Posted on 03/10/2010 11:26:52 AM PST by Colofornian
A former seminary principal charged with having a sexual relationship with a student has retained a new attorney.
Michael Pratt, 37, hired attorneys Stephen R. McCaughey and Jeremy M. Delicino last week, according to court records. He initially said he could not afford an attorney and asked the court to appoint a public defender. He has been represented by public defender Dusty Kawai since July.
Pratt's attorney also filed a new motion to continue his trial, which is scheduled to begin April 12. Kawai filed the same motion in February, citing a heavy case load and difficulty interviewing witnesses. At the time, the judge denied the motion.
Prosecutor Julia Thomas said Pratt's decision to hire a new attorney could affect whether the trial goes forward in April. She has not filed a formal response to the motion, but Thomas said she plans to oppose it.
"The family still does not want the trial to be continued," she said.
During a hearing to address the previous motion to continue the trial, the alleged victim's father said he felt the defense had a strategy all along to continue the trial in order to have an 18-year-old victim on the stand rather than a minor. The then-16-year-old girl will turn 18 in the summer.
Pratt is charged with 15 felonies for an alleged sexual relationship he had in 2009 with a 16-year-old seminary student at Lone Peak High School. Pratt is scheduled for an eight-day trial beginning April 12 on charges of forcible sodomy, object rape, rape and forcible sexual abuse.
Pratt. Is he a descendant of Parley or Orson Pratt?
Appropriate question! Not on this subject, though,but appropriate due to his affiliation...:)
Have you placed this gripe with the Provo Daily Herald? (After all, it's run 11 articles since July 21, 2009 on this accused predator...that's about 3 articles every 2 months...meanwhile, as this article indicates, this guy's defense attorneys are apparently satisfied the 16-year-old alleged victim has now turned 18...easier for the defense team to "go after an adult" on the stand than a minor...plus she's more "presentable" to a jury as an adult)
The real question is: Why does the alleged victim have to endure this -- for it to drag on??? Can't she get this part of her life over with so she can move on?
That's why there are trials, right?
Sometimes, those who accuse others of sexual abuse are lying.
We just don't know yet.
If he's guilty, lock him up. No question.
So, are victims of sexual abuse supposed to shut up until the trial is over with so that, Heaven forbid, others who may be or have been abused can't hear about it?
Blame the press, blame the prosecutor, blame the victim, but by all means, don't blame the abuser especially if he is a "priesthood holder" and the victim is a woman.
When did I say anything like that?
Blame the press, blame the prosecutor, blame the victim, but by all means, don't blame the abuser especially if he is a "priesthood holder" and the victim is a woman.
Good heavens, what ARE you talking about?
Didn't I just post "If he's guilty, lock him up"?
Hey, if you want to go fight your straw men, don't let me get in the way. I'll leave you to it.
You also posted this: Sometimes, those who accuse others of sexual abuse are lying.
Did you say "straw men"?
Did you say "straw men"?
I did.
Apparently you're unclear on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", and the word "sometimes."
Since when does "waiting" mean censorship of the press...oh wait...!!
I'm SURE I saw you on the numerous threads about the abuse by Catholic Priests suggesting the same "wait until he is convicted". Right?
WHAT "CENSORSHIP"???
Seriously, are you off your meds or something???
That's why there are trials, right?
Sometimes, those who accuse others of sexual abuse are lying.
We just don't know yet.
Yep. "WHAT "CENSORSHIP"???"
Thanks for your efforts in bumping the thread.
Seems to me that this was a post of an update on the trial status. I believe that’s more than appropriate
So do I.
My comment was a rhetorical question directed at those who don't want to wait for the trial to finish before declaring the man guilty.
I'm sorry to all if I came across as criticising the posting of the article, because that was not my intention.
You are either playing dumb or you are really pro-Mormon. This isn’t about being Mormon or non-Mormon. Fact is that defense slime balls do this to victims all the time. I have known young women who were brutalized. Part of them went the trial route and as the time drug on these young women were brutalized yet again by the system-— you know the one that is supposed to protect them.
This young girl was 16 -— I don’t care whether she ‘consented’ or not. The fact that a 37 yr old is even mildly interested is beyond disgusting. RARELY will a teen aged girl lie about sex ( forced or otherwise). And when it has been forced, that girl has lost something that will NEVER be given back to her. For the rest of her life she will have doubts and questions in the back of her mind that will haunt her.
So big shot.... cool your jets
You know what——I can declare ANYONE I want to guilty. I am NOT on the jury. OJ was guilty. Barack is guilty. All sorts of people are guilty ——including the lunatic in San Diego.
YOU apparently do not understand the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
...
So big shot.... cool your jets
Not sure what I've posted that has you so riled up.
My posts have nothing to do with being pro-Mormon. I'm simply calling for the trial to conclude and a verdict to be reached before declaring the man guilty. Is that really so bizarre? Should it be any different for a Mormon than for a Catholic or a Baptist? His religion isn't the point, at least to me.
If the man is guilty, then lock him up.
I am in NO WAY trying to minimize or defend the horrible crime he is accused of! I just think he's entitled to defend himself and to be declared guilty or not guilty by the jury.
Yes, you can.
Hope you find some peace.
His religion isn’t the point, at least to me.
- - - - - - - -
Is that because you are LDS as well? There have been accusations of cover ups of abuse by the LDS hierarchy for 20 years.
Some of those allegations led to the 1990 temple changes.
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.