Legal Ramifications of He said / She said situations

[CowboyPhil]

Are there legal ramifications for any/all of these he said / she said cases?

I'm talking about Moore, Weinstein, Brett Ratner, etc. I'm not asking from a political point of view but from a legal.

If it is truly an accusation with no outside proof except for what a victim says can a person be brought up on charges?

Like last year there were over a dozen women I believe that accused Trump of "groping", but can any actual charges be brought if there is no physical evidence or additional witnesses?

 

[07pilt]

asking for a friend

 

[CowboyJD]

The standard for law enforcement to investigate is reasonable suspicion. That's a low hurdle of proof.

The standard for filing charges is probable cause. Probable cause isn't specifically defined under the law. Basically it comes down to based upon a totality of the circumstances, is there a reasonable probablility that a crime was committed.

Then you have to have evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict. Again, reasonable doubt typically isn't specifically defined with a bright line. It is left up to juror(s) definition for the most part.

Then you have to deal with the statute of limitations in some of these cases (both criminal and civil). If the statute of limitation of prosecution has passed, you can't prosecute even with rock solid evidence.

IMO, a truly he said/she said case with NO other corroboration evidence is rarely pursued criminally. Based upon my own work experience, however, a true he said/she said with zero other evidence to consider (physical and/or circumstantial) is exceedingly rare itself.

 

[CowboyPhil]

Thanks JD.

 

[CowboyJD]

Thanks JD.

You are welcome.

 

[aix_xpert]

No one cares about the legal ramifications of what someone did 40 years ago. My challenge in all this is trying to separate what I consider real harassment, such as Weinstein, who has direct influence into whether or not actresses have success in their careers vs. the changing of our moral code over 40 years. I remember high school and knew several 'girls' who dated older men (in their 20s and 30s). It was accepted. Frowned upon? Yes. But ignored and not exactly relevant 40 years later. But if we are going to judge every action to today's standards, shouldn't we be throwing Bill Clinton under the bus? He was in the ultimate position of power relative to any of his staff or interns. Whether or not Monica (or others) was consensual, it was by today's definition sexual harassment.

 

[CowboyJD]

No one cares about the legal ramifications of what someone did 40 years ago. My challenge in all this is trying to separate what I consider real harassment, such as Weinstein, who has direct influence into whether or not actresses have success in their careers vs. the changing of our moral code over 40 years. I remember high school and knew several 'girls' who dated older men (in their 20s and 30s). It was accepted. Frowned upon? Yes. But ignored and not exactly relevant 40 years later. But if we are going to judge every action to today's standards, shouldn't we be throwing Bill Clinton under the bus? He was in the ultimate position of power relative to any of his staff or interns. Whether or not Monica (or others) was consensual, it was by today's definition sexual harassment.

Groping a teenager without her permission was accepted, but frowned upon in the 70s? I don't remember that.

Additionally for someone that has been running on an nonnegotiable family values code over the past 40 years like Moore, whether he held himself to that same code is certainly relevant to me.

I think most reasonable people understand the Clinton/Lewinski thing was casebook sexual harassment. I think most people understand that's why he initially lied about it. At the same time, he was impeached and went through a trial AND isn't running for office right now. If he was, I highly doubt he'd be electable and I know that the right would be yelling just as loudly and vociferously as the left is about Moore. Hell, they are...and he's not even running.

 

[hollywood]

I'll toss in my 2 cents.

While, the Statute of Limitations has run on nearly all of these cases, one thing that could start "fresh" is a defamation suit.

For instance, there is at least one defamation suit pending against Trump based on him calling one of his alleged victims of groping a "liar" and other negative assertions about her character.

Likewise, on the flip-side, Bill O'Reilly has a defamation suit currently pending against one of the women who accused him of groping them over the last year or so. He is claiming she defamed him when she made her allegations and that it was damaging to his character and professional standing.

Lastly, I would not agree with JD's assertion that Clinton/Lewinsky case was "textbook sexual harassment" in that the definition for Sexual Harassment is basically as follows (different jurisdictions/states may have slightly different standards):

"Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment."

The KEY element there being that by nearly all reports it was actually Lewinsky who was the aggressor and even if Bill were the aggressor, the advances were apparently NOT unwelcome. If you are a willing and voluntary participant, then you cannot turn around and claim you were harassed under the law. (In a theoretical sense.)

Just because there is sex between people in the office place, even between superior and subordinate, does not automatically equal sexual harassment. There's got to be a bit more to it than that.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I'll toss in my 2 cents.

While, the Statute of Limitations has run on nearly all of these cases, one thing that could start "fresh" is a defamation suit.

For instance, there is at least one defamation suit pending against Trump based on him calling one of his alleged victims of groping a "liar" and other negative assertions about her character.

Likewise, on the flip-side, Bill O'Reilly has a defamation suit currently pending against one of the women who accused him of groping them over the last year or so. He is claiming she defamed him when she made her allegations and that it was damaging to his character and professional standing.

Lastly, I would not agree with JD's assertion that Clinton/Lewinsky case was "textbook sexual harassment" in that the definition for Sexual Harassment is basically as follows (different jurisdictions/states may have slightly different standards):

"Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment."

The KEY element there being that by nearly all reports it was actually Lewinsky who was the aggressor and even if Bill were the aggressor, the advances were apparently NOT unwelcome. If you are a willing and voluntary participant, then you cannot turn around and claim you were harassed under the law. (In a theoretical sense.)

Just because there is sex between people in the office place, even between superior and subordinate, does not automatically equal sexual harassment. There's got to be a bit more to it than that.

Good point. As an aside, do you know what the age differential was between B. Clinton and M. Lewinski? For some reason I remember her as being young. Age of consent, but barely. Am I remembering wrongly?

 

[hollywood]

Good point. As an aside, do you know what the age differential was between B. Clinton and M. Lewinski? For some reason I remember her as being young. Age of consent, but barely. Am I remembering wrongly?

She was 22.

 

[imprimis]

No one cares about the legal ramifications of what someone did 40 years ago. My challenge in all this is trying to separate what I consider real harassment, such as Weinstein, who has direct influence into whether or not actresses have success in their careers vs. the changing of our moral code over 40 years. I remember high school and knew several 'girls' who dated older men (in their 20s and 30s). It was accepted. Frowned upon? Yes. But ignored and not exactly relevant 40 years later. But if we are going to judge every action to today's standards, shouldn't we be throwing Bill Clinton under the bus? He was in the ultimate position of power relative to any of his staff or interns. Whether or not Monica (or others) was consensual, it was by today's definition sexual harassment.

Perhaps he is being tossed about.

https://www.theatlantic.com/enterta...ckoning-with-bill-clintons-sex-crimes/545729/

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

No one cares about the legal ramifications of what someone did 40 years ago. My challenge in all this is trying to separate what I consider real harassment, such as Weinstein, who has direct influence into whether or not actresses have success in their careers vs. the changing of our moral code over 40 years. I remember high school and knew several 'girls' who dated older men (in their 20s and 30s). It was accepted. Frowned upon? Yes. But ignored and not exactly relevant 40 years later. But if we are going to judge every action to today's standards, shouldn't we be throwing Bill Clinton under the bus? He was in the ultimate position of power relative to any of his staff or interns. Whether or not Monica (or others) was consensual, it was by today's definition sexual harassment.

Maybe some sensibilities have changed in 40 years, but we're talking about getting banned from a mall. Back then, not in hindsight.

His first defense to all this was he got their mothers' permission.

 

[TPOKE]

My first semester at OSU, in the fall of 1982, I had a Biology professor. I can't remember his name, he was Black and one of the coolest profs I had. The first day of class he said (paraphrasing), the grade you earn is the grade you get. I don't want any of you little chickies coming into my off batting your eyes at me or crying about your grade, it won't change.

Men in power need to learn to walk away and stop taking advantage of women/girls. Sure there's females who think that if they put out they'll get ahead, BUT the male needs to walk away and women need to stand against them and not think they need to put out for advancement. I'm going to side with the 20 year old woman who's trying make a career, wherever it be, being run over by a pervert who can't keep it in his pants, regardless how long ago it was.

I for one am glad to see these women throwing these predators under the bus, whether it's Hollywood, Alabama or DC.

 

[aix_xpert]

I for one am glad to see these women throwing these predators under the bus, whether it's Hollywood, Alabama or DC.

I just hope these accusations are all 100% accurate and truthful, because we've (society) gleefully skipped any presumption of innocence for any of these men.

 

[imprimis]

I just hope these accusations are all 100% accurate and truthful, because we've (society) gleefully skipped any presumption of innocence for any of these men.

Some of these men have admitted their misdeeds.

 

[aix_xpert]

Some of these men have admitted their misdeeds.

Yep. And because some did, we assume that every one of the accused is guilty. That's a strong leap away from any presumption of innocence.

 

[TPOKE]

Yep. And because some did, we assume that every one of the accused is guilty. That's a strong leap away from any presumption of innocence.

I'm concerned about it opening floodgates for false accusations, but I would say that it's a very small percentage.

Billy Graham never met privately with a female for this reason.

 

[imprimis]

Yep. And because some did, we assume that every one of the accused is guilty. That's a strong leap away from any presumption of innocence.

I agree. Many assume the accused are guilty since some have admitted their misdeeds.

It's what is being done now to Judge Moore. Now before anyone unloads, I don't know whether he did or didn't do what he's accused of but he deserves the same presumption of innocence.

Now, today, it's Al Franken's turn in the crosshairs.

http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-tweeden-on-senator-al-franken/

 

[CowboyJD]

I agree. Many assume the accused are guilty since some have admitted their misdeeds.

It's what is being done now to Judge Moore. Now before anyone unloads, I don't know whether he did or didn't do what he's accused of but he deserves the same presumption of innocence.

Now, today, it's Al Franken's turn in the crosshairs.

http://www.kabc.com/2017/11/16/leeann-tweeden-on-senator-al-franken/

He deserves having these allegations proven beyond a reasonable doubt before people can decide whether they are more likely true than not and that he should withdraw from the race?

1. I disagree. That level of presumption is for criminal prosecutions, not public opinion.

2. I’m not assuming he is guilty, but given the number of accusers, and statements from non victims about him being barred from the mall for trawling for teenagers leads me to the conclusion that he’s not someone whom deserves to be a US Congressman.

3. I’m not seeing a whole lot of presumption of innocence in the Biden thread.

 

[CowboyPhil]

1. I agree with JD. But if Moore wants to stay in and people vote for him, what can you say? People have been voting for Maxine Walters for decades and she seems to be an imbecile.

2. I haven't commented one way or the other because I haven't kept up with it. But as far as deserving to be in Congress, our Constitution doesn't put any disqualifications against it except felony convictions (I'm guessing here). Lots of politicians haven't deserved to be voted in but in a corrupt system, the corrupt seem to win.

3. The only innocence I've seen in the Biden videos have been the little girls he has been groping. I would have been in jail if it was my daughter.

 

[imprimis]

Isn't this something for the voters of Alabama to decide?

Seems like there is a way to clear some of this up. Have Gloria Allred release control of the yearbook with the inscription allegedly from Moore for handwriting analysis. Moore's attorney claims it may not be Moore's handwriting.

If an independent expert determines it's Moore's it would add credibility to the accusation. If it's determined it's not Moore's handwriting then it a problem for, at least, that one accuser. I bet an independent analysis could be done before the election.

 

[CowboyJD]

Isn't this something for the voters of Alabama to decide?

Seems like there is a way to clear some of this up. Have Gloria Allred release control of the yearbook with the inscription allegedly from Moore for handwriting analysis. Moore's attorney claims it may not be Moore's handwriting.

If an independent expert determines it's Moore's it would add credibility to the accusation. If it's determined it's not Moore's handwriting then it a problem for, at least, that one accuser. I bet an independent analysis could be done before the election.

Who you going to get to “independently” analyze that isn’t going to immediately be attacked as biased by whichever side he disagrees with?

Handwriting analysis is very far from scientific analysis with actual forensic standards anyway. It’s basically just one person’s opinion.

 

[imprimis]

Who you going to get to “independently” analyze that isn’t going to immediately be attacked as biased by whichever side he disagrees with?

Handwriting analysis is very far from scientific analysis with actual forensic standards anyway. It’s basically just one person’s opinion.

On your first point it surely would.

On your second point, has handwriting analysis been used in court or elsewhere previously when forgery is suspected?

 

[CowboyJD]

On your first point it surely would.

On your second point, has handwriting analysis been used in court or elsewhere previously when forgery is suspected?

On my first point: Then why would the attorney volunteer to turn over that evidence to Moore and his people?

Second point: It used to be. I’m unaware of recent cases...at least criminally. We stopped doing such analysis in our lab maybe 10 years ago because of the lack of scientific backing for results. If it WAS used in court, I can guarantee there would be a second “expert” finding the exact opposite.

 

[GL97]

Isn't this something for the voters of Alabama to decide?

It appears that may have to be the case since Moore is currently refusing to drop-out. Hopefully, the voters of Alabama will make the right decision. If not, the U.S. Senate can then take action as well.

 

[GL97]

But if Moore wants to stay in and people vote for him, what can you say?

The Senate can remove him.

Let's just hope the voters of Alabama make the right choice here if Moore continues to insist on not withdrawing.

 

[GL97]

A new Fox News post has Doug Jones leading Moore 50-42 in Alabama.

If that poll is right, Moore is in trouble. Just imagine Alabama electing a Democrat Senator.

 

[MegaPoke]

asking for a friend

If you don’t have a crazy bitch from your past that comes to mind from the OP, you didn’t grab enough pussies in your misspent youth.

 

[imprimis]

Not so fast on the Senate removing Moore if he wins and is seated. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the Senate from expelling a member nor are there Senate rules prohibiting it. There has to be a resolution to expel and a 2/3 vote.

However, the Senate is very reticent to expel a Senator based on conduct which occurred prior to being elected and seated. Conduct which occurs while a Senator is much more likely.

If you are interested, read pages 4-7 in the linked document from the Senate describing Expulsion of a member.

Such restraint has been particularly evident when the conduct complained of occurred prior to the time the Member was in Congress, or occurred in a prior Congress, when the electorate knew of the conduct and still elected or re-elected the Member. The apparent reticence of the Senate or House to expel a Member for past misconduct after the Member has been duly elected or re-elected by the electorate, with knowledge of the Member’s conduct, appears to reflect in some part the deference traditionally paid in our heritage to the popular will and election choice of the people.

If Moore is elected and seated and the Senate decides to expel him for alleged misconduct occurring prior to being elected, what will they do to Al Franken whose admitted misconduct also occurred prior to his election?

https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/ee067ba0-db71-4394-9a37-453316aeb453.pdf

 

[imprimis]

 

[CowboyJD]

Not so fast on the Senate removing Moore if he wins and is seated. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the Senate from expelling a member nor are there Senate rules prohibiting it. There has to be a resolution to expel and a 2/3 vote.

However, the Senate is very reticent to expel a Senator based on conduct which occurred prior to being elected and seated. Conduct which occurs while a Senator is much more likely.

If you are interested, read pages 4-7 in the linked document from the Senate describing Expulsion of a member.

Such restraint has been particularly evident when the conduct complained of occurred prior to the time the Member was in Congress, or occurred in a prior Congress, when the electorate knew of the conduct and still elected or re-elected the Member. The apparent reticence of the Senate or House to expel a Member for past misconduct after the Member has been duly elected or re-elected by the electorate, with knowledge of the Member’s conduct, appears to reflect in some part the deference traditionally paid in our heritage to the popular will and election choice of the people.

If Moore is elected and seated and the Senate decides to expel him for alleged misconduct occurring prior to being elected, what will they do to Al Franken whose admitted misconduct also occurred prior to his election?

https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/ee067ba0-db71-4394-9a37-453316aeb453.pdf

I don’t believe it has happened since pre-Civil War times.

If one was expelled and the other one wasn’t, I would personally consider that as the Senate applying different standards based upon which side of the aisle they sat on.

 

[GL97]

There has to be a resolution to expel and a 2/3 vote.

However, the Senate is very reticent to expel a Senator based on conduct which occurred prior to being elected and seated. Conduct which occurs while a Senator is much more likely.

This is correct. However, the Senate can expel him if they want. And considering the seriousness of these allegations, if Moore is elected, there most likely will be an ethics investigation which could lead to him being expelled.

Not to mention how bad this will look for the Republican Party if this guy is elected and takes a seat in the Senate. It won't help them at all heading into the midterms.

If Moore is elected and seated and the Senate decides to expel him for alleged misconduct occurring prior to being elected, what will they do to Al Franken whose admitted misconduct also occurred prior to his election?

It would depend on what each individual ethics investigation concluded.

Also, keep in mind, Franken has apologized and called for an ethics investigation of himself. His accuser has accepted his apology and has said she doesn't want him expelled. Meanwhile, Moore continues to deny and deflect.