PDA

View Full Version : Perrish Cox sexual assault case headed for trial


Boobs McGee
03-14-2011, 11:16 PM
Not exactly sure what this all means...

CASTLE ROCK, Colo. (AP) Details of sexual assault allegations against Denver Broncos cornerback Perrish Cox will remain secret, for now.

Cox attorney Harvey A. Steinberg waived his client's right to a preliminary hearing, where investigators present evidence in court, after a judge ruled Thursday that it should be public. Steinberg argued that the public had no constitutional right to court proceedings leading up to trials.

Steve Zansberg, an attorney representing The Associated Press, The Denver Post and The New York Times, disagreed, calling closing such a hearing in Colorado unprecedented and noted that a judge in a sexual assault case involving Kobe Bryant did not approve of a similar request. Charges were later dropped against Bryant.

"There's no reason in logic and in law to treat this case differently ... merely because the defendant is a professional athlete," Zansberg argued in court.

More at the link

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/broncos/2011-03-10-cox-case_N.htm

Anyone care to elaborate on what it means when his rights were waived by his lawyer? I'm not really understanding the ramifications here...

footstepsfrom#27
03-14-2011, 11:56 PM
Cox attorney Harvey A. Steinberg waived his client's right to a preliminary hearing, where investigators present evidence in court, after a judge ruled Thursday that it should be public. Steinberg argued that the public had no constitutional right to court proceedings leading up to trials.

It sonds like he doesn't want his personal business aired in public, which is why he waived the right to an open (and apparently very public) preliminary hearing.

cutthemdown
03-15-2011, 12:44 AM
If he was a really good player it would suck worst. Still though I am waiting for no Broncos to get arrested. I think we should be ashamed of our record for players being turds.

Requiem
03-15-2011, 06:25 AM
He is a pretty solid young player. This absolutely sucks.

lostknight
03-15-2011, 06:55 AM
He is a pretty solid young player. This absolutely sucks.

To borrow a line from Elizabethtown, Success is the only American God. If he did rape a woman while she was incapacitated (twice, or perhaps two victims), I don't think I would use the word solid to describe him.

Garcia Bronco
03-15-2011, 07:02 AM
Again, its a weak case. I will be surprised if he gets convicted.

BroncoInferno
03-15-2011, 07:06 AM
Again, its a weak case. I will be surprised if he gets convicted.

How can you conclude it's a weak case when so few of the details are known?

Garcia Bronco
03-15-2011, 07:14 AM
How can you conclude it's a weak case when so few of the details are known?

The nature of the charge, she agreed to go home with him, and she admits to being drunk. Its he said, she said. Unless there is video or audio proving otherwise the DA has a tough case to prove. That's it.

Boobs McGee
03-15-2011, 07:14 AM
Cox attorney Harvey A. Steinberg waived his client's right to a preliminary hearing, where investigators present evidence in court, after a judge ruled Thursday that it should be public. Steinberg argued that the public had no constitutional right to court proceedings leading up to trials.

It sonds like he doesn't want his personal business aired in public, which is why he waived the right to an open (and apparently very public) preliminary hearing.

So basically , just protecting his privacy? I wonder if that decision can in any way affect the trial .

lostknight
03-15-2011, 08:12 AM
The nature of the charge, she agreed to go home with him, and she admits to being drunk. Its he said, she said. Unless there is video or audio proving otherwise the DA has a tough case to prove. That's it.

Men get strung up all the time when they "didn't do anything" on he-said, she-said situations.

Garcia Bronco
03-15-2011, 08:13 AM
Men get strung up all the time when they "didn't do anything" on he-said, she-said situations.

Agreed, but it's less likely in a high profile case.

BigPlayShay
03-15-2011, 08:32 AM
Can he even be suspended by the league now that there is no CBA?

schaaf
03-15-2011, 08:40 AM
How can you conclude it's a weak case when so few of the details are known?

He isn't being charged with rape. Like Garcia Bronco said it will be very hard to charge him.

lostknight
03-15-2011, 09:26 AM
He isn't being charged with rape. Like Garcia Bronco said it will be very hard to charge him.

??????????

He's already been charged with Rape.

schaaf
03-15-2011, 09:29 AM
no it isn't it is a sexual assault case, she agreed to have sex with him but looking back was too drunk too say no, thats not rape.

Old Dude
03-15-2011, 09:32 AM
no it isn't it is a sexual assault case, she agreed to have sex with him but looking back was too drunk too say no, thats not rape.

If she was too drunk to consent, and he knew it, that qualifies as a sexual assault under Colorado law.

gyldenlove
03-15-2011, 09:38 AM
Can he even be suspended by the league now that there is no CBA?

No, but that will be a point of contention for the new CBA wether a player who violated the personal conduct policy or any of the substance abuse policies would be subject to suspensions for things done before the new CBA was signed into action.

Garcia Bronco
03-15-2011, 12:44 PM
no it isn't it is a sexual assault case, she agreed to have sex with him but looking back was too drunk too say no, thats not rape.

Exactly, the DA will have to demostrate that he knew she was too drunk to commit to having sex or that he drugged her with no witnesses. Good luck.

gyldenlove
03-15-2011, 12:58 PM
If she was too drunk to consent, and he knew it, that qualifies as a sexual assault under Colorado law.

Yup, if he knew it and wasn't too drunk himself.

bombay
03-15-2011, 12:59 PM
Outlawing drunken sex might be a formula for population control.

gyldenlove
03-15-2011, 01:21 PM
Outlawing drunken sex might be a formula for population control.

It will also be a formula for student rebellion, imagine the new heights of lameness frat parties would reach if there was no drunken sex.

strafen
03-15-2011, 01:25 PM
To borrow a line from Elizabethtown, Success is the only American God. If he did rape a woman while she was incapacitated (twice, or perhaps two victims), I don't think I would use the word solid to describe him.
Wow, that's pretty disturbed.
I hope that's not the case.
He's got a good attorney to represent him, though...

Irish Stout
03-15-2011, 02:19 PM
So basically , just protecting his privacy? I wonder if that decision can in any way affect the trial .

Hardly, as the preliminary hearing would be heard by the judge to determine what evidence would be allowed at trial at that time and the trial would be heard by a jury. The Defense almost always wants a preliminary hearing to quash some of the evidence the DA is putting on, because the DA will try and get everything in, from Cox's leopard print banana hammock and favorite flavor of his astro-glide brands to What kind of spoon his grandma used to whack him with as a child. So even if that evidence would be determined inadmissable at the time, the press could still report that it was brought up.

Steinberg was smart to waive the preliminary hearing, because its a fairly big case in CO and its likely that potential jurors would read about the evidence before the case comes to trial and more likely forming an opinion about Cox.

I've heard from an acquaintance who works at Springer and Steinberg that there is going to be a fairly big "Oh Wow!" moment in this case, and its likely the reason the DA deliberated so long before bringing this case. It may not be that shocking, but apparently it will be enough for a lot of people to scratch their head on why this case is taking up so much time. Unfortunately, "my source" believes strongly in attorney client privilege and all that garbage and won't tell me any more than that. She did meet Tatum Bell last week though and said he was a really nice guy, unlike Ian Gold who was a prick. For whatever thats worth.

schaaf
03-15-2011, 02:35 PM
oh wow as in bad for Perrish???

Irish Stout
03-15-2011, 02:39 PM
oh wow as in bad for Perrish???

No - the opposite. Like, "Oh wow they wasted all of our time, tax payer dollars and concern for our beloved Broncos players with this!?!?! The system is screwed and this chick is whack."

schaaf
03-15-2011, 02:50 PM
good, that has been my opinion of the situation all along.

I also think that the Broncos know more about it than we do. I feel that if they would have that he would be convicted they would have released him.

Hercules Rockefeller
03-15-2011, 02:55 PM
Hardly, as the preliminary hearing would be heard by the judge to determine what evidence would be allowed at trial at that time and the trial would be heard by a jury. The Defense almost always wants a preliminary hearing to quash some of the evidence the DA is putting on, because the DA will try and get everything in, from Cox's leopard print banana hammock and favorite flavor of his astro-glide brands to What kind of spoon his grandma used to whack him with as a child. So even if that evidence would be determined inadmissable at the time, the press could still report that it was brought up.


Yeah, that's not even close to being correct.

A preliminary hearing is to determine whether or not there is probable cause on the charge(s) that the DA has filed.

Not going to write an essay on this. It's not a high burden for a DA to make to get a case bound over, almost all the evidence can be hearsay, and it's almost always a waste of time to go to hearing.

bendog
03-15-2011, 03:02 PM
Yeah, that's not even close to being correct.

A preliminary hearing is to determine whether or not there is probable cause on the charge(s) that the DA has filed.

Not going to write an essay on this. It's not a high burden for a DA to make to get a case bound over, almost all the evidence can be hearsay, and it's almost always a waste of time to go to hearing.

Yes the game is for the State to show as little of their hand as they have to at that early a date. I don't know about Colorado, but it's certain that the State doesn't have to be turning over its discovery materials over so early. The game is to give the defense as little time to prepare as possible.

GoBroncos84
03-15-2011, 03:08 PM
Didn't she wait like 6 weeks or so before going to the police and reporting it? That is the part that raises a red flag to me.


Clearly I don't know the details. If he is guilty and this young woman really was harmed, then he should be punished and I don't want him on my team. But if this is another case of someone targeting an athlete because he has money and they want a piece of it, then we gotta support him.

Irish Stout
03-15-2011, 03:45 PM
Yeah, that's not even close to being correct.

A preliminary hearing is to determine whether or not there is probable cause on the charge(s) that the DA has filed.

Not going to write an essay on this. It's not a high burden for a DA to make to get a case bound over, almost all the evidence can be hearsay, and it's almost always a waste of time to go to hearing.

Thank you sir, may I have another?

I will never post on criminal law procedure or otherwise on this site again.

TailgateNut
03-15-2011, 04:06 PM
How can you conclude it's a weak case when so few of the details are known?


GB HATES women!

Hercules Rockefeller
03-15-2011, 10:37 PM
Thank you sir, may I have another?

I will never post on criminal law procedure or otherwise on this site again.

Don't get pissy when you post something that's just flat out wrong.

Everyone on this site is going to get called out in a situation like that.

Old Dude
03-16-2011, 09:40 AM
Yup, if he knew it and wasn't too drunk himself.

That's kind of the weird thing. Intoxication is a defense to specific intent crimes, but doesn't negate general intent such as "knowingly."

So, if they are both too drunk to give consent, and they both know it, they could both technically be guilty of sexual assault. In practical terms, though, it's almost always the male who acts as the more aggressive one and gets charged.

Moral of the story. Keep it zipped up.

oubronco
03-16-2011, 09:42 AM
If she was drunk/ drugged and didn't know what was happening how the hell does she know Cox rapped her

bendog
03-16-2011, 09:43 AM
That's kind of the weird thing. Intoxication is a defense to specific intent crimes, but doesn't negate general intent such as "knowingly."

So, if they are both too drunk to give consent, and they both know it, they could both technically be guilty of sexual assault. In practical terms, though, it's almost always the male who acts as the more aggressive one and gets charged.

Moral of the story. Keep it zipped up.

I think the "point" is that unless a guy's brokebacking it a guy can't screw while he's passed out.

Old Dude
03-16-2011, 09:45 AM
If you didn't see it snow last night, how can you assume it did, just because there's a foot of it on the ground?

Old Dude
03-16-2011, 09:46 AM
I think the "point" is that unless a guy's brokebacking it a guy can't screw while he's passed out.


Yeah, but you don't have to be "passed out" to be too drunk to give consent.

The actual language is that "the victim is incapable of appraising the nature of the victim's [own] conduct."

There's another provision in the statute that deals with physical helplessness.

It's kind of a messed up statute when it comes to the application of affirmative defenses.

bendog
03-16-2011, 09:55 AM
Yeah, but you don't have to be "passed out" to be too drunk to give consent.

The actual language is that "the victim is incapable of appraising the nature of the victim's [own] conduct."

There's another provision in the statute that deals with physical helplessness.

It's kind of a messed up statute when it comes to the application of affirmative defenses.

yeah, I read the statute yesterday. It's typical. Sexual assualt is really an elusive concept unless it's the phyiscal force rape type crime. Sadly enough, sexual assault is something that occurs to most women/girls at some pt in their lives.

"knowingly" actaully has to contexts. the male must consciously know he's having intercourse with a person (male of female) who either cannot appreciate the nature of the act sufficiently to give consent or who is totally passed out.

schaaf
03-16-2011, 10:24 AM
While I know that this happens all the time, I really don't know how you can convict someone of that without a witness

gyldenlove
03-16-2011, 10:27 AM
That's kind of the weird thing. Intoxication is a defense to specific intent crimes, but doesn't negate general intent such as "knowingly."

So, if they are both too drunk to give consent, and they both know it, they could both technically be guilty of sexual assault. In practical terms, though, it's almost always the male who acts as the more aggressive one and gets charged.

Moral of the story. Keep it zipped up.

I believe cases like that are often handled like statutory rape, if two 15 year olds get it on, even though both are technically guilty of having sex with a minor neither is typically charged.

Hercules Rockefeller
03-16-2011, 10:56 AM
I believe cases like that are often handled like statutory rape, if two 15 year olds get it on, even though both are technically guilty of having sex with a minor neither is typically charged.

That's not statutory rape. There's going to be an age difference requirement, ex: victim is less than 15 and the defendant is 4 or more years older.

Beantown Bronco
03-16-2011, 11:00 AM
That's not statutory rape. There's going to be an age difference requirement, ex: victim is less than 15 and the defendant is 4 or more years older.

Depends on the state. This is not always the case.

Boobs McGee
03-16-2011, 12:09 PM
While I know that this happens all the time, I really don't know how you can convict someone of that without a witness

i THINK there is evidence available...I could be totally wrong here. But, I thought there were certain signs in a woman's body that could be diagnosed by a medical professional that would suggest forced sex. Extra tearing, burst blood vessels, something like that?

Garcia Bronco
03-16-2011, 12:34 PM
i THINK there is evidence available...I could be totally wrong here. But, I thought there were certain signs in a woman's body that could be diagnosed by a medical professional that would suggest forced sex. Extra tearing, burst blood vessels, something like that?

There is. But this isn't a forced sex rape case. There was consent. The issue is the Woman is saying she was too drunk to legally agree. And it's a sexual assault charge. Not a rape charge.

bendog
03-16-2011, 12:51 PM
There is. But this isn't a forced sex rape case. There was consent. The issue is the Woman is saying she was too drunk to legally agree. And it's a sexual assault charge. Not a rape charge.

same statute garcia, but don't let women keep you down. There IS enhanced punishment if actual physical violence, or the threat of that, is used.