"Bygones" or Jail Time? What Punishment for a False Accusation?

[VinBucFan]

Its like that movie about pushing a button for your own gain but only at another's expense.  Would you essentially destroy a life (and the lifes associated with it) for $1.5 million?

[pewtersurf]

Wreck ship, I think if nobody quotes your post you can still delete it. If I was you, I would.

Your saying if that happened to you, you wouldn't think about killing her while you are sitting in prison for a few years?  Ironically being raped by the other prisoners.

[pewtersurf]

Its like that movie about pushing a button for your own gain but only at another's expense.  Would you essentially destroy a life (and the lifes associated with it) for $1.5 million?

Interesting and yes that is what this sick person chose.   I don't understand how our justice system allows for this.  How does she deserve1.5 million.  Maybe $10,000 for medical bills and to seek professional treatment would seem like a better judgement.

[John Galt?]

Though Banks, now 26, had always maintained his innocence, he pleaded no contest a decade ago to charges that he raped a fellow student.

Guy should definitely sue his lawyer (probably a public defender at the time). Why would you plea to such a horrific crime if you are innocent? If the only evidence was her statement, I'd sure as heck go all the way to trial. Sounds like a lazy PD (who didn't care) scared a uninformed HS kid into a terrible decision.

[tatmanfish]

rape her

horrible, but i giggled at this. She really does deserve jail time an should be forced to repay the money. He should be able to sue her for deformation of  character.

[John Galt?]

rape her

horrible, but i giggled at this. She really does deserve jail time an should be forced to repay the money. He should be able to sue her for deformation of  character.

He IS able to. And his case is a hell of a lot better than Vilma's defamation case against Goodell. He should also sue her for a crap load more than that like losing a free college education and a potential multi-million dollar NFL career. He should sue her, the original defense atty, the Cali DoJ, and everyone involved.

[tatmanfish]

lol, it auto corrected defamation to deformation. Id hate see how she deformed his character!

[VinBucFan]

Though Banks, now 26, had always maintained his innocence, he pleaded no contest a decade ago to charges that he raped a fellow student.

Guy should definitely sue his lawyer (probably a public defender at the time). Why would you plea to such a horrific crime if you are innocent? If the only evidence was her statement, I'd sure as heck go all the way to trial. Sounds like a lazy PD (who didn't care) scared a uninformed HS kid into a terrible decision.

Not really. He pled to 6 facing 40 plus and a victim who would swear to his guilt in a he said she said crime

[VinBucFan]

rape her

horrible, but i giggled at this. She really does deserve jail time an should be forced to repay the money. He should be able to sue her for deformation of  character.

He IS able to. And his case is a hell of a lot better than Vilma's defamation case against Goodell. He should also sue her for a crap load more than that like losing a free college education and a potential multi-million dollar NFL career. He should sue her, the original defense atty, the Cali DoJ, and everyone involved.

She is the only true defendant and I am sure all that money is gone. How could defense counsel and the State be liable? They presumably did not know she was lying.

Anyway, looks like he is suing that state and not her.

[John Galt?]

rape her

horrible, but i giggled at this. She really does deserve jail time an should be forced to repay the money. He should be able to sue her for deformation of  character.

He IS able to. And his case is a hell of a lot better than Vilma's defamation case against Goodell. He should also sue her for a crap load more than that like losing a free college education and a potential multi-million dollar NFL career. He should sue her, the original defense atty, the Cali DoJ, and everyone involved.

She is the only true defendant and I am sure all that money is gone. How could defense counsel and the State be liable? They presumably did not know she was lying.

Anyway, looks like he is suing that state and not her.

Well the State is liable for Wrongful Prosecution if their case was based primarily on a false testimony. The defense council could be liable for malpractice if they failed to explain his options or exaggerated the prosecutions chances for a conviction.

If it was a public defender and he can show they were understaffed, inexperienced, or somehow unable to give the case its proper attention, that's malpractice. If it was just a he said/she said case, then they just have to cast doubt on her (now false) testimony. If instead the defense didn't listen to, or believe the client and insisted on taking a plea deal, again malpractice.

Of course he is suing the state and not her, she probably doesn't have much if any money left.

[VinBucFan]

rape her

horrible, but i giggled at this. She really does deserve jail time an should be forced to repay the money. He should be able to sue her for deformation of  character.

He IS able to. And his case is a hell of a lot better than Vilma's defamation case against Goodell. He should also sue her for a crap load more than that like losing a free college education and a potential multi-million dollar NFL career. He should sue her, the original defense atty, the Cali DoJ, and everyone involved.

She is the only true defendant and I am sure all that money is gone. How could defense counsel and the State be liable? They presumably did not know she was lying.

Anyway, looks like he is suing that state and not her.

Well the State is liable for Wrongful Prosecution if their case was based primarily on a false testimony. The defense council could be liable for malpractice if they failed to explain his options or exaggerated the prosecutions chances for a conviction.

If it was a public defender and he can show they were understaffed, inexperienced, or somehow unable to give the case its proper attention, that's malpractice. If it was just a he said/she said case, then they just have to cast doubt on her (now false) testimony. If instead the defense didn't listen to, or believe the client and insisted on taking a plea deal, again malpractice.

Of course he is suing the state and not her, she probably doesn't have much if any money left.

Interesting article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575520743846916002.html

[John Galt?]

Interesting article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575520743846916002.html

Difference there is that guy was tried by a jury and found guilty, but the trial was appealed and overturned and the re-trial dismissed.

In Banks case he never got a trial because he plead. I think the most culpable party in this case (besides the chick who lied) is his defense atty. They knew he had a scholarship to USC and was a top football recruit and they knew he was a high school kid completely overwhelmed by these charges and not educated/experienced enough to make quick decision so they had a DUTY to fully and completely explain all the options. He never got a chance to face his accuser, his council never got a chance to question her before a jury, to throw doubt on her testimony, etc. etc.

I am just speculating, but IF his atty was a govt employed public defender and IF he treated Banks as just another of the 50+ cases he had that week and 90% of those were plea deals; then it can be shown he did not receive adequate council.

[VinBucFan]

Interesting article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575520743846916002.html

Difference there is that guy was tried by a jury and found guilty, but the trial was appealed and overturned and the re-trial dismissed.

In Banks case he never got a trial because he plead. I think the most culpable party in this case (besides the chick who lied) is his defense atty. They knew he had a scholarship to USC and was a top football recruit and they knew he was a high school kid completely overwhelmed by these charges and not educated/experienced enough to make quick decision so they had a DUTY to fully and completely explain all the options. He never got a chance to face his accuser, his council never got a chance to question her before a jury, to throw doubt on her testimony, etc. etc.

I am just speculating, but IF his atty was a govt employed public defender and IF he treated Banks as just another of the 50+ cases he had that week and 90% of those were plea deals; then it can be shown he did not receive adequate council.

Speculating for sure. I know plenty of high-end criminal defense attorneys, some of them former US Attorneys, that would advise a rape defendant to accept a 6 year sentence when facing 40+ and a victim testifying against him. I think your position is colored by the hindsight. Although I would imagine he sues everyone ( but her) it's hard to imagine how a PD ( I know some very good PDs) or a prosecutor could held accountable under the circumstances existing at the time.

[John Galt?]

Interesting article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575520743846916002.html

Difference there is that guy was tried by a jury and found guilty, but the trial was appealed and overturned and the re-trial dismissed.

In Banks case he never got a trial because he plead. I think the most culpable party in this case (besides the chick who lied) is his defense atty. They knew he had a scholarship to USC and was a top football recruit and they knew he was a high school kid completely overwhelmed by these charges and not educated/experienced enough to make quick decision so they had a DUTY to fully and completely explain all the options. He never got a chance to face his accuser, his council never got a chance to question her before a jury, to throw doubt on her testimony, etc. etc.

I am just speculating, but IF his atty was a govt employed public defender and IF he treated Banks as just another of the 50+ cases he had that week and 90% of those were plea deals; then it can be shown he did not receive adequate council.

Speculating for sure. I know plenty of high-end criminal defense attorneys, some of them former US Attorneys, that would advise a rape defendant to accept a 6 year sentence when facing 40+ and a victim testifying against him. I think your position is colored by the hindsight.

Of course. 9 times out of 10 (or 99 out of 100) the defendant claiming innocence is lying. In this case, we now know he was truthful. Hindsight is 20/20 and justice blind.

But in a lawsuit, the jury's verdict and award will also be colored by hindsight.

[VinBucFan]

Interesting article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575520743846916002.html

Difference there is that guy was tried by a jury and found guilty, but the trial was appealed and overturned and the re-trial dismissed.

In Banks case he never got a trial because he plead. I think the most culpable party in this case (besides the chick who lied) is his defense atty. They knew he had a scholarship to USC and was a top football recruit and they knew he was a high school kid completely overwhelmed by these charges and not educated/experienced enough to make quick decision so they had a DUTY to fully and completely explain all the options. He never got a chance to face his accuser, his council never got a chance to question her before a jury, to throw doubt on her testimony, etc. etc.

I am just speculating, but IF his atty was a govt employed public defender and IF he treated Banks as just another of the 50+ cases he had that week and 90% of those were plea deals; then it can be shown he did not receive adequate council.

Speculating for sure. I know plenty of high-end criminal defense attorneys, some of them former US Attorneys, that would advise a rape defendant to accept a 6 year sentence when facing 40+ and a victim testifying against him. I think your position is colored by the hindsight.

Of course. 9 times out of 10 (or 99 out of 100) the defendant claiming innocence is lying. In this case, we now know he was truthful. Hindsight is 20/20 and justice blind.

But in a lawsuit, the jury's verdict and award will also be colored by hindsight.

I guess that is where i completely disagree.  The case my be settled on an economics basis, but I doubt either side would actually want to out it befor a jury.  I know I would not shy away from defending either the PD or the State (who has an immunity issue,as well) in a RAPE case where presumably contact/intercourse was not disputed and where the female victim was willing to testify, under oath, that the defendant raped here. Truth is it might not even get to trial because what would be the allegation of negligence, let alone malice? Pretty sure you could get a court and, if not, a jury to agree that the Defendant was grotesquely wronged by the millionaire "victim," but not by the participants in the legal system.

Could be wrong though.  Sure would be interesting.