The Next Level, Coach Accused of Sex with Minor - Update

[americanfreedom]

Why do you think the Duke case was an anomaly? But if they have text messages and multiple victims, that sounds like where there's smoke . . .

Because it was an anomaly. A high-profile anomaly. Hey, I'm not saying that every charge is correctly filed, but any normal D.A. is going to evaluate the evidence and file charges based on what crimes there is a reasonable chance of proving. Do they sometimes get overzealous? Yes. Do they sometimes misjudge the quality of the evidence? Again, yes. But normally when charges are filed it means that a person who makes his living judging such things deems the evidence sufficient to warrant them. Obviously it still has to be proven, but in the interim that should be enough to justify keeping him away from the players.

You're opinions are always insightful, and I don't intend to rehash a previous discussion between us in another post on this issue. But your ideas about the criminal justice system are naive at best. The criminal justice system in this country is seriously flawed. The guilty go free on a regular basis, and the innocent are frequently charged, convicted, or coerced into plea bargains because of the threat of long jail sentences.

You are particuarly wrongheaded with regard to what you think about "normal" District Attorneys. "Anamolies," maybe, but I would guess neither you nor anyone in your immediate circle have ever been the target of a "normal" District Attorney. The Duke case, and cases like it, happen much more frequently than you are willing to accept. All District Attorneys thrive on the high-profile conviction, and none that I personally know hesistate for a moment to pursue a marginal claim in pursuit of headlines.

My former mock trail partner in law school eventually became a very well-respected District Attorney in East Texas who specialized in sex crimes. She was quite proud of her position that she didn't care if they were guilty or innocent because she was only concerned with what she could prove to a jury because if he didn't do this crime, he had done one in the past, or he would do one in the future, because all men are guilty of a sex crime at some point in their lives. She really, really believed it. She would prosecute ANYTHING she thought she could get a conviction on. And the scary, scary thing is that she is an unbelievably gifted trial lawyer. She sleeps without regret at night knowing that she likely convicted innocent men of a crime they didn't commit because she was a better lawyer and jurors believe like you believe.

I agree, however, that guilty until proven innocent is not the standard at the ballpark, and question why the TNL parents are cooperating with this guy if the evidence is stacked against him.

[Skarp]

She would prosecute ANYTHING she thought she could get a conviction on.

So she would prosecute where she thought the evidence would be sufficient, in a court of law with opposing representation contesting it, to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Wow, that is terrible.

[Sam]

AF,

Sorry, I don't buy it. I don't buy that there are many innocent people in jail today.

I do believe that there are far more people that get away with crimes than end up being punished by our legal system.

I'm not saying you are wrong about your looney tune DA buddy, but I have participated in the jury system...you need evidence and lots of it to get a conviction for any crime that is prosecuted. Juries end up getting loaded with the dimmest bulbs on purpose. Your DA could only do what she could do....the defense attornies have a pretty easy job in lots of these cases...they just have to exclude all the jurors that have semblance of a brain.

[americanfreedom]

You are naive, and need to volunteer with one of the many advocacy organizatons in your area. "Evidence" in many criminal cases is often nothing but he-said-she-said. Not always, but frequently. In cases where the evidence is "objective" (DNA, video tape, etc.) rather than "subjective" (who do you believe cases) they rarely go to trial because the perpetrator is convicted on the science. Case that go to trail are frequently of the "subjective" kind and frequently involve many, many, many, many district attorneys are only concerned with whether they can convict, and not whether their witnesses are lying, of questionable repute, etc. Other times, the District Attorney chooses not to prosecute because of who the alleged perpetrator is (ie., the Kennedy case, etc.) On cases that actually proceed to trial, the concept of innocent until proven guilty was long ago replaced in the actual courtroom with guilty until proven innocent. If you don't believe this, I'm sorry to challenge your ideas about the criminal justice system in America, but too often, the guilty go free and the innocent go to prison. And yes, that is terrible.

[Skarp]

"Anamolies," maybe, but I would guess neither you nor anyone in your immediate circle have ever been the target of a "normal" District Attorney.

Methinks you prove too much. If "normal" DA's were going around filing charges and prosecuting cases out of thin air, we would all know someone who had been the target of one. I don't run with criminals--that's a simple enough explanation for me why nobody in my circle has been targeted.

I'd be happy to delve at depth with you into the philosophical underpinnings of the adversarial system, and the practical (mis)applications thereof, but in some other forum perhaps. Much more interesting to talk about throwing down at the ball-park, dissing each others' parental skills, etc.

[Demonboy]

An alledged predator being at a field doesn't really change anything for me. We always assume there are predators present and look after the girls accordingly.

I agree with that, and, leaving aside the allegations that this isn't the first time it has happened, I'm also not convinced that the facts of this matter are particularly egregious (unless coersion or the like was involved).

But it is important to the continued vitality of the sport--which I repeat is our concern--that such situations are addressed appropriately. Allowing this guy to attend games or otherwise interact with the players gives the impression that TNL, and by implication the sport at large, has a laissez-faire attitude about sexual abuse. That's not the picture we want painted, so criticizing TNL about it is legitimate.

The most reasonable post so far about this (other than mine quoted above of course ).

[anonlooker]

AF,
Just wondering, since you are obviously involved in the legal profession, why you keep misspelling trial in your posts?

Yeah, I'm often confused why some cases go to trial, and others go to trail? Do the evil DA's under discussion make this determination as well?

[Demonboy]

the next time you see TNL at a tournament or friendly why don't you take a break from working the snack bar or chalking the fields and come up to my face and tell me what a BAD parent I am.

So you can do what...punch him out at the softball field? That would be really awesome parenting!
Why don't you try taking what SBJ says with a grain of salt. Believe me, the rest of us do.

But great entertainment Skarp!

[Skarp]

the next time you see TNL at a tournament or friendly why don't you take a break from working the snack bar or chalking the fields and come up to my face and tell me what a BAD parent I am.

So you can do what...punch him out at the softball field? That would be really awesome parenting!
Why don't you try taking what SBJ says with a grain of salt. Believe me, the rest of us do.

But great entertainment Skarp!

Good point...I do enjoy a good donnybrook! And really, why not turn the tables and let the girls be spectators for once?

[anonlooker]

An alledged predator being at a field doesn't really change anything for me. We always assume there are predators present and look after the girls accordingly.

I agree with that, and, leaving aside the allegations that this isn't the first time it has happened, I'm also not convinced that the facts of this matter are particularly egregious (unless coersion or the like was involved).

But it is important to the continued vitality of the sport--which I repeat is our concern--that such situations are addressed appropriately. Allowing this guy to attend games or otherwise interact with the players gives the impression that TNL, and by implication the sport at large, has a laissez-faire attitude about sexual abuse. That's not the picture we want painted, so criticizing TNL about it is legitimate.

The most reasonable post so far about this (other than mine quoted above of course ).

The negative PR aspect of this situation is dead on. TB is already the ugly stepsister to HS, which gets all the glory in the press, even though all the great HS players came up through TB. And now the ugly stepsister has Uncle Ernie fiddling about, and the only people who can directly do anything about it, meaning TNL, act as though nothing ever happened. Yet another way to define "insanity".

My next phone call is to DD's coach to ask that we not play in tournaments where TNL is playing, and further, to suggest that he let the tournament directors know exactly why we aren't attending. And if he decides to go there anyway, then he'll understand when I tell him his starting SS and #2 pitcher won't be making the trip. That's my decision as a parent, not to allow my child to be put in that situation.

And since this isn't exactly front page news, it's doubtful most tournament directors are even aware of what is going on. So while we can't directly force TNL to do anything, boycotting tournaments they enter may be the only way to bring any pressure on them to keep this guy away from the fields. How about all you coaches shoot a quick e-mail to the TD's you know with a link to the original story and express some concern about playing in their tournaments if this guy is allowed to attend. Seriously, what organization wants to hold a one team tournament?

When and if this story does become a headline and TB makes the front page, it would be good if the reporter could add a note that the TB community as a whole refused to sit by in complicity, but rather refused to play (along). There are plenty of opportunities to play elsewhere.

I happen to believe that for the most part, the CJ system works. I don't believe this girl lied to her parents, then conned the police into turning the case over to detectives, who were then duped throughout their investigation into turning the case over to the DA, who in turn fooled some judge into issuing an arrest warrant. If there is enough evidence to convince a judge, I opt to err, if I'm erring at all, on the side of caution.

As DB noted, we assume the Uncle Ernie's are out there anyway, and so we take protective measures to ensure our kids safety. I'm not about to gift wrap my daughter... she, and all our children, are far too precious.