Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

XLIX said:

In many courtrooms, if you can prove (1) a sex act took place and (2) money changed hands, then that’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges are not stupid. They are not going to buy the old “I paid for her time, the sex was free!” defense.

Click to expand...

Here, there were two acts - one was a massage and the other a sex act. In usual prostitution, there is no massage so the defendant has a tougher argument. Here, Kraft can pin it on the massage.

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

That's true but you can't criminally convict someone for something they "probably" did. The State has to prove this BARD. Without audio, how can they prove that Kraft actually solicited absent an admission?

Click to expand...

The charge is solicitation. Ie soliciting sex for money. So the tip really proves nothing, especially without audio. This doesn't mean Kraft isn't guilty, but if defended correctly, he could walk.

I told you guys there will be a $hitstorm over this. Triumph is right again.

Advocates call on Goodell to ban Kraft if guilty

XLIX said:

In many courtrooms, if you can prove (1) a sex act took place and (2) money changed hands, then that’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges are not stupid. They are not going to buy the old “I paid for her time, the sex was free!” defense.

Click to expand...

Judges can actually be very stupid, but that's beside the point.

"Sex act" and "money exchange" aren't the only elements, you also have to prove "solicitation." Generally, a person has to solicit another person to engage in an act of prostitution and the act must have been done with specific intent to engage in an act of prostitution.

203Pat said:

I’m assuming you’re a lawyer, what is the reasoning behind this stipulation?

Click to expand...

It's really just another form of plea deal. It effectively keeps your record cleaner than a conviction or guilty plea.

Triumph said:

I believe the case vs Kraft is solid, but the State would rather avoid a long drawn out battle with Krafts HOF lawyers. They know every trick in the book. Everyone will be on trial but Kraft.

The video tape is not from police cameras. The massage Madam set her own cameras up and recorded the clientele. Maybe she had plans to black mail old Bob later on down the road.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, making sure the state's evidence complies with the law is not a "trick in the book" but what every criminal defendant is entitled to. If, as you say, the video of Kraft is from the Madame and not a police camera that was installed after a warrant (my understanding of the source of the video), then it's probably an illegal tape and cannot be used as evidence against Kraft. If there is no video they don't have much evidence on Kraft, except he went into the massage parlor two days in a row. You're probably not getting a criminal conviction out of that.

XLIX said:

In many courtrooms, if you can prove (1) a sex act took place and (2) money changed hands, then that’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges are not stupid. They are not going to buy the old “I paid for her time, the sex was free!” defense.

Click to expand...

And you are basing this off of what, exactly? The litany of solicitation cases that men have actually fought tooth and nail in court? Because there aren't many of them to begin with and I'd be interested to know from where you're drawing these conclusions of what would happen in "many courtrooms". I'm not attacking you, I would just like to see some sourcing on this I suppose.

PatsDeb said:

Believe it or not, making sure the state's evidence complies with the law is not a "trick in the book" but what every criminal defendant is entitled to. If, as you say, the video of Kraft is from the Madame and not a police camera that was installed after a warrant (my understanding of the source of the video), then it's probably an illegal tape and cannot be used as evidence against Kraft.

Click to expand...

The police cameras were never installed.

The madam was across the street when the police evacuated her massage parlor. As the police began installing the cameras, the Madam was watching the police via her own video set up. The Madam then went accross the street and somehow alerted the police that she was watching them.

I guess I don't get what's in it for the PD. "We'll drop charges if you plead guilty", don't the police want charges if he's guilty and not have charges if he's not guilty? That's the point of having the law and the justice stuff, right? To get the guilty people and let the innocent alone.

Triumph said:

In other words Kraft is guilty.

Click to expand...

I realize that you are not an attorney, but many, many, many non-famous people in this country on a daily basis "plea down" charges against them in our criminal courts, which are stuffed to the gills. Kraft may be "guilty" but he won't necessarily be convicted, either voluntarily (plea deal to the same or lesser charges) or involuntarily (proceed to trial and the judge [or jury] finds against you).

Triumph said:

I believe the case vs Kraft is solid, but the State would rather avoid a long drawn out battle with Krafts HOF lawyers. They know every trick in the book. Everyone will be on trial but Kraft.

The video tape is not from police cameras. The massage Madam set her own cameras up and recorded the clientele. Maybe she had plans to black mail old Bob later on down the road.

Click to expand...

A prosecutor dropping a charge against a high profile individual where said prosecutor would make his/her name a media sensation that triumphantly is associated with fighting sex trafficking and perversion!! which, by coincidence, can make for an excellent transition into a career in state (even federal) politics, will all be disregarded in the name of money?

I'll buy that for a dollar... ;-)

Now said prosecutor dropping a charge against a high profile individual where the case is so-so against high profile individual who has massively deep pockets to hire lawyers that very well could make said prosecutor, and team, look like amateurs, potentially lose the case in a media 3 ring spectacle, and risk forever having a proverbial L on said prosecutors forehead?

Kraft will go hard (ha!) after the admissibility of the video. If it's from the police, he'll argue the footage fell outside the scope of the warrant. If it's from the owner, he'll argue privacy violation. I have no idea how successful he'll be, but he doesn't want the case to get to having to explain away what's on video.

Regards,
Chris

Triumph said:

I told you guys there will be a $hitstorm over this. Triumph is right again.

Advocates call on Goodell to ban Kraft if guilty

Click to expand...

Is "Payment for sex . . . a raw manifestation of sexual coercion" or is it a woman's right to sell her body for sex if she chooses? These "women's rights" groups are kind of confusing.

tasmlab said:

I guess I don't get what's in it for the PD. "We'll drop charges if you plead guilty", don't the police want charges if he's guilty and not have charges if he's not guilty? That's the point of having the law and the justice stuff, right? To get the guilty people and let the innocent alone.

Click to expand...

If you plead guilty, they have not dropped the charges. It's either being reported inartfully, or they are trying to fool the public. They are offering a plea deal.

PatsDeb said:

Believe it or not, making sure the state's evidence complies with the law is not a "trick in the book" but what every criminal defendant is entitled to. If, as you say, the video of Kraft is from the Madame and not a police camera that was installed after a warrant (my understanding of the source of the video), then it's probably an illegal tape and cannot be used as evidence against Kraft. If there is no video they don't have much evidence on Kraft, except he went into the massage parlor two days in a row. You're probably not getting a criminal conviction out of that.

Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that FLA prosecutors would go after a figure like Kraft without their ducks in a row.

chris_in_sunnyvale said:

Kraft will go hard (ha!) after the admissibility of the video. If it's from the police, he'll argue the footage fell outside the scope of the warrant. If it's from the owner, he'll argue privacy violation. I have no idea how successful he'll be, but he doesn't want the case to get to having to explain away what's on video.

Regards,
Chris

Click to expand...

He'll also get a better offer from the prosecutor if there is a chance the video is thrown out because it was taken by the owner (is that what really happened? OMG those police are incompetent if they are prosecuting a case based on videos that were obtained without a warrant or permission of the subject).

Triumph said:

I find it hard to believe that FLA prosecutors would go after a figure like Kraft without their ducks in a row.

Click to expand...

Then you don't know prosecutors...

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

Is "Payment for sex . . . a raw manifestation of sexual coercion" or is it a woman's right to sell her body for sex if she chooses? These "women's rights" groups are kind of confusing.

Click to expand...

With the exception of Nevada, since when can anyone legally sell themselves for sex?

Bob would be free and clear in Nevada. He was in Florida.

tasmlab said:

I guess I don't get what's in it for the PD. "We'll drop charges if you plead guilty", don't the police want charges if he's guilty and not have charges if he's not guilty? That's the point of having the law and the justice stuff, right? To get the guilty people and let the innocent alone.

Click to expand...

Equating law & justice is where you go awry. Law may have the intention of justice but its application falls just, ahem, a smidgen short

tasmlab said:

I guess I don't get what's in it for the PD. "We'll drop charges if you plead guilty", don't the police want charges if he's guilty and not have charges if he's not guilty? That's the point of having the law and the justice stuff, right? To get the guilty people and let the innocent alone.

Click to expand...

As I have been saying from the beginning on this, the whole purpose of this charade is to embarrass suspected johns. They were never going for incarceration or even fines. It's all about embarrassing lonely, senior men who pay a little cash for a * from middle aged and willing Asian women.

That the DA would actually offer to let Kraft (and the others) walk with no repercussions (other than dragging their names through the mud) is illustrative of the ****amamie and petty nature of the entire ordeal from the start. Just a waste of time/taxpayer money and will do nothing to make a dent in the oldest business known to man.