the civil aspect of this matter if, as it appeared, the D.A. has resolved not to present the matter to a Grand Jury. 

If I were in the situation and had money to blow I would do it just to be safe. Especially because I'm sure any talks would have happened earlier in the process... I'm not saying this is the case, but it's worth thinking about as a possibility.

[That Aud Smell]

3putt had good insight on this as well. It would seem that a civil settlement agreement that purchases the accuser's silence and non-cooperation would be unlawful - likely under a witness tampering statute.

[Doohicksie]

Which made the whole thing all the weirder.

 

Not really.  They think the Pope is the antichrist.  So praying for him would be, well.... okay, yeah it's weird.

Of course, I'm not sure why Kane would settle the civil aspect of this matter if, as it appeared, the D.A. has resolved not to present the matter to a Grand Jury. 

 

Unless, of course, part of the settlement was for her to file the affidavit declining prosecution, which is why the DA isn't taking the case to the Grand Jury.  In other words, he paid her off.

3putt had good insight on this as well. It would seem that a civil settlement agreement that purchases the accuser's silence and non-cooperation would be unlawful - likely under a witness tampering statute.

 

Maybe.  Maybe it depends how it's worded.

[Eleven]

Here's an idea for some of you to kick around.  Most media outlets have a strict policy of not naming alleged rape victims.  (Not all do though, and you can find her name if you try hard enough, just don't expect me to help.)  What if they followed a similar policy with respect to the accused, at least until there is an indictment or something akin to one?  

[That Aud Smell]

Unless, of course, part of the settlement was for her to file the affidavit declining prosecution, which is why the DA isn't taking the case to the Grand Jury.  In other words, he paid her off.

 

I don't think you're making a distinction with a difference. The affidavit is tantamount to a refusal to cooperate, a refusal to testify.

 

The idea is that it'd be unlawful for an accused to purchase the non-cooperation of an accuser. Because it obstructs justice, tampers with a witness, and generally denies the People's interest in having have a criminal matter investigated and prosecuted. 

 

I think there'd also be ethical issues for any attorney involved in drafting that sort of agreement.

 

I think there are clever ways around the prohibition (such as tying the compensation paid to future earnings, or making the payments in installments), but I don't think Kane's camp would be doing that here. Not yet, anyway.

[TrueBlueGED]

We kicked this around upthread a bit.

 

The distinction to keep in mind here is that the D.A.'s jurisdiction is criminal, and does not extend to the civil.

 

There was nothing to prohibit Kane and the accuser from resolving any potential civil liability arising from this matter, and from doing so without the D.A.'s input or knowledge.

 

Of course, I'm not sure why Kane would settle the civil aspect of this matter if, as it appeared, the D.A. has resolved not to present the matter to a Grand Jury. 

 

I think it's basically what Shrader has said--make it go away ASAP. Settling when most of the media is focused on the criminal proceeding would help keep things quiet and get him beyond the whole thing sooner. 

Here's an idea for some of you to kick around.  Most media outlets have a strict policy of not naming alleged rape victims.  (Not all do though, and you can find her name if you try hard enough, just don't expect me to help.)  What if they followed a similar policy with respect to the accused, at least until there is an indictment or something akin to one?  

 

I'd be 100% in favor of that.

[Hoss]

Here's an idea for some of you to kick around. Most media outlets have a strict policy of not naming alleged rape victims. (Not all do though, and you can find her name if you try hard enough, just don't expect me to help.) What if they followed a similar policy with respect to the accused, at least until there is an indictment or something akin to one?

I wish we could do that. And, speaking from experience, I wish alleged male victims were treated with the same respect as female victims. Instead I've seen an alleged male victim named explicitly on air.

 

To be somewhat fair, there are tons of sexual assault/rape investigations that aren't reported because the suspect isn't a notable individual. When it's an elected official or somebody famous then it's a whole other story.

[That Aud Smell]

I think it's basically what Shrader has said--make it go away ASAP. Settling when most of the media is focused on the criminal proceeding would help keep things quiet and get him beyond the whole thing sooner. 

 

It's possible, of course. There is potentially huge value in having the whole thing go away. I may be under-estimating that.

 

My bet is that they know they're in a tremendous position of strength (from a bargaining standpoint), and would only settle the civil aspect now if it were for nuisance value.

 

 

Here's an idea for some of you to kick around.  Most media outlets have a strict policy of not naming alleged rape victims.  (Not all do though, and you can find her name if you try hard enough, just don't expect me to help.)  What if they followed a similar policy with respect to the accused, at least until there is an indictment or something akin to one?  

 

Hear, hear.

[Eleven]

I wish we could do that. And, speaking from experience, I wish alleged male victims were treated with the same respect as female victims. Instead I've seen an alleged male victim named explicitly on air.

 

To be somewhat fair, there are tons of sexual assault/rape investigations that aren't reported because the suspect isn't a notable individual. When it's an elected official or somebody famous then it's a whole other story.

 

I understand your meaning, but this is about the exact opposite of somewhat fair!

[Patty16]

I think your logic is backwards.  The crowds at games are chanting "no means no" to him.  He HAS to pursue a defamation suit if he can to help clear his name. 

As this thread illustrates, just having the case dismissed won't be enough PR for Kane or the Blackhawks.

 

Defamation against who?  There's absolutely no defamation case against the accuser. None. Zero.   

 

Plus, truth is an absolute defense to defamation.... do you really think PK wants to sit for a deposition about this????

 

And it would be virtually impossible to win a defamation case against DA's office as well,.

I don't think you're making a distinction with a difference. The affidavit is tantamount to a refusal to cooperate, a refusal to testify.

 

The idea is that it'd be unlawful for an accused to purchase the non-cooperation of an accuser. Because it obstructs justice, tampers with a witness, and generally denies the People's interest in having have a criminal matter investigated and prosecuted. 

 

I think there'd also be ethical issues for any attorney involved in drafting that sort of agreement.

 

I think there are clever ways around the prohibition (such as tying the compensation paid to future earnings, or making the payments in installments), but I don't think Kane's camp would be doing that here. Not yet, anyway.

 

 

Well there's nothing compelling her to talk to police. It's not a crime to simply refuse to cooperate. Now, there are procedural remedies for that but DA's don't use them against an alleged victim typically. 

 

There is no case if she doesn;t want to go forward, and they aren't going to go forward without her.  So it's not buying a witness' silence per se

[That Aud Smell]

Defamation against who?  

 

I believe the suggestion was that Kane should pursue a civil defamation suit against the accuser.

 

Well there's nothing compelling her to talk to police. It's not a crime to simply refuse to cooperate. Now, there are procedural remedies for that but DA's don't use them against an alleged victim typically. 

 

There is no case if she doesn;t want to go forward, and they aren't going to go forward without her.  So it's not buying a witness' silence per se

 

You're right that she's not obliged to talk to the police. Of course, she previously gave a sworn statement to the police subject to the penalties of perjury. And she could, in theory, be compelled to appear before a grand jury or plenary jury by lawful process (subpoena). But, I take your point: Notwithstanding what she said in her statement, she could suddenly and "inexplicably" become totally unhelpful to the People's case. And then there would be no case.

 

I'm not sure I follow your second point: If there were a settlement agreement between Kane and the accuser that provided that payment was given in consideration of her refusing to cooperate with the D.A., that would, in fact, be buying her silence. And it would most likely be illegal to enter into such an agreement (obstruction of justice, witness tampering), and, if that were the case, the agreement would be unenforceable.

Another thought: It's not that she would be committing a crime by agreeing to accept money in exchange for certain conduct; it's that Kane would potentially be committing a crime by making such a payment in order to obstruct the orderly administration of justice by the D.A.

[Taro T]

Here's an idea for some of you to kick around.  Most media outlets have a strict policy of not naming alleged rape victims.  (Not all do though, and you can find her name if you try hard enough, just don't expect me to help.)  What if they followed a similar policy with respect to the accused, at least until there is an indictment or something akin to one?

 

Would generally be in favor of that. Never fully made sense why the alleged victim's name isn't released but the accused's name is. (Not making alleged victim's name public is a good policy.) Once the accusation is in the public, the accused does develop a certain taint which doesn't seem to fully wash away regardless of whether the accusation has merit.

 

But would the media develop any culpability if the accused rapes again after the outlet learned of the accusation but before the name was made public? Probably not, but don't know the answer to that one. If they would/could, could see that a reason to release the accused's name. Accused rapist might be expected to rape again. Alleged victim isn't likely to be re-raped due to anonymity.

[Hoss]

We may hear from Sedita officially by the end of the week.

[TrueBlueGED]

It's possible, of course. There is potentially huge value in having the whole thing go away. I may be under-estimating that.

 

My bet is that they know they're in a tremendous position of strength (from a bargaining standpoint), and would only settle the civil aspect now if it were for nuisance value.

 

My working assumption at this point is any settlement will be of nuisance value to Kane, relatively speaking. And I'm not talking just monetary, although I'd expect even a victorious defense in civil court would be fairly costly. Add in time, distraction, forced testimony and PR...Unless it's a total slam dunk victory, I'd imagine writing a check is all-in-all cheaper.

[WildCard]

Here's an idea for some of you to kick around.  Most media outlets have a strict policy of not naming alleged rape victims.  (Not all do though, and you can find her name if you try hard enough, just don't expect me to help.)  What if they followed a similar policy with respect to the accused, at least until there is an indictment or something akin to one?  

I like this

[nfreeman]

Defamation against who?  There's absolutely no defamation case against the accuser. None. Zero.   

 

 

What is the basis for this?