I am an attorney, and I respectfully disagree. They definitely expected to lose because you lose 99% of the time when the prosecutor has someone who will testify it happened - that makes it a fact question for a jury. BUT, if you believe your client is innocent, you may have him testify so that the judge who will try the case does not just hear one side from the prosecution witness, but hears your very credible client state his innocence. There could be advantages for the trial. He has excellent attorneys representing him, so I trust them to make the right tactical decisions.
TSJ Thread
OrangeBlue98
- Des Moines, IA
Would it be a good idea to ask for a bench trial? It sure seems like anyone competent in law and facts would look at this and say there is just nothing there. I don’t trust the intelligence of the general population. I’d think I’d rather put my case in the hands of a judge instead of 12 regular people that may include people with biases.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
One of the biases a jury of the public is going to hold is a skepticism bordering on outright hostility toward people like the victim.
Again, this is the reality of sexual assault cases, and why the status quo has been receiving such criticism in recent years. They are hard cases to win. You are not trying the case in front of 12 feminist twitter accounts, not by a longshot.
Another thing to remember is that judges are elected in Kansas. Forcing a judge to make a politically difficult ruling against one of their constituents is probably not the best strategy.
Have to have a trial to get out all the facts - can't do that in a couple hour hearing. Who knows what info is not in public about this case.
If all the facts are out in public, then this is a case where prosecutorial discretion should have been exercised - the fact that the cops didn't bother interviewing the bartenders or the people with TSJ within days shows that they didn't think all too much of the case. Had the cops immediately interviewed potential witnesses, they might have found corroborating witnesses of some kind - as it is, it is unlikely anyone except the girl's friend will even remember she was there. Going to be hard to overcome, no one seeing any interaction between the two. May not be a coincidence that the DA is no longer attorney prosecuting the case, but an assistant.
Makes me wonder if (1) we don't have all the facts, or (2) the alleged victim's family has some political stroke, or (3) this was to take attention off the DA's problems with the bar association and now can't just walk away.
If all the facts are out in public, then this is a case where prosecutorial discretion should have been exercised - the fact that the cops didn't bother interviewing the bartenders or the people with TSJ within days shows that they didn't think all too much of the case. Had the cops immediately interviewed potential witnesses, they might have found corroborating witnesses of some kind - as it is, it is unlikely anyone except the girl's friend will even remember she was there. Going to be hard to overcome, no one seeing any interaction between the two. May not be a coincidence that the DA is no longer attorney prosecuting the case, but an assistant.
Makes me wonder if (1) we don't have all the facts, or (2) the alleged victim's family has some political stroke, or (3) this was to take attention off the DA's problems with the bar association and now can't just walk away.
On the flip side, the judges of the area have an interest in handing the DA a loss if they think this is a publicity stunt because they hate her. She's still running for reelection this year despite the controversy and I'm sure all the judges want her out seeing as how many people testified against her.
Her sidekick taking over this case and upgrading the alternative charge to a felony might be a coincidence or could be related to the decision to publicly censure her and/or dismissing the case against that Kansas player and now she's even more desperate for a win in an election year.
Talk about a hot take!
Case scheduled for June 10th.....Expected to last 3 days.....Draft on June 26th......If found Not Guilty, I don't see why he wouldn't be drafted? Will this hurt his draft stock? Perhaps. I would even grant that it likely does. But I still think that he palys in the league next year, especially if he is aquitted.
He's a 2nd round pick now at best, even if he ends up getting acquitted. Had the case not gone to trial he might have been a 1st round pick. Character issues do play a factor when these teams are looking at players to draft.
If he is aquitted, that means he is not guilty of committing any crime, thus he does not have any character issues. It is a shame that his character has been called into question for this long. That is what trials are for, to air out the facts. Now, if he isn't found innocent or if the trial is not completed by draft day, I don't see him being drafted. However, I am amazed at how sure some of you are about what NBA teams are going to do, no matter what the actual facts are at the time that they are going to make their decisions
The thing not mentioned above: in cases such as this one, with a paucity of red-handed evidence (I didn't say NO evidence, but rather paucity), it is very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. No biases or skepticism is needed whatsover for that to be the case. (I didn't say there AREN'T biases are not also potentially involved.)
What strikes me as odd is that in most of these cases involving celebs, you see several #metoo claims.
Yet nothing of that sort has happened here.
I know technically other incidents have nothing to do with this 1, but as a human it sure adds credibility for either side in the court of public opinion and (I would think) NBA front offices.
Yet nothing of that sort has happened here.
I know technically other incidents have nothing to do with this 1, but as a human it sure adds credibility for either side in the court of public opinion and (I would think) NBA front offices.
Yup! You are right. How dare he go out with friends! How immature of him! He should have gone directly from Ubben to a hermetically sealed bubble everyday and never interacted with anybody, lest somebody accuse him of doing something that he outright denies doing. Nobody on this board knows for sure what happened that night, certainly not you! But, since you are apparently the expert on all things pro sports, I suppose you should call up TJ and tell him that he should pull out of the draft now. There is no chance that he is going to be selected because he has character issues.....
Must be nice to be omnicient.
Must be nice to be omnicient.
Don’t want to beat a dead horse over this, but your statements alluded to Pro teams in four different sports would look unfavorably toward Shannon (or any athlete) for, as you stated, putting himself in that situation and I just offered you one example where a pro franchise didn’t look too unfavorably at the athlete. I also feel confident that there would be other franchises that would have done the same thing. Also, it sounds like you are leaning more to the accusers side as to what took place. Are you suggesting because he went to a bar for a little while in the middle of the day he gets whatever comes his way for being in that position? Guilty until proven innocent?
chrisRunner7
- Spokane, WA
IIRC, on Saturday SportsTalk, Steve Beckett guessed (he admitted not knowing what the DA was thinking) that the DA might have been concerned about the judge not finding probable cause on the original felony count, so they upped the second count to a still easier-to-prove felony to try to ensure a probable cause finding on a felony.
I think this thing is actually going to trial but who knows... criminal stuff often gets dismissed a week before trial in some jurisdictions.
You’re right, the prosecution wins the preliminary hearing more than 99% of the time. That’s why you wouldn’t put the defendant on the stand in a preliminary hearing unless you thought you stood a reasonable chance of winning. I practiced almost entirely in federal court, but I never saw a defendant testify at a prelim. Ever. The value is almost never going to be worth opening your client to cross or giving up an element of surprise.
I’m not questioning their tactics—I can see the strategy. I was simply saying that the statement is spin.
Edited to add comment about surprise.
Last edited:
Since it sounds like it's so unusual for a defendant to take the stand at the preliminary hearing, could the reason he testified be to allow him to have a statement on the record in case the trial dates were not scheduled before the draft?
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Might be naive and, as always, IANAL … but doesn’t it at least speak to some reasonable level of confidence that TSJ’s team would put him up there? Again, novice opinion here, but I would not put my client up there if I had a suspicion he might be at least partially “guilty” and could potentially talk himself into circles.
The court dates of 6/10 through 6/13 for a jury trial have been confirmed.
Also, a pretrial conference has been scheduled for 5/31. (Shannon is to attend by Zoom.)
Also, a pretrial conference has been scheduled for 5/31. (Shannon is to attend by Zoom.)
I would like to bring up that the judge presiding over the case testified against Valdez. That may have value as I previously mentioned.
It's been said before -- if you're guilty you want a jury, if you're innocent you want a bench trial. Lots of exceptions of course but that seems to be the general rule.
Don’t let the jury know that.
Some reasons to prefer jury trial in this case:
-Kansas players will be defense witnesses. The jury is practically guaranteed to contain some KU basketball fans. Would one of them want to betray a friend of the boys they cheer for?
-The defense is trying to remove the DNA evidence. The judge will decide this and if she decides to remove it, the jury won't know it exists vs. it being in the back of the judge's mind that it was there and the defense feared it enough to file to have it removed.
Illini2010-11
- Sugar Grove
I think you need to disclaim if you are a lawyer or not because this seems to be a bit of a stretch for me.
I am clearly not a lawyer, but even if you are truly innocent, there are very good reasons to want a jury trial. If you have a good set of lawyers and you are innocent, in jury selection, it should be relatively easy to be able to find at least one of the twelve jurors that you will be able to sow reasonable doubt. That is all you need to get a hung jury at worst. I highly doubt there would be an appetite to retry the case if that happens. To me, it seems like a major risk to stake your freedom on one individual -- an individual judge may harbor unconscious biases to the defendant, and that can impact how they make a judgment. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that a judge will willingly send an innocent man to prison, but every human being has biases (even one's they don't know exist), and I would not want to stake my freedom on any one individual. I would rather stake it on needing twelve to go against me, especially if I had a good set of lawyers that were able to get some individuals into the jury that would be receptive to reasonable doubt.
Last edited:
I hadn't seen that the defense had requested the removal of the DNA evidence. I thought it showed that his DNA wasn't present. Wouldn't that be a good thing to present as evidence? But then I am not a lawyer either.
illini55
- The Villages, FL
IAAL, and in this political season, I endorse this message.
There are two sets of DNA evidence, one test performed by the prosecution’s expert and one performed by the defense’s expert. The defense’s results are the one’s you’re referring to. The defense claims the prosecution’s results come from using a testing amount that is too small according to the test manufacturer’s guidelines. They want those test results thrown out.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Thank you for clarifying this - VERY helpful! Although I am nervous to the point of having a pit in my stomach (literally cannot even imagine how Terence feels), I too look forward to Terence's day in court to hopefully prove his innocence!