PDA

View Full Version : Indictments and Charges



Paladine
04-22-2010, 02:45 PM
I'm not sure on that...Ashley Longe was charged with the bodily harm, I believe it came from throwing the can...no?

ETA: Yes...the dox say so...it's the can...
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:J4Rtz31SOTMJ:i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/09/longe.pdf+can+ashley+longe+threw+bodily+harm&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgNJ0RFr82uu07b0ZIuPs54ikFWNdiz57VKVWh_ 59zCyz6DVWm5n8BIwjGyAGpgXLqgtT1a7rstt3UAmg8vaVoNoJ H_54heOXodriGL8cMPksdjlk-KDRuGu1eXK6vRmM1zAGUH&sig=AHIEtbT-YXuvXELZKp0RYktkaYLwiqeOUg

Paladine
04-22-2010, 02:52 PM
IMO: Her death doesn't factor in, Dr. Phail...whether they want it to or not. In a court of law...it's simple.

Did they stalk? Did they harass? Did Ashley throw the can? Did the boys sleep with a girl under 16?

She could be the most twisted, messed up, suicidal teen EVER...and it's STILL ILLEGAL to STALK, HARASS, ASSAULT.

AND...her being portrayed as messed up just makes the boys seem more predator-like...IMO.

Simple. :)



ETA: I DO NOT think she was what they are implying...

Kris
04-24-2010, 09:53 PM
violation of civil rights resulting in bodily injury

All 5 kids have this charge. (Austin excluded of course)

how could this be nothing to do with the suicide? This relates to something not specified within the charging documents?

whats bodily injury refer to here Pala?

The court docs I've seen for 3 of the girls refer specifically to Phoebe's "suicide"...ehem, so I would imagine that "resulting in bodily injury" is referring to her heath. A DA would not include irrelevant information when writing up charges because it would most likely result in the rejection of those charges, or if the charges made their way to trial, it could lead to mistrial or a not guilty verdict. In a mistrial, much of the evidence used would be void when retried, and in the case of a not guilty verdict, the defendants could not be charged again. So if Phoebe's death (in whatever manner) was irrelevant to the charges at hand, I could not imagine it being included in the court docs. I guess we would have to look up the definition of "bodily injury" under Massachusetts law to determine that.

Paladine
04-24-2010, 10:40 PM
The court docs I've seen for 3 of the girls refer specifically to Phoebe's "suicide"...ehem, so I would imagine that "resulting in bodily injury" is referring to her heath. A DA would not include irrelevant information when writing up charges because it would most likely result in the rejection of those charges, or if the charges made their way to trial, it could lead to mistrial or a not guilty verdict. In a mistrial, much of the evidence used would be void when retried, and in the case of a not guilty verdict, the defendants could not be charged again. So if Phoebe's death (in whatever manner) was irrelevant to the charges at hand, I could not imagine it being included in the court docs. I guess we would have to look up the definition of "bodily injury" under Massachusetts law to determine that.


Kris...check out the long form of the DA's statement of the indictments. In it, she says the bodily harm charge is Ashley's, the weapon, the can...that much is spelt out.

So...I assumed, ~~there's that word again :eek: ~~ Ashley must have hit Phoebe with the can and hurt her...?

If you can't find it, I'll get you a link...

And someone previously suggested, the suicide was brought up for the penalty phase...

Kris
04-24-2010, 11:25 PM
The docs I'm looking at are below. Also I'm including the links I found that include the actual law(s). Here is the definition of "bodily injury" under Massachusetts law:

"Bodily injury”, substantial impairment of the physical condition including any burn, fracture of any bone, subdural hematoma, injury to any internal organ, any injury which occurs as the result of repeated harm to any bodily function or organ including human skin or any physical condition which substantially imperils a child’s health or welfare."

It doesn't sound like just a can throwing incident.

http://law.onecle.com/massachusetts/265/13J.html

http://law.onecle.com/massachusetts/265/43.html

http://law.onecle.com/massachusetts/272/40.html

Paladine
04-25-2010, 12:28 PM
From the DA's statement...


"assault by a dangerous weapon, to wit, a bottle, can" page 7

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/03/29/Prince_death_PDF/

I'm in a hurry, quick post...

Paladine
04-25-2010, 12:57 PM
so, could the bodily harm be from telling Phoebe to hang herself? Only Kayla, Sean, Flannery and Ashley seem to have those charges...not Austin or Sharon...this seems like it should be an easy question to answer...

Natal
04-25-2010, 07:04 PM
I would not call being charged with statutory rape the "least of trouble." That charge could get someone up to life in prison in MA.

That is the maximum, but I think the punishment for a first offence is life or any other sentence, which could be no jail time depending on the circumstances. I think it extremely unlikely that this guy would get life even in MA, and if he didn't participate in the bullying as some have claimed, there would be no moral reason to be sending him to prison for life.

In any case with no complaint, no witness and no evidence I don't see how they could convict him unless he plead guilty for some reason.

Natal
04-25-2010, 07:14 PM
According to this source which lists the actual laws and penalties by state, the penalty in MA is 2.5 to 3 years. I tend to give credence to sources which show evidence of having done actual research to support their statements of facts. Numerous other sources, also, indicate that the average of actually imposed penalties vary by the age of the defendant, with the harsher penalties reserved for those over the age of 21 involved with someone who is under the age of consent.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm

The code she is talking about is Chapter 265 Section 23 (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/265-23.htm). The code mentioned in the link you provided refers to "inducing", which likely is aimed at third parties, not the principals.

Natal
04-25-2010, 07:40 PM
so, could the bodily harm be from telling Phoebe to hang herself? Only Kayla, Sean, Flannery and Ashley seem to have those charges...not Austin or Sharon...this seems like it should be an easy question to answer...

I doubt that telling someone to hang themselves and them then doing it at some later time would be considered bodily harm. I think you would have to prove a more direct link than that.

More likely those charges refer to physical assault in the course of harrassment. So, that would be things like pushing, throwing the can, that sort of thing.

jjenny
04-25-2010, 11:47 PM
I doubt that telling someone to hang themselves and them then doing it at some later time would be considered bodily harm. I think you would have to prove a more direct link than that.

More likely those charges refer to physical assault in the course of harrassment. So, that would be things like pushing, throwing the can, that sort of thing.

One of the witnesses saw the can hit the ground (although the witness was not sure if the can hit the girl). If the can didn't actually hit the girl, how can it cause bodily injury?

jjenny
04-25-2010, 11:48 PM
That is the maximum, but I think the punishment for a first offence is life or any other sentence, which could be no jail time depending on the circumstances. I think it extremely unlikely that this guy would get life even in MA, and if he didn't participate in the bullying as some have claimed, there would be no moral reason to be sending him to prison for life.

In any case with no complaint, no witness and no evidence I don't see how they could convict him unless he plead guilty for some reason.

Well the DA brought the charges. One would think DA should presumably have some evidence, otherwise, how can she bring charges?

adnoid
04-25-2010, 11:57 PM
One of the witnesses saw the can hit the ground (although the witness was not sure if the can hit the girl). If the can didn't actually hit the girl, how can it cause bodily injury?

It would count as assault. And it may not be the only can that was ever thrown.

jjenny
04-25-2010, 11:59 PM
It would count as assault. And it may not be the only can that was ever thrown.

The charge was, I believe, violation of civil rights with bodily injury resulting.
Not assault.
And what was the bodily injury, and what did it result from?

adnoid
04-26-2010, 12:06 AM
The charge was, I believe, violation of civil rights with bodily injury resulting.
Not assault.
And what was the bodily injury, and what did it result from?

I don't know.

Kris
04-26-2010, 07:27 AM
Since we're talking about charges, why aren't SH6 charged with this one?


Section 39. (a) Whoever commits an assault or a battery upon a person or damages the real or personal property of a person with the intent to intimidate such person because of such person’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Notice "National origin", and how many times she was referred to as an "Irish ...(insert depraving remark here)"

http://law.onecle.com/massachusetts/265/39.html

And why aren't the teachers etc.. charged with this one?


Section 13L. For the purposes of this section, the following words shall have the following meanings:—

“Child”, any person under 18 years of age.

“Serious bodily injury”, bodily injury which results in a permanent disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb or organ, or substantial risk of death. - Whoever wantonly or recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child or wantonly or recklessly fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate such risk where there is a duty to act shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years.

http://law.onecle.com/massachusetts/265/13L.html

Kris
04-26-2010, 07:39 AM
so, could the bodily harm be from telling Phoebe to hang herself? Only Kayla, Sean, Flannery and Ashley seem to have those charges...not Austin or Sharon...this seems like it should be an easy question to answer...

So far I've only found the laws as written, there is however "case law" which are precedents set by other cases. I would have to do some more digging to see if there has ever been a case in Massachusetts where someone was convicted under any existing statute for inciting someone's "suicide"....ehem..

Also, I was showing the definition of bodily harm to illustrate that the term "bodily harm" as used in the statutes does not indicate minor injuries (bruising, abrasion) that would be sustained by the throwing of an empty can. If it were full it would be a different story, however the reports indicate it was empty. That's why I was thinking they the DA tied her "suicide" into the charges.

daisy7
04-26-2010, 09:54 AM
Please discuss the charges here.

WaddupYo
04-26-2010, 11:30 AM
Have the docs on the 3 others been released yet?

Natal
04-26-2010, 02:18 PM
Well the DA brought the charges. One would think DA should presumably have some evidence, otherwise, how can she bring charges?

I would think that the only evidence is hearsay, which in most jurisdictions is inadmissable. The DA can bring about any charges they want but unless the boy confesses the charge will eventually be dismissed.

I think the main reason they are charging the boys with this is so that they can try to intimidate them. It sort of like bullying, but targeting the alleged bullies themselves, kind of reversing the situation. And even if the charges are thrown out, the charge will still remain on record and the social stigma will still remain.

Harley1971
04-26-2010, 03:38 PM
According to the People article below, she was shoved into lockers. I would think that would be considered bodily harm.

"One week before her suicide, the torments grew: Phoebe was shoved into lockers"
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20360860,00.html

Sauerkraut2
04-26-2010, 10:50 PM
Have the docs on the 3 others been released yet?

No. And I get no answer when I ask for a release date. There's a reason it's not public record or subject to public release; I suspect it has to do with the sex-by-minor and privacy issues.

WaddupYo
04-27-2010, 11:13 AM
No. And I get no answer when I ask for a release date. There's a reason it's not public record or subject to public release; I suspect it has to do with the sex-by-minor and privacy issues.

I just can't wait to read it. I just can't.

Sauerkraut2
04-27-2010, 12:23 PM
Well the DA brought the charges. One would think DA should presumably have some evidence, otherwise, how can she bring charges?


Jenny, dear... the DA did not bring the charges; the grand jury did.

The can throwing is a charge for which Longe specifically is charged. A local reporter is trying to follow up on the specific meaning of the civil rights charges but has yet to get a response from the DA's office. I wonder if the video cameras described in the student news paper captured some activity and disclosing the meaning might tip the DA's hand and reduce her negotiating position.

jjenny
04-27-2010, 07:37 PM
Jenny, dear... the DA did not bring the charges; the grand jury did.

The can throwing is a charge for which Longe specifically is charged. A local reporter is trying to follow up on the specific meaning of the civil rights charges but has yet to get a response from the DA's office. I wonder if the video cameras described in the student news paper captured some activity and disclosing the meaning might tip the DA's hand and reduce her negotiating position.

Sauerkarut, dear,
Grand jury doesn't bring charges on its own.
DA goes to the grand jury and asks for an indictment. The grand jury then decides whether "true bill" it or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury

stmarysmead
04-27-2010, 07:57 PM
Precisely BECAUSE this case is atypical, IMO the Grand Jury would need to be substantially satisfied with the "evidence" presented...in order for the D.A. to GET the indictments.

That alone suggests to me there's a LOT of real solid evidence to come.

jjenny
04-27-2010, 08:41 PM
Precisely BECAUSE this case is atypical, IMO the Grand Jury would need to be substantially satisfied with the "evidence" presented...in order for the D.A. to GET the indictments.

That alone suggests to me there's a LOT of real solid evidence to come.

I fail to see why that would be so.

OrdinaryLife
04-27-2010, 09:12 PM
I fail to see why that would be so.

The Grand Jury deciding to proceed given what was given to them as evidence says much. The DA has enough to continue on with charges against those named. We are not privy to all that has been presented and will not know until this case resumes in the future.

It doesn't matter if you fail to see so, but the Grand Jury has. In their opinion...

imvho

jjenny
04-27-2010, 09:20 PM
The Grand Jury deciding to proceed given what was given to them as evidence says much. The DA has enough to continue on with charges against those named. We are not privy to all that has been presented and will not know until this case resumes in the future.

It doesn't matter if you fail to see so, but the Grand Jury has. In their opinion...

imvho

I presume that what I think matters just about as much as what anybody else on this board thinks, unless they have a direct connection to this case. Regarding the grand jury system, a lot of jurisdictions substituted that with preliminary hearings, which to me seems a more fair system, since preliminary hearings allow defense to present its side as well. Also, preliminary hearings don't go on in secret. With grand jury, public has no idea what evidence was presented.

OrdinaryLife
04-27-2010, 09:57 PM
I presume that what I think matters just about as much as what anybody else on this board thinks, unless they have a direct connection to this case. Regarding the grand jury system, a lot of jurisdictions substituted that with preliminary hearings, which to me seems a more fair system, since preliminary hearings allow defense to present its side as well. Also, preliminary hearings don't go on in secret. With grand jury, public has no idea what evidence was presented.

Apparently, you misunderstood my response. I was disagreeing with your point, not (nor ever stated or implied) that your opinion doesn't matter. I quoted your post and gave my opinion.

Topic was Grand Jury and I responded to that. It had nothing to do with the preliminary hearings. Which, in fact, would not be occuring without the Grand Jury's agreement that the DA had enough cause to pursue.

imvho

jjenny
04-27-2010, 10:09 PM
Apparently, you misunderstood my response. I was disagreeing with your point, not (nor ever stated or implied) that your opinion doesn't matter. I quoted your post and gave my opinion.

Topic was Grand Jury and I responded to that. It had nothing to do with the preliminary hearings. Which, in fact, would not be occuring without the Grand Jury's agreement that the DA had enough cause to pursue.

imvho

Preliminary hearing is an alternative method to obtain an indictment instead of grand jury. In some jurisdictions DA can obtain an indictment by either a grand jury or by preliminary hearing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_hearing

OrdinaryLife
04-27-2010, 10:12 PM
Preliminary hearing is an alternative method to obtain an indictment that can be used instead of grand jury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_hearing

DA chose the Grand Jury. Her perogative and for reasons, I think, will come out in the future.

imvho

Paladine
04-28-2010, 11:36 AM
No. And I get no answer when I ask for a release date. There's a reason it's not public record or subject to public release; I suspect it has to do with the sex-by-minor and privacy issues.

But Kayla didn't rape...why would hers not be released?

WaddupYo
04-28-2010, 11:55 AM
I do want to see Kayla's report

Paladine
04-28-2010, 01:02 PM
I just find it very strange the 2 'sports stars' charges have not been released.

WaddupYo
04-28-2010, 02:00 PM
Yes it is a little odd that the 3 still have not been released. I really wonder why. I want to read Kayla's.

MaureenN
04-28-2010, 07:17 PM
The legal documents that we've seen so far aren't the indictments or actual charges. They are motions for joinder of the deliquency charges with the youthful offender charges. They don't include the whole of the charges, just the information from the charges that supports joinder (i.e. trying both sets of charges at the same time)

Definition of 'Legal Motion': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_%28legal%29 - basically, it means 'bringing an issue before the courts'.

Definition of 'Joinder' in criminal cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joinder - "Joinder in criminal law is a legal term which refers to the inclusion of additional counts or additional defendants on an indictment."

So, I don't think we're waiting to see 3 criminal indictments in this case. I think we're waiting to see all six.

Paladine
04-29-2010, 06:10 PM
Thanks, Maureen. After reading your post, I recall you had explained that earlier on, thread #1 or #2, maybe...I had forgotten. :crazy:

So, is this a normal procedure, in your opinion, Maureen? Or do we usually see more by now...this feels like the sahara compared to the ocean of discovery in the KC case...;)

MaureenN
04-29-2010, 06:48 PM
Thanks, Maureen. After reading your post, I recall you had explained that earlier on, thread #1 or #2, maybe...I had forgotten. :crazy:

So, is this a normal procedure, in your opinion, Maureen? Or do we usually see more by now...this feels like the sahara compared to the ocean of discovery in the KC case...;)

I have no idea if this is normal or not. I don't usually follow criminal cases this closely. This one just intrigued me - maybe because of the ages of my children (and nieces & nephews) & my involvement in our school district here in town, maybe because of my own past, long ago in school...

It is maddening that this tidbit of info was released, but not the rest of it. I have no idea what is normally released to the public, though (or when). Especially maddening, I think, because people in discussions seem to be making all kinds of assumptions about the charges based on these documents, when really this could just be a sliver of info used to support the motion - not the entirety of the charges (or evidence) at all.

Paladine
04-29-2010, 07:37 PM
I have no idea if this is normal or not. I don't usually follow criminal cases this closely. This one just intrigued me - maybe because of the ages of my children (and nieces & nephews) & my involvement in our school district here in town, maybe because of my own past, long ago in school...

It is maddening that this tidbit of info was released, but not the rest of it. I have no idea what is normally released to the public, though (or when). Especially maddening, I think, because people in discussions seem to be making all kinds of assumptions about the charges based on these documents, when really this could just be a sliver of info used to support the motion - not the entirety of the charges (or evidence) at all.

Agreed. I will pop over to another WS forum later...maybe tomorrow...and see if anyone from MA is around...and if they may know what the normal procedure is...just curious, is all...