Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Sen. Craig Digs Deeper Hole: Files 'Multiple" Victim Appeal

The Curious Case of Senator Craig

In a quest to have his Guilty Plea flushed in a Disorderly Conduct charge, Senator Larry Craig's attorneys filed a brief with the Minnesota Appeals Court Tuesday.

From Fox News:
An appeals brief filed Tuesday contends that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law "requires that the conduct at issue have a tendency to alarm or anger 'others"' — underscoring the plural nature of the term.

Craig's brief goes on to cite other convictions that were overturned because the multiple-victim test wasn't met. His lawyers apply the same logic to his case.

The Republican Senator from Idaho plead guilty in August, without the advice of an attorney, after he was caught in a bathroom sting at a Minneapolis airport. Craig contends his guilty plea was a mistake and the original charge, "misconstrued".

Craig's attorneys' argue that Craig's "alleged" conduct affected only a single individual, the cop in the bathroom stall next to him. The undercover cop who alleges Craig played "gay" footsies with him between the two stalls. Since there was only the one cop, according to Craig's attorneys, this doesn't satisfy the "others" involved in the disorderly conduct statute.

Apparently in the minds of Craig's attorneys, Craig would have had to played "footsie" with several pretend "light in the loafer" lads for a Disorderly Conduct charge to apply.

As a United States Senator surely Craig is familiar with what may happen when one pleads guilty, not guilty, or the "Fifth".

Senator Craig made the decision to plead guilty back in August to a Disorderly Conduct charge then announced he would resign September 30th.

Something happened at the end of September: Senator Larry Craig did not resign as promised and continued to fight his "Guilty" plea in Minnesota.

NN) -- Sen. Larry Craig on Thursday said he was not resigning from the Senate despite a Minnesota judge denying his request to withdraw his guilty plea stemming from his arrest in a sex sting at an airport men's room.

"I am extremely disappointed with the ruling issued today," Craig said in a statement. "I am innocent of the charges against me. I continue to work with my legal team to explore my additional legal options."

"I will continue to serve Idaho in the United States Senate, and there are several reasons for that," the Republican said. Source - CNN
The Minnesota Judge in the case ruled that the Guilty plea would stand:
Hennepin County District Judge Charles Porter found that Craig had entered the guilty plea to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge "accurately, voluntarily and intelligently," and that it was too late to withdraw his admission.

In a sharply worded 27-page order, the judge found that Craig had freely given his plea after extensive discussions with prosecutors and after waiving his right to an attorney.

"The defendant, a career politician with a college education, is of at least above-average intelligence," Porter wrote. "He knew what he was saying, reading, and signing.

Craig was accused of making sexual overtures to an undercover cop in a public restroom at the Minneapolis airport. The charge he plead guilty to was Disorderly Conduct.

Why would a United States Senator plead guilty to a charge of Disorderly Conduct if he was innocent, as Craig contends?

Usually when someone pleads it's in the "down" direction to a lesser charge. Craig's fight with the court is to "clear" his name. The way he's going about it, having his attorneys argue that the charge against him is invalid because there were not "multiple victims" involved, will not mitigate the public's perception one iota of Craig in this matter.

Craig's tattered reputation will remain intact.

Image - Gay.com


DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave your name/nic.
We've changed the comments section to allow non-registered users to comment.
We'll continue like that until it's being abused.
We reserve the right to delete all abusive or otherwise inappropriate comments.