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
- Status
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.
If I were on the jury I'd push for jury nullification if it came down to the alternative charge in this or any other case. A male college student touching a female college student in a bar is implicitly sexual in nature, so all you need to satisfy a felony being committed is for the female college student to say she felt afraid.
If the alleged victim's friend saw Terrence touch her, that alternative charge would have been an instant win.
Agreed. It's a mess of an interpretation in my opinion as the only legally valid defense in a case like that is "no contact" because you're trying to defend against what someone feels instead of what the actual physical charge is.
For anyone who has ever been in a relationship, at some point they've had an experience where the other person is upset with them and when they ask that person what's wrong, you get a response like "you should know what's wrong." In 99 out of 100 cases, the person has no clue. It's just impossible in most cases to know immediately if someone doesn't like or want something if they don't communicate it. But in most those cases cases if they were to say something to you, you'd immediately stop.
It's just an interpretation that takes away all opportunity for corrective action or really any action from the alleged assaulter. And as such it's just a bizarre ruling in my opinion, as it would be akin to arguing for someone to be charged with attempted murder because the alleged victim felt that when the defendant looked at them that they had murderous intent in their eyes. Just an awful interpretation of the law in my opinion and one that I too would have many issues with deciding on as a juror.
I agree with your criticisms of the law, but I don't think this situation (as alleged) falls into that category. If a man pulls to himself a woman he doesn't know and puts his hands under her skirt and underwear within seconds, he hasn't reasonably given her time to say anything before it's too late.
Last edited:
I am at the point where I don't quite know exactly what the young lady is alleging.
He was supposedly standing against a wall near the door with Harmon, who she thought was a KU basketball player.
She reenters the densely packed room with her friend and approached him.
He pulls her to him with one of his hands. She somehow winds up against the wall to his left. He touched her butt from behind with his other hand. She didn't mind. Then he digitally raped her, slso from behind. This all lasted about a minute.
She didn't actually see who touched her butt and digitally raped her, because she was standing against the wall and looking straight ahead. She knew it is was the person she later identified as Shannon because it came from her left and he maintained contact the entire time.
He was supposedly standing against a wall near the door with Harmon, who she thought was a KU basketball player.
She reenters the densely packed room with her friend and approached him.
He pulls her to him with one of his hands. She somehow winds up against the wall to his left. He touched her butt from behind with his other hand. She didn't mind. Then he digitally raped her, slso from behind. This all lasted about a minute.
She didn't actually see who touched her butt and digitally raped her, because she was standing against the wall and looking straight ahead. She knew it is was the person she later identified as Shannon because it came from her left and he maintained contact the entire time.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
But is that even in the alleged victim’s statements? I thought she said she thought he was cute, allowed some physical contact and then drew the line (internally/without telling him) after the fact?
I won’t comment on the law or anything else, and I’ve been vocal that I’m very skeptical of this alleged victim’s opinion that the person who allegedly sexually assaulted her was TSJ. However, I’ll say emphatically that a culture where girls expect men to “make the first move” cannot coexist with laws written like this. And most girls 110% still judge men by the level of “courage” they have to “make the first move.”
Would 99.9% of men be in this situation? No. But if we are going to create laws that try to aggressively protect women against unwanted advances, specifically in public places, then we somehow have to dispel the notion that men must approach women first and be brave otherwise they are “not desirable.” And right now, I feel we’re in a toxic transition period.
From Exhibit B-3:
So according to her, the encounter was 1 minute long, the physical contact lasted 30 seconds, and his fingers were inside her for 5-10 seconds. We don't know exactly how many seconds each part of the progression lasted, but none could have been long.
I'm sure some women would enjoy having certain men quickly put their hands under their skirt/underwear in a bar. I strongly disagree that that qualifies as a typical or reasonable "advance" or "being "brave" as you speak of, and I think it's appropriate for our laws to protect women who don't want that and would be completely shocked and stunned by such behavior in a bar (we're not talking about two people gradually getting more frisky and/or in a private space where further intimacy is more socially reasonable). If the woman isn't giving any signs that she likes the touching, and instead she freezes, the man must stop immediately. If he's progressing so fast he doesn't have time to even notice, that's his fault.
There are plenty of ways for a man to make a move without risk of it being assault, and there are plenty of ways to progress through intimacy that give the woman a chance to say no. A quick finger in a bar isn't one of those. I just hope Shannon didn't do it, because there's no excuse if he did (except that it doesn't deserve the same sentence as other forms of rape/assault that are even worse).
Oh no question, they're talking about actual assault in this case and due to the victim's statement that all contact outside penetration was welcomed, it's why I originally said it's an argument for a different time. However, pretending the victim didn't make that statement, in the case that the State can't prove that the assault the victim described occurred it would allow the State to try the backdoor argument of "if you believe that the defendant and the victim had any sort of physical interaction it needs to be considered a felony as it was unwanted", which is something much much easier to prove, and outside what should be the intent of the law in my opinion.
That said, I really was talking about the definition of sexual assault in general, where I think if it is defined as broad as it is, I think there's serious concerns about viability to defend oneself.
The Defense's argument to view the Morris case files has succeeded.
Is there any sort of a written order, or is it just a docket entry? If the former, would you please link it here?
The former, yes.
That does not look so good to me. It seemingly says they can see the Morris case files, but they cannot use them.
IlliniKat91
- Chicago, IL
They can use them, but they can't give copies to TSJ or pass copies out to the general public or press. The only limitation is on further dissemination of the files, likely meaning that he court doesn't want them launching their defense in public and messing with the jury pool (my best guess). That's just good practice because everyone accused of a crime deserves a strong defense.
I reviewed the last cpl pages of posts, and I understand the 1 minute timeline, but I am not clear what she said about seeing or not seeing the guy who did this to her. Last I recall, she said she never turned around to see who did this to her (I find this very hard to believe), but somehow was able to ID TSJ. Can someone bring me up to speed on that? Thx
theNewGuy
- Dallas, TX
The "story" makes about as much sense as going to a college bar for hours and only taking 1 sip of your drink... oh wait
- Status