An attorney for Brock Turner—the former Stanford University swimmer whose few-month jail stay for sexual assault sparked a national conversation about rape culture and judicial discretion—said his client only wanted to have “sexual ‘outercourse’” with his passed-out victim and didn’t “intend” to rape her.
Eric Multhaup said as much in court Tuesday while trying to convince a three-judge panel to overturn his client’s sentence to a lifetime status as a registered sex offender, according to news reports. Turner, now 22, was convicted in March 2016 of assault with intent to rape an unconscious woman, sentenced in June that year to six months in jail and released in half that time.
An emotional 7,000-word statement from the victim known only as Emily Doe” vaulted the case into the international spotlight. Outrage over the brevity of Turner’s lockup branded the ex-athlete as the face of rape culture and fueled a recall campaign that ousted the judge who sentenced him.
Last December, Turner applied for an appeal. His legal counsel claimed at the time that the initial trial was unfairly swayed in Emily Doe’s favor by a “lengthy set of lies.” Multhaup has since narrowed his argument to the question of intent.
At Tuesday’s hearing in California’s 6th District Court of Appeal, Multhaup asserted that Turner only wanted sexual contact while fully dressed. Multhaup called it “’outercourse,’” and described it as a version of “safe sex.”
Assistant Attorney General Alisha Carlile, who appeared on behalf of the state, reportedly dismissed Multhaup’s characterization as “far-fetched” and in direct contradiction to the eyewitness accounts of two grad students who saw Turner “thrusting his hips atop an unconscious woman lying” partially naked by a dumpster on campus.
According to court records, Emily Doe woke up in a hospital the next day with bloodied hands and arms and scraped, scratched and dirtied genitalia.
The judges have 90 days to rule on Turner’s request for a new trial.
> An attorney for Brock Turner . . . .said his client only wanted to have “sexual ‘outercourse’” .
A helpful suggestion for Counselor Multhaup:
1. Donate ten million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
2, Call Bill Clinton as an expert witness on the difference between “outercourse” and “intercourse”.
S-P-P-P-R-R-R-I-N-N-N-G-G-G ! ! !
Michele Dauber will come up with an explanation that poor quality medicinal marijuana made Brock Turner think he was just making a citizen’s arrest of Melania Trump.
Honestly, this is only happening because Turner’s parents have too much money to try to “save their kid.” This kind of criminal appeal is quite expensive. The best criminal defense work is rich kid. They’ll overpay thinking that “you get what you pay for” even though in most cases a PD is just as good.
not having followed this case too closely I didn’t realize they had both been drinking. if the female had not passed out -but was merely drunk and actually had sex – would that have been rape? Or what if the guy had passed out and she was on top of him – humping away – – would that have been rape? I am not taking sides here – just trying to figure what determines rape.
It’s one thing for defense counsel to argue the merits of their position. It’s wholly another thing to make an argument so incredibly stupid and inflammatory that if the court bought it, even a tiny little bit, in a case that resulted in the recall of the trial judge, they would be voting themselves out of a job. Turner’s legal position regarding the sufficiency of evidence is weak, but if he had something to work with he just shot himself in the foot. It will not be lost on the appellate justices that they go through retention elections.
Just making such an argument is borderline malpractice. Sometimes I wonder if the lawyers forget who they represent. The rules are unambiguous, they represent their client not their own marketing. Multhap should get a stern lecture in strategy, duty of loyalty, and ethics. He should also efund his client’s money.
> It will not be lost on the appellate justices that they go through retention elections.
TRANSLATION: Michele Dauber’s recall undermined judicial independence.
Courts no longer decide guilt, or innocence, or sentencing; “community organizers” and their mobs do.
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/765AE4DB-3B9ACA00-1-33873807_10105908127971014_7087145553972166656_o-772×350.jpg
Yeah, the pointlessness of this appeal feels a Hail Mary when you’re down by six touchdowns. I didn’t agree with Michele Dauber about very much, but I think she’s correct in saying it’s time for Brock to accept things as they are and move on (or maybe Brock has and it’s his parents who are driving the appeal). This obviously isn’t going to work unless these judges want to be out of work with Mr. Persky.
I don’t think Brock raped Ms. Doe, but had the students not interceded it might very well had proceeded to that. No one will ever know. All this sordidness and waste could have been avoided if Brock had simply retreated to his room that night and watched porn of something. He monumentally blew it as I’m sure it eventually wouldn’t had been that hard with a little patience for a Stanford swimmer to get a nice GF–it wasn’t like he was destined to be an incel.
> This obviously isn’t going to work unless these judges want to be out of work with Mr. Persky.
More threats against judges.
The Left REALLY wants a mobocracy.