I practice criminal defense. Speculation for sure, but I've prefaced that several times. I just came in here to help folks out understanding the procedural aspects of criminal law in New York.
Kane might be in legal trouble in Buffalo Pt II (verifiable sources only, no hearsay)
- Thread starter No Fun Shogun
- Start date
- Status
I practice criminal defense. Speculation for sure, but I've prefaced that several times. I just came in here to help folks out understanding the procedural aspects of criminal law in New York.
It has been my experience that only "problems" hold up arrests in simple factual cases like this.
Periwinkle
Registered User
- Apr 3, 2014
- 1,027
- 104
I find it somewhat reckless on your part to present yourself as an expert all the while heavily suggesting the lack of arrest is due to the police probably having issues with the alleged victim's credibility, all the while refusing to comment on the information linked here where law enforcement sources say it is not unheard of that an arrest takes time.
Okay.
I'm just an attorney from New York trying to help you guys understand criminal procedure.
Law enforcement has an agenda that often includes deception and I don't put much stock in anonymous law enforcement sources. You are welcome to. If you don't believe me that's fine too.
I just want to help you guys understand. If I'm not wanted, I'm happy to go about my business.
Periwinkle
Registered User
- Apr 3, 2014
- 1,027
- 104
If you even yourself believe law enforcement can have an agenda, i.e. does not operate purely on the basis of a neutral investigation where everyone is treated exatcly the same, why would you immediately disregard the possibility of the DA and police being extra careful with the case because of the high profile nature of it?
Sarava
Registered User
Nah, most of us appreciate your input. Thanks for all your posts, and hopefully more
Based on your experience, could you give us your guess as to the likelihood that he will be charged at this point? If they decide not to proceed will there be a formal announcement?
Sarava
Registered User
I suppose my question to that is this. Name a high profile rape case that took over a month for the initial arrest and eventually had to a conviction. Even Kobe Bryant was arrested early in the process.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
Yup, your posts have been much appreciated. Always nice to get insight on matters.
That being said, the lack of action so far can really be an account of several matters, but at least from the political perspective I can give a tiny bit of insight... smaller area prosecutors and police are often very, very careful when it comes to very high profile cases. They know full and well that they're a mistake away from being lambasted across social media and actual media, but at the same time they could face equally great backlash if they remotely give the impression that they're letting someone off the hook just for being famous. They often try to find a middle ground from appearing too bloodthirsty while not being too lenient as well.
I'm not suggesting that the Buffalo area is just some random village in the middle of nowhere, but if this goes to trial it'd almost assuredly be the biggest case in the region in quite a long time and bring about an international media circus that they're just not remotely used to. Last thing that they'd want is to find themselves appearing like incompetent dupes (as was the case in the OJ investigation and prosecution) or to come across as being too eager to land a high profile conviction when the facts don't line up (a la the Duke lacrosse case).
And we don't know all the details about the allegation yet either. I don't want to get into too depressing details, but there are a variety of factors that could result in the need for police to not only determine if a crime occurred, but if there was more than one perpetrator involved as well.
That being said, the lack of action so far can really be an account of several matters, but at least from the political perspective I can give a tiny bit of insight... smaller area prosecutors and police are often very, very careful when it comes to very high profile cases. They know full and well that they're a mistake away from being lambasted across social media and actual media, but at the same time they could face equally great backlash if they remotely give the impression that they're letting someone off the hook just for being famous. They often try to find a middle ground from appearing too bloodthirsty while not being too lenient as well.
I'm not suggesting that the Buffalo area is just some random village in the middle of nowhere, but if this goes to trial it'd almost assuredly be the biggest case in the region in quite a long time and bring about an international media circus that they're just not remotely used to. Last thing that they'd want is to find themselves appearing like incompetent dupes (as was the case in the OJ investigation and prosecution) or to come across as being too eager to land a high profile conviction when the facts don't line up (a la the Duke lacrosse case).
And we don't know all the details about the allegation yet either. I don't want to get into too depressing details, but there are a variety of factors that could result in the need for police to not only determine if a crime occurred, but if there was more than one perpetrator involved as well.
Please don't read your own agenda into my words. The agenda is related only to collars and convictions. I don't think the agenda is to "get" Patrick Kane.
The NYPD arrested DSK immediately when he was accused of rape. That is more in line with what typically happens.
I mean, we never know what is definitely going to happen. Every case is unique.
However, it is my view that the longer a case like this goes without arrest, the less likely it is that arrest will ever occur.
It isn't a drug conspiracy where the conduct is continuing over a long period where there is, in fact, a great deal more investigation to be done. This is a one-night event. Relatively simple, in the grand scheme.
Periwinkle
Registered User
- Apr 3, 2014
- 1,027
- 104
I'm not sure it's meaningful to set the bar where the case leads to a conviction, or only to consider to cases dealing with celebrity. That's a whole different ball game, securing a conviction in a rape case which have a low reported incident v. conviction rate anyway, and when you add the celebrity element it adds a whole new layer.
For the record, I also appreciate Broadway Jay's explantions of the criminal procedure, I find them interesting as well. I just find that one who presents themselves as an expert on a topic should be particularly careful when suggesting that there is likely a credibility issue in this case, when very few facts have emerged and the high profile circumstances make this a case that probably deviates from the normal procedure
Admittedly, I come from a "big" area (NYC) not a small area like Buffalo. I can understand that police behavior could be different. "Procedure" in the sense that I mean it, is the same across the state of course.
While this is all true, I think it is important to remember that this is a simple case. Rape is not particularly complicated to investigate and effect arrest. If the complainant says "he raped me and I know who he is" that's generally good enough.
Imagine it was a gang rape, hypothetically. Would the police not arrest the two guys the complainant could identify? Obviously not. These people are getting arrested. Got to get them off the street. Have to keep them from raping more people.
Imagine Patrick Kane goes out and goes on a raping spree and rapes 30 girls over the next three days. Wouldn't the police look quite foolish for electing not to arrest a guy that they had on a "slam dunk"?
I'm making ridiculous hypotheticals to illustrate the point that there is really no reason to sit on a "slam dunk", which is why I sincerely doubt there really is a slam dunk. Instead, I think we're looking at a really weak case and the police might be trying to influence public opinion to put pressure on Kane, or perhaps others.
Well, I'm just speculating based on my experience. I haven't experienced everything so of course I may be wrong. I just am more experienced than most.
What is the need to "be careful"?
So what if I might be wrong? I'll learn something new.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
Fair points, Broadway. I'd be more inclined to take your word on these matters, but I did just want to toss out the hesitancy that smaller area prosecutors could have on high profile cases. The fact that Kane's so insanely famous in the area would make me inclined to think that the police aren't afraid he's just going to go out there and commit crime after crime after crime as all that'd do is shoot himself in the foot now that word about the allegation is out, really.
That being said, I agree with you 100% on the slam dunk portion. If the police and DA thought that they had Kane dead to rights, they would've made a move by now almost assuredly. If the results of a rape kit were just a proverbial cherry on top of all the evidence they have, they would've made a move. If it's the lynchpin however, that would explain why they might be waiting, and might also speak to the possibility that the case against Kane might not be the strongest.
We'll find out eventually.
That being said, I agree with you 100% on the slam dunk portion. If the police and DA thought that they had Kane dead to rights, they would've made a move by now almost assuredly. If the results of a rape kit were just a proverbial cherry on top of all the evidence they have, they would've made a move. If it's the lynchpin however, that would explain why they might be waiting, and might also speak to the possibility that the case against Kane might not be the strongest.
We'll find out eventually.
Periwinkle
Registered User
- Apr 3, 2014
- 1,027
- 104
I'm not completely sure of the distinction you are making. You posted:
If law enforcement tries to influence public opinion and if I understand your example correctly, also potential jurors, in ways that would be inadmissable, I would think that is not a purely neutral investigation or DA behaviour.
You're skipping the part where you said "everyone is treated the same".
I don't think they care who you are. They care about getting convictions and they do what it takes to get them. The agenda is different from what you think it is. Does the distinction remain unclear?
I have considered a counter-possibility that I have not yet shared, which I will now.
Imagine they don't have a slam dunk but they have a case with a witness that they doubt the veracity of. Perhaps there is some fact that causes them to doubt the validity of the "probable cause" to arrest.
Imagine they go ahead and arrest Patrick Kane anyway. Eventually something comes out and it turns out he was innocent the whole time and police should not have acted.
Now you're a police department who violated the civil rights of a man who makes 10m a year. What if the arrest costs him his job? He's already been taken off the cover of the new NHL game. The civil trial damages would be ASTRONOMICAL.
However, the underlying fact that there is a problem with the case also has to exist, and since the case is only one person (the complainant) it has to be her.
I wish Patty Ice had called me!
Periwinkle
Registered User
- Apr 3, 2014
- 1,027
- 104
Hmm, it seems you have a higher opinion of the system than many people who recognize that celebrity, as crazy as it is, can affect neutrality, and an ambitious D.A. can turn on the full blast if they think it helps their career, or alternatively, let someone off the hook because they know the right people or whatever reasons there are. Good to hear that this is not an issue at all in the legal system in the USA.
I was referring to your posts here and how they will be received. This thread is read tens of thousands of times, and some posters here seem very interested in clinging on to your views since you know the field. This is the biggest hockey forum in the world. Even though it's not your job to make sure you don't spread incorrect information online, it does de facto kind of place a certain responsibility when you make your comments in an expert role on the topic. For (admittedly not a perfect) analogy, if I translate and post here something reported in Finnish media I check and double check I got it right, because there is a chance the news will spread online. The whole Raanta thing couple threads below started with an online user translating some quotes from a Finnish tabloid, which were then repeated in a Yahoo blog, and it spread from there.
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
Very interesting line of thinking.
If the "slam dunk" rumor was clandestinely initiated by the DA's office, could their rationale for doing that be that they want to turn up the heat on Kane so that agrees to a plea on a misdemeanor so they don't have to (1) bring charges against him when all they have is a weak case and (2) not dismiss the case entirely which could look like they're letting a famous rich guy get away with rape?
Maybe it's a (weasel's) way out for the DA.
If the "slam dunk" rumor was clandestinely initiated by the DA's office, could their rationale for doing that be that they want to turn up the heat on Kane so that agrees to a plea on a misdemeanor so they don't have to (1) bring charges against him when all they have is a weak case and (2) not dismiss the case entirely which could look like they're letting a famous rich guy get away with rape?
Maybe it's a (weasel's) way out for the DA.
zac
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2009
- 8,484
- 42
I don't think anyone else here had issues interpreting Jay's thoughts. He's made it very clear that he doesn't know 'exactly' what's going on, instead using past experience, logic, and New York case law to offer plausible insight into the case.
Like most of the other posters I greatly appreciate it, Jay. Keep em coming.
Periwinkle
Registered User
- Apr 3, 2014
- 1,027
- 104
I have no issue in a person offering opinions and facts to provide insight on the proceedings. My issue is with making outright statements like this
I can read just fine that the poster mentions that his comments are based on his past experience, not knowledge of the case. However, in all of those statements, it is clearly stated that practically the only reason for the lack of arrest can be the credibility of the witness. We've however also seen other sources say that an arrest can take time.
Those comments basically suggest the police think the victim is lying, and having read ridiculous amounts of posts suggesting the alleged victim is a money-hungry liar, I have very little patience for comments which seem in very definite terms paint this person as a liar when few facts have emerged. In contrast, I would have no issue in comments like offering knowledge that it is typical that an arrest occurs soon after, and that the threshold is very low to arrest someone.
Last edited:
CaptPantalones
Registered User
Per WGRZ TV in buffalo, the woman who accompanied the victim will testify in front of the grand jury sept. 8th
HockeySauce
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2011
- 16,349
- 759
Can someone explain how someone can testify in front of a grand jury, when no arrest or charge has been laid? Also, why would the friend be testifying and not the victim or Kane?
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
Injury Report: Injury Thread '23-‘24 (Post 1 has current injury status)- Latest: 5 Mins 4 Ftg
-
-
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Game 4 New York Knicks @ Indiana Pacers - NYK Leads Series 2-1Wagers: 6Staked: $2,400.00Event closes- Updated: