Posted on 09/26/2007 12:42:57 PM PDT by shrinkermd
Sen. Larry Craig's actions an airport bathroom stall in June didn't constitute a crime and he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, Craig's lawyer argued today. In a 45-minute hearing covered by a crowd of local and national media, William Martin faced skeptical questioning from Hennepin County District Court Judge Charles Porter, Jr. Porter said he doesn't expect to rule on Craig's petition for at least a week and a half.
"Seeking to have a guilty plea overturned is nearly impossible and it should be," Martin acknowledged during the hearing. But he also argued that Craig's plea was not voluntary, intelligent or accurate.
He said that Craig's behavior at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport -- tapping and bumping his foot, sliding his hand under the bathroom stall and peeking into a stall -- does not equal disorderly conduct.
Martin said, "Craig vehemently denied committing or attempting to commit any crime."
Judge Porter countered that the disorderly conduct statute is intentionally broad and is intended to catch behavior that makes other people uncomfortable. Porter peppered Martin with a series of questions.
Metropolitan Airports Commission prosecutor Christopher Renz argued that Craig's attempt to withdraw his plea was flawed because it was filed too late and that he committed the crime by engaging in "a series of invasions into the stall space next to him."
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
"2) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and (3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household.
(c) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision
3, a tanning booth, or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts; and (
2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant. (d) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts; and
(2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant. (e) A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both, if the person:
I bet that no where in this statute nor in the legislative history thereof one can find the word "homosexual," deviate and so forth.
Your view may prevail on this since Judge Porter said that what Senator Craig pled to did fit the statute because the law's meaning included "anything that made one uncomfortable." This is the epitomy of subjectivity and if he decides on this basis Senator Craig is toast. Judge Porter was appointed by Governor Al Quie and he has a reputation of being a "straight shooter."
Regardless, this statute will be revised. If I get a chance I will have someone do a legislative history on it.
Don't be dense. It depends on what they actually did. There was nothing here that unambiguously indicated intent--no exposure, no physical contact, no words, no written notes, no obscene gestures.
I’m glad you finally retracted your steadfast and repeated claim that the statute in question applied only to female victims. This is progress. Next, you need to acknowledge that the section I referred you to, namely, (c)(1) is more than appplicable to an offender who gazes for a couple of minutes into a stranger’s occupied stall in a public restroom. The language is clear and the applicability to Craig is just as clear. Cherry-picking all the non-relevant parts of the statute only proves that you can stray from the point at issue. I already know that. What I want to know now is whether you can focus on (c)(1) and admit that it applies to what Craig was accused of doing in that restroom.
>> Because none of them are facts.
Oh, my. By categorically denying or refuting EVERY one of my statements, not all of which did I maintain are facts anyway (some are positions), you are (among other things) calling the arresting officer a liar, saying that it’s A-OK for senators to solicit gay sex in bathrooms, denying that Larry Craig is a homosexual, and saying it’s OK for a representative to deceive his or her electors.
Are you sure that’s your position?
>> You want him guilty.
I don’t “want him guilty”. I want him OUT OF THE SENATE. My position is, he’s queer, he passed himself off as NOT queer (lying to his constituents), he’s damaged goods and incapable of doing his job, but most of all, I’m saying it’s WRONG for anyone, ESPECIALLY an elected representative, to solicit gay sex in a bathroom like a common pervert.
You on the other hand are making excuses for him; ignoring the obvious EVIDENCE and arguing on technicalities.
I know right from wrong. What Larry Craig did was wrong. Dissembling about it ALSO happens to be wrong.
If you don’t like it that I have a conscience and know right from wrong — nuts to you.
Let him withdraw his guilty plea and hold a trial. I don’t see why he should be denied that.
lf not, then Senators are above the laws that the rest of us must obey. A Senator can then do anything he wants to you and does not have to answer for it, because he's better than you are.
He does not have to follow any of the rules the rest of us have to conform to, including the finality of court pleas.
Is that how you want things to be in this country? If so, get used to being a serf because that's all you will be.
That's fine by me.
I wonder what the ID “man on the street” thinks of him now.
A complete lack of understanding and tolerance of other people’s points makes the responses moot. Absolute moralism usually cloud one’s judgement.
Hehe, that could get interesting. Since plea arrangements would no longer be dispositive, there would no longer be any point in offering them. And since most people would have no incentive to plead guilty, everything would procede to trial and the court calendar would never get cleared. Might be tough to appoint enough new judges to cover, since democrats won't allow appointment of anybody who isn't to the left of Chairman Mao.
In the court of common sense he is guily by a jury of the public.
in the court of law then he might might have wiggle room.
HOWEVER, just because he was stupid enough to represent himself and not even allow a public defender to help does not automatically set things aside.
I agree. I do not think however, that he has alot of wiggle room, as he admitted to the behaviors that would violate a person's privacy, as in relation to disorderly conduct.
And I wish people would realize that this isn't about homosexuality, but rather it is about having sex in a public bathroom.
Where is this a legal doctrine? Iran?
There's nothing Craig did that could be interpreted as meaning he wanted to have sex IN the restroom, whatever you believe (or don't believe) was going on in his mind.
I'm not keen on signals being traded in public restrooms; but I don't think non-touching, non-verbal, potentially ambiguous signals should be ILLEGAL. Maybe they're illegal in Iran or Saudi Arabia, but they aren't under Minnesota law, yet.
609.746, Minnesota Statutes 2006
Copyright © 2006 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. 609.746 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACY. Subdivision 1. Surreptitious intrusion; observation device. (a) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) enters upon another's property; (2) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and (3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household. (b) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) enters upon another's property; (2) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and (3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household. (c) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts;............
Craig was peeping through the crack of the toilet area where the police officer was for 2 minutes
Go to post #78 where Bonaparte has posted the complete statute.
Nobody coerced Craig or denied him due process. If he's going to admit that he lied when he signed his name to the plea, then I believe he should serve time for perjuring himself.
He has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion on what others think he wanted to do rather than what he actually did.
As he should have been!!! He played this episode pretty stupidly if you ask me. Oh and by the way, not only the public tried and convicted him, but so did the legal system when he pleaded GUILTY!!!!!!!!
Hillary and Craig’s cases are very different. Hillary’s case is very difficult to understand for the general public. It is not interesting either. Kinda boring. Craig his the jackpot on an interest story. Sex, Republican, Conservative and gay...the public understand that story and unless he leaves it will not go away.
How does that follow?
Without a plea arrangement, there is no promise from the court for things like sentence reduction, alternative probation, waiving of fines, etc. in exchange for a guilty plea. The defendant has everything to gain and nothing to lose by going to trial and letting a jury decide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.