This is occasional only because information provided in discovery between two civil parties cannot by default be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding; this is primarily because a criminal court cannot compel a defendant to produce evidence against himself.
Since the defendant is party to the criminal action, but the plaintiff is not since the plaintiff in a criminal action is the State, items furnished to the plaintiff in interrogatories or depositions from a civil action that were compelled from the defendant would be compelling the defendant to incriminate himself.
While Iâm sure it happens, it would be very treacherous waters for a prosecutor hoping to directly use civil discovery as evidence in a criminal proceeding.
California has age of consent of 18 and allows for a 10 year age difference.
SafeSport is geared towards minor abuse by adults and also uses age 18. I canât remember if an age difference has a limit but if it does, 3 years may be ok.
There are no forensics by now.
So it is a he said/she said of an alleged non-criminal act that appears to not violate SafeSport.
Am I missing something? Iâm struggling to understand what the lawsuit stands to gain.
There is no âOKâ age difference when drugging and raping another person becomes acceptable. It is illegal, and always unacceptable (to most people.)
The accusation is more heinous because of the very young age of the person who was allegedly drugged and assaulted, but drugging and assaulting anyone, no matter the age difference between them , is illegal.
It doesnât matter if they were born on the same day. You cannot drug and rape peope. Period.
Just, Wow⊠What a bizarre perspective you express about sexual assault.
I think this is gonna get messy, but I also think itâs unlikely that it will go much further, unless some seriously damning evidence comes up. What apparently happened was a SafeSport investigation that turned up some dirt, which led to a local LE referral and investigation that was either inconclusive, went nowhere/was blocked, or was simply too slow-going, and the civil suit was launched at a strategic time, in response to the lack of forward progress. Iâm unfamiliar with the boy, his family, and their business, but I can see - clear as day - that all the boxes are checked for the plausibility of whatâs been alleged in the civil suit.
Something that bothers me about this set of allegations is that one the one hand, the plaintiff is alleging actual rape (incapacitation to the point of unconsciousness with âdrugsâ), in which she would not have been able to give consent even if she had been over 18. On the other hand, they talk about grooming over the course of several years, and a power imbalance. Why does the grooming and power imbalance matter if it was forcible rape through incapacitation? Which is it, forcible rape or manipulation of a minor? It looks like the forcible rape claim did not fly with the police, so that they hedged their bets by adding grooming and power imbalance.
It looks like the plaintiff filed a police complaint, and he was not criminally charged. Thereâs nothing wrong with filing a criminal complaint years after the incident, but the important forensic data would be gone. Is the âdruggingâ something beyond giving her wine?
So the police did not charge him criminally. SS investigated, and no ban or suspension as of yet.
I think the parents were added to the suit just because they have the assets.
Itâs not clear to me whether SS has concluded its investigation without sanctions or whether an investigation is ongoing. It does seem nasty to dump the civil suit into the public sphere on the eve of his competing at Aachen, when this has probably been going on for at least a year, 5 years after whatever happened, happened.
It would depend on how that state would charge. Would the event be a crime of rape or sexual assault or something else?
Would they charge the 17 year old as a youthful offender or adult? The S of L can then easily be googled - I saw 3 years for adult on adult. But for a minor the language says until the victim reaches 40 years of age in certain circumstances. Thatâs why I included that link above to try and understand.
The civil side has its own set of S of L and I donât know what that be assertion wise in California.
In California, statutory rape can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the age difference. If the age difference is less than three years, it a misdemeanor. If greater than three years, itâs a misdemeanor or felony at the discretion of the prosecutor.
If charged as a misdemeanor, the statute of limitations is 1 year; if charged as a felony, 3 years.
Iâm hoping there is a chilling effect for any trainer, adult, teenager or anyone in power who wishes to groom, drug, coerce, abuse, or sexually assault any minor.
It could be both. Grooming over several years plus drugging for rape scenario. Not saying this guy is guilty or innocent, but in general predators behave in ways that make no sense to most others. Epstein and his partner in crime are good examples. Again, not saying this guy is an Epstein, Iâm speaking in general terms.
I agree with everything you say about sexual assault. It leaves lasting damage. The use of drugs and/or alcohol is heinous. The assaulter is despicable. The victim must go through more trauma such as telling of all details to LE and is re-traumatized and vilified in court and often in public opinion. When asked, most victims think they were going to be murdered at the end, furthering their trauma which can be emotional and physical, they may appear unharmed or be beaten or tortured and they are forever changed. Many victims forgo reporting and understandably so because of fear of the trauma yet to be inflicted by the physical inspection and the courts and the public.
I have testified at a sexual assault trial for someone I knew and had picked up at the hospital the morning after she was sexually assaulted. I have been at court supporting a family member who testified during sentencing for being stalked by the guy that was just found guilty of raping a nearby neighbor. That doesnât even begin to touch the high school days in the 60s and 70s when âdate rapeâ was unheard of, if a woman was raped by a man she knew, whom she let into her home or got into his car, it wasnât rape. It doesnât touch pre DNA where a guy who impregnated his girlfriend would get his buddies to say they did her too to portray her as a bad girl and avoid the consequences. It doesnât touch the victim shaming that is allowed in court although the media actually shows some honor by not naming the victim. Sexual assault is a horrific experience for women and also men when it happens to them. It is life changing.
All that aside, there are limitations on the law and the standard forensics used in court to where a case is a he said/she said. In a criminal trial, the victim has very few rights, if any, and his or her past is fair game for the defense. In a civil trial both partiesâ pasts are fair game. Everything is open to discovery. Laptops, cell phones, health records, etc.
She says it happened. He denies it. No forensics. Now a civil suit will drag both of them through the public eye including this most merciful and unbiased forum. Yes, sarcasm.
If the alleged act happened as claimed, I can see that at this point, a civil lawsuit may be the only recourse to call out a despicable act, to point out the accused in court and say âthat person did this to me.â That may be cathartic. However, it will be difficult to prove and the public scrutiny will be excruciating especially while the defense is doing everything possible to impeach the accuser and cast the accused as the victim.
If it didnât happen as claimed, then the public scrutiny will still be excruciating for all parties.
With the recent public excoriation of two women accusers of famous men, this seems very risky to backfire on the accuser no matter if her claims are true or not.
Messy was a word used by another poster. Yes. Absolutely messy.
But the police would only take action if it was forcible rape or statutory rape, and they declined to charge him. The âforceâ supposedly was âdrugging herâ into incapacitation. Wine was mentioned but not anything stronger. Two high school kids partaking of some underage drinking of wine?
The police declined to charge him for either forcible rape or statutory rape.
OK, so SS cares about a broader category of things, including grooming and imbalance of power, so they file a complaint with SS. It looks like theyâre covering all their bases try to get something to stick.
Add to that trying to sue the big bucks parents, and dumping this in the news on exactly the day they did?
For people making assumptions without actually reading what the lawsuit says: the parents have been named as defendants not because they have âbig bucksâ but because the complaint alleges negligence in monitoring minors on their property while under their care, including their son. Which is a perfectly normal and reasonable claim to see in a complaint such as this.
