re: Madison Brooks case cell phone data now in defense’s hands

quote:

---

we also know from her sorority sisters that this wasn't uncommon behavior for her.

---

I'm curious if this is actually accurate and it might be common behavior but she has every right to say no and not be raped by immature idiots

Past behvior be damned

You are a pussy and a thug retard

You're asking that in a rhetorical manner, correct?

Because he obviously didn't mean to imply thst...

quote:

---

Jesus man....a ton of speculation in this thread. Nobody knows what that footage/texts/phone logs show except the attorneys and people involved. Wanting to string up a defense lawyer for wanting to see what was on the phone in the hopes there may be something that exonerates or casts doubt on the possible guilt of his client is not "scum-baggetry"....it's doing his job. I have no clue what that phone does or doesn't show/say. But...if the defense lawyer didn't demand it be produced, he wouldn't be doing his job. Who knows what is on it? Why don't you wait and find out before jumping to conclusions and throwing stones at people?

---

Thank you. I was just about to say the same thing

Some dumbass baw in here already talking about wanting to kick the attorneys' asses for asking for the data

This board has taught me that Americans don't deserve the rights they have, most of them are far too stupid to appreciate their importance

quote:

---

Maybe the OT attorneys can chime in. Is character assassination as a defense technique just an accepted part of trials and viewed as an attorney defending their client to the best of their ability, or is it sort of frowned upon even though everyone knows it does happen?

---

I can't speak for Louisiana specifically, but in both the federal and Oklahoman rules of evidence, there is a specific provision above and beyond usual requirements of relevance called the "rape shield" law that limits what evidence can be taken in sex crimes with respect to past history and consent, even if it would otherwise be considered relevant. If X says Y raped her and Y's defense is that X consented, Y can't present evidence that X slept with A, B, C, and D to try to prove X is a slut who's lying about being raped, or what have you.

This is even assuming that consent is an issue in the case, which doesn't even sound possible if her BAC is as high as was reported. If she legally couldn't consent then past episodes of consensual sex wouldn't even be relevant in the first place, so there wouldn't even be a need for a rape shield law to keep that out... because it wouldn't be relevant.

Plus, most attorneys would hash all this out in lengthy pretrial motions and argument before it ever reached a jury. It's risky (and IMO foolish) to leave crucial evidentiary matters unsettled before trial, because what if your entire defense is consent and you don't learn until day 3 of trial that you can't get the evidence of consent in? Most of the time this shite is litigated well before it ever sees a jury.

Other posters have suggested that there were apparent discrepancies between what the various co-defendants said about what happened, and that the cell phone data, which includes cell phone data from the co-defendants, might be helpful in figuring out exactly who said what, and what defenses might be viable as a result. That sounds plausible enough to me (obviously I am not involved in the case, but that is very normal procedure).

quote:

---

How do defense attorneys live with themselves?

---

Probably in a nice house with a fat bank account.

quote:

---

Serious question, how are dudes supposed to know if a chick is legally past whatever limit there is for consent. I mean there are the obvious signs like can't walk straight or put a sentence together but I'd think a good lawyer could argue that those are pretty subjective standards that the average citizen isn't trained to quantify.

---

There's no hard and fast BAC limit at which you lose the capacity to consent (and in any case, it would be pretty uncommon to even have that information - remember that we only have this victim's BAC information because she was struck by a car and killed shortly after the encounter, a very unlikely set of events). I was more commenting on how the initial reports put her at near alcohol poisoning levels and assuming that sufficient signs of intoxication would manifest to make it clear that she couldn't consent.

Obviously the individual circumstances are going to vary and there's almost always some room to argue whether someone was "too drunk to consent" because the evidence will all be competing witnesses' accounts of what happened. The practical advice would be that if you're ever in doubt you should just find another opportunity to get laid

The only way I see a conviction is if the State can get one or two of the three to turn on the most egregious actor.

Sounds like she was very intoxicated but it will all turn on what they reasonably could have known based on her actions. If she was acting in any manner that could have indicated consent, it will be hard to prove sexual assault become a reasonable doubt. The three could testify to her supposed willingness through her actions, and there’s no contradictory evidence (unless her friends could testify that she was basically carried out of Reggie’s).

Also remember much of the whole story that’s in the papers will be suppressed at trial, and the judge will only allow in what’s relevant for the charges, the alleged rape inside the vehicle. The State will have a hard time admitting anything that happened after.

Couple this with no testifying victim and it is a tough case without one of the three testifying against the defendant.

quote:

---

Someone in her family ought to beat their asses. Nothing she did before running into these scumbags changes what they did



If it were my daughter the attorneys would get an arse beating after the case.

---

It's called discovery. All relevant evidence (including possibly exculpatory evidence) in the state's possession MUST be given to the defense. The state does not get to pick and chose what evidence to hand to the defense. This is routine - calm down.

quote:

---

If we didn't already have their previous behavior to look at, you might not look like a moron

---

Whose previous behavior?