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

[Hoss]

2 is reporting that the witness to the alleged Rape has been subpoenaed to appear in front of a Grand Jury on September 8th.

[Eleven]

None.  It is against the law to enter into a contract that may require you to break the law.  Should the accuser be compelled to testify in contravention of the terms of the agreement the contract, i.e. settlement, would be unenforceable. Note, that would apply to any clawback provisions requiring the accuser to repay the original consideration.  The accuser would keep the money.  

 

In what world is the DA going to compel her to testify?  

[Stoner]

2 is reporting that the witness to the alleged Rape has been subpoenaed to appear in front of a Grand Jury on September 8th.

There's a witness to the alleged rape?

To answer my own question, Channel 2 characterizes the witness as "the woman who was with Patrick Kane's alleged rape victim."

[MattPie]

There's a witness to the alleged rape?

To answer my own question, Channel 2 characterizes the witness as "the woman who was with Patrick Kane's alleged rape victim."

 

Upthread, the story is two women (friends) when home with Kane and his friend. Friend #1 and Kane's Friend went off into another part of the house, and left Kane and Friend #2 alone, when the alleged rape happened. At least that seems to be from the more legitimate reports.

[Hoss]

Upthread, the story is two women (friends) when home with Kane and his friend. Friend #1 and Kane's Friend went off into another part of the house, and left Kane and Friend #2 alone, when the alleged rape happened. At least that seems to be from the more legitimate reports.

This hasn't been reported. It was an assumption by a poster or two but the circumstances you presented aren't reported facts.

[That Aud Smell]

2 is reporting that the witness to the alleged Rape has been subpoenaed to appear in front of a Grand Jury on September 8th.

 

So, a grand jury. 

 

In what world is the DA going to compel her to testify?  

 

I guess that's what a lot of this boils down to: Practicalities. I am intrigued, though, by how these sorts of agreements get crafted. Is the D.A. involved in getting what its office wants in terms of a plea, maybe?

 

Upthread, the story is two women (friends) when home with Kane and his friend. Friend #1 and Kane's Friend went off into another part of the house, and left Kane and Friend #2 alone, when the alleged rape happened. At least that seems to be from the more legitimate reports.

This hasn't been reported. It was an assumption by a poster or two but the circumstances you presented aren't reported facts.

 

At least part of what MattPie said has been reported.

 

Lt. Thomas English told The Buffalo News that he drove Kane, the alleged rape victim, her female friend and a male friend of Kane’s to the National Hockey League player’s home on Old Lake Shore Road early on the morning of Aug. 2.

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/hamburg/off-duty-officer-was-kanes-driver-on-night-of-alleged-rape-20150815

[3putt]

In what world is the DA going to compel her to testify?  

Highly unlikely as I have implied previously but I am aware of situations involving serials where it has happened. Also in domestic abuse  cases. 

[Neo]

General question for those more informed than me. My legal training is comprised of watching L.A. Law and Law and Order on television.

 

I understand a suspect/person of interest can voluntarily submit to DNA testing. I also believe it can be court compelled.

 

One, is that correct?

 

Two, if a court order is secured, would/could it be before charges or a Grand Jury presentation?

 

I ask as a general matter. The question occurred to me while reading about the Grand Jury in this case.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Neo

[Eleven]

General question for those more informed than me. My legal training is comprised of watching L.A. Law and Law and Order on television.

 

I understand a suspect/person of interest can voluntarily submit to DNA testing. I also believe it can be court compelled.

 

One, is that correct?

 

Two, if a court order is secured, would/could it be before charges or a Grand Jury presentation?

 

I ask as a general matter. The question occurred to me while reading about the Grand Jury in this case.

 

IIRC, but I'll defer to those who might know criminal law better than I do:

 

--LA Law predated DNA testing, so any precedent set by Susan Dey is inapplicable.

 

--The defendant can voluntarily submit to DNA tests.

 

--Here's where I'm murky:  I *think* that, after years of back-and-forth, the courts have come to the conclusion that DNA testing is more akin to fingerprinting than it is to testimony, and so compelling a defendant to give DNA evidence does not violate the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.  I am not certain.  When I get into the office later I'll try to find something more definite.  In any event, they searched his house; you'd think they could get his DNA off of a toothbrush or something.

[Neo]

Eleven - grateful!

 

You've raised another question in my mind. No assignment, you're busy.

 

Can you get DNA from a toothbrush found during a home inspection? My television training - I thought investigators had to wait for you to discard a Coke can in a public trash container so there'd be no expectation of privacy. Is that expectation relevant? Perhaps it goes away with the search warrant, if it was ever there.

 

Good info on the fingerprinting/DNA/testimony front.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Neo

[Eleven]

Eleven - grateful!

 

You've raised another question in my mind. No assignment, you're busy.

 

Can you get DNA from a toothbrush found during a home inspection? My television training - I thought investigators had to wait for you to discard a Coke can in a public trash container so there'd be no expectation of privacy. Is that expectation relevant? Perhaps it goes away with the search warrant, if it was ever there.

 

Good info on the fingerprinting/DNA/testimony front.

 

There was either probable cause or a search warrant, so yeah, that goes away.

[Neo]

I'm thinking of getting a Chancery Wig. $500 to $2,100, U.S., at chancerywigs.com.

[3putt]

IIRC, but I'll defer to those who might know criminal law better than I do:

 

--LA Law predated DNA testing, so any precedent set by Susan Dey is inapplicable.

 

--The defendant can voluntarily submit to DNA tests.

 

--Here's where I'm murky:  I *think* that, after years of back-and-forth, the courts have come to the conclusion that DNA testing is more akin to fingerprinting than it is to testimony, and so compelling a defendant to give DNA evidence does not violate the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.  I am not certain.  When I get into the office later I'll try to find something more definite.  In any event, they searched his house; you'd think they could get his DNA off of a toothbrush or something.

Maryland v King, 2013. The states interest in identification along with the minimally invasive nature of procuring the sample via a mouth swab outweighed the defendant's expectation of privacy and did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. Your recollection is accurate.

[Neo]

3Putt: Thank you. I remember that Supreme Court decision because of your mention.

 

I will re-read Scalia's dissent today. No surprise, I enjoy his critical thinking and use of sharp language. Notably, the dissent was joined by Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

 

Now, will you check my conclusion? To wit: Since M v K, it is now the law of the land that law enforcement can compel DNA samples whenever they determine it's important to an investigation OR booking and identification, with respect given to procedure.

 

Did I over reach with that? Does a suspect/POI have any defense?

 

 

Addendum: I'm reading. It seems to me that a compelled or searched for sample, where there's a warrant or probable cause, existed befor M v K. The M v K decision then went further to allow for compelled samples during routine booking following an arrest.

 

Saturday fun - read Scallia dissents after mowing.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Neo

[Eleven]

There's also the question of the New York Constitution.  Not sure how our state has ruled on that.  The state is free to give broader protections than the US Constitution does.

[That Aud Smell]

Lou Michel (BN) reports - based on multiple sources - that the grand jury proceedings have been "abruptly" adjourned in light of ongoing settlement talks between the attorneys for Kane and the accuser.

[Doohicksie]

So.... she was a gold-digger?  Or she had a valid charge but they threw so much money at her she decided to take the money & run?

[That Aud Smell]

So.... she was a gold-digger?  Or she had a valid charge but they threw so much money at her she decided to take the money & run?

 

The truth is almost always somewhere in the middle. Or a shmear of all possible things. Or at the bottom of a bottomless pit.

[Doohicksie]

Yeah.  It probably depends on which side of the settlement someone is looking at it from.

[Drunkard]

So.... she was a gold-digger?  Or she had a valid charge but they threw so much money at her she decided to take the money & run?

Could be either of those or she could have gotten an awful statement of truth from her attorney or the DA (who knows if she has personal counsel) that this won't be pretty and Kane's lawyer will do everything in his power to smear her character in order to create reasonable doubt.

[bbb]

She'll always look like a gold digger

[Doohicksie]

She'll always look like a gold digger

 

If she ends up with the gold, I don't think that will bother her much.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Robins Egg

[MattPie]

Lou Michel (BN) reports - based on multiple sources - that the grand jury proceedings have been "abruptly" adjourned in light of ongoing settlement talks between the attorneys for Kane and the accuser.

So.... she was a gold-digger?  Or she had a valid charge but they threw so much money at her she decided to take the money & run?

The truth is almost always somewhere in the middle. Or a shmear of all possible things. Or at the bottom of a bottomless pit.

 

Aud: Right. As with most of this story we don't really know the facts. Maybe she was a gold-digger holding out for more money (and when the case started lining up, Kane's team offered a ton). Or the other way is the case was already borderline and she figured (or was advised) this could go either way and might as well get paid for the suffering even if there's a chance at justice. It's a tough call: being set for money for years vs. a 50/50 shot at putting someone away.

[That Aud Smell]

BN is keeping the comments open on this latest update, for some unknown reason.

 

A couple of comments posted there led me down a rabbit hole of rumour that I wish I had never encountered. Holy shnikes.

[LGR4GM]

She'll always look like a gold digger

Why?

 

 but even if she does settle, that doesn't look like a gold digger, it looks like something happen. 

 

If she ends up with the gold, I don't think that will bother her much.

Unless he did rape her and then she has to carry that pain for the rest of her life while Kane just loses some money.