Looks like Chapter 22, Article 3403 of Kansas Rules of Criminal Procedure controls this, and one of the cases listed in the annotation suggests that he doesn't have the guaranteed right to a bench trial.
TSJ Thread
Either the Kansas prosecutor is doing a miserable job, or a whole lot of us are missing a whole bunch of something here. I have dealt with some fairly low skilled prosecutors in the past, but they were inexperienced and entrusted only with cases of low importance. They really should have better for a rape case. Then again, the Douglas County office has had a ton of turnover since the election of the current prosecutor. Maybe this really is the best they have.
splitter
- and not Nebraska
Seems that we are missing a lot of information that would cause them to bring two felony counts against TJ. Hopefully they are coming forward with everything in discovery. Prosecutors are obligated to turn over all evidence including items and information even if it favors the defense.
From the little I’ve read I suppose it would be hard for the prosecutor to make her relationship with the judge worse by refusing to let the judge try the case without a jury.
Not sure what's going on, but the agenda was updated:
05/30/2024
CANCELED Pretrial Conference (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer: Pokorny, Sally)
Resource: Location Division 2 Courtroom
Data Entry Error
05/31/2024
CANCELED Pretrial Conference (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer: Pokorny, Sally)
Resource: Location Division 2 Courtroom
Other Cancellation
05/31/2024
Pretrial Conference (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer: Pokorny, Sally)
Resource: Location Division 2 Courtroom
Net result is an extra half hour added to the pretrial conference.
05/30/2024
CANCELED Pretrial Conference (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer: Pokorny, Sally)
Resource: Location Division 2 Courtroom
Data Entry Error
05/31/2024
CANCELED Pretrial Conference (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer: Pokorny, Sally)
Resource: Location Division 2 Courtroom
Other Cancellation
05/31/2024
Pretrial Conference (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer: Pokorny, Sally)
Resource: Location Division 2 Courtroom
Net result is an extra half hour added to the pretrial conference.
Look like a clerical error that resulted in the desired time to no longer be available. Just a guess, though.
The pretrial conference has finally ended. Shannon's Defense rejected plea negotiations. The judge will be provided with the Morris files for review.
Sounds as expected. Do you know if there were any additional topics of interest they covered?
They have drafted jury instructions and a pool of 72 jurors to select 12+2 alternates.
They also finally corrected Shannon's middle name in the system (it first appeared correct in some of the most recent documents).
In my opinion, based on the draft jury instructions I could see the jury "splitting the difference" and charging him with the alternative felony. The alternative charge notably leaves out the word "knowingly", meaning Shannon could have touched the alleged victim (not penetrated, merely touched) thinking she wanted it and as long as she felt afraid, it's a felony. I find the word "Aggravated" in the charge's title to be misleading.
Last edited:
Interesting. I still have trouble seeing an impartial jury going along with that especially if there is no evidence or testimony they had contact other than the alleged victim's testimony but stranger things have happened.
I do agree it's worrisome they're pushing for the newer interpretation of sexual assault where a victim doesn't have to communicate that the contact is unwanted at any point and that it can be any contact perceived as sexual in nature. It makes TSJ's position they never had any contact all the more important as I just don't know how a defendant can provide a suitable defense against a claim that something they did was unwanted if they admit that they had physical contact with the alleged victim. It's an argument for another day, but I have a lot of issues with the legality of that definition as it requires you to either continuously ask whether a given action is wanted or for you to be a mind reader, and even then that might not cover if the victim changes their mind after the fact. Just not something someone can fairly defend in my opinion.