|
Post by ag87 on Jun 7, 2020 20:01:29 GMT -8
I'm sorry but you are not knowledgeable on how our justice system works. And this is minor factor (maybe around 1%) of why people have been in the streets the last two weeks. LH is African American? Don’t think so. His guilty plea has nothing to do with the current protests. That's a leap you made there. Cops lie (sometimes). Prosecutors lie (sometimes). We see people marching because of our systemic racism. But they are also marching because for example, a Buffalo policeman pushes a 75-year-old man down. Man starts bleeding out of his ears. Policeman writes in report that the man trips. Video comes out. Man obviously does not trip. I believe people are fed up with crap like that.
|
|
|
Post by osubeaver2018 on Jun 7, 2020 20:36:54 GMT -8
LH is African American? Don’t think so. His guilty plea has nothing to do with the current protests. That's a leap you made there. Cops lie (sometimes). Prosecutors lie (sometimes). We see people marching because of our systemic racism. But they are also marching because for example, a Buffalo policeman pushes a 75-year-old man down. Man starts bleeding out of his ears. Policeman writes in report that the man trips. Video comes out. Man obviously does not trip. I believe people are fed up with crap like that. Don't take the bait/feed the troll. 95% sure he's just trying to get a rise out of some people. At least I hope...
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jun 7, 2020 20:49:50 GMT -8
No, it actually meant no such thing.
Nor was it his own personal choice.
I didn’t say it wasn’t his parents telling him to do it, but you plead guilty, you’re guilty, that’s the way the system works. In the eyes of the law. not in reality. It does matter, in terms of criminal records, one that LH does not have any longer. But it does not equate to real world definitive proof of guilt. At any rate, this was litigated into the dirt over and over and over again on this board. There is enough hot drama in this whole saga I am sure it is already lined up to be the next hot Netflix documentary.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 7, 2020 20:50:47 GMT -8
Dude, once again you're punching above your weight class. He pleaded to a lesser chart. He's on the books as guilty. He has a criminal record. Period. End discussion. You want to debate this, come back when you've passed the Bar Exam. My understanding is he does not have a criminal record, no? You are 100% correct. Texas tried to make him register, when he went to pitch down there for the lone Texas team in the Mexican League, and he rightly told them that he did not have to, because his adjudication had been sealed. I am curious, though, if he ever runs into legal trouble again, if they can unseal his adjudication and use it against him later. Certain laws are geared to bring prior bad sexual acts in, but I do not know if the fact that he was a minor in the State of Washington precludes those laws from applying. It would be an interesting conversation, at least. seastape should weigh in on this. He has got to be the closest thing that we have on here to an expert on criminal law. But maybe he is smart enough to just ignore this whole thing.......... Certainly smarter than me.............
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 7, 2020 20:53:07 GMT -8
I didn’t say it wasn’t his parents telling him to do it, but you plead guilty, you’re guilty, that’s the way the system works. In the eyes of the law. not in reality. It does matter, in terms of criminal records, one that LH does not have any longer. But it does not equate to real world definitive proof of guilt. At any rate, this was litigated into the dirt over and over and over again on this board. There is enough hot drama in this whole saga I am sure it is already lined up to be the next hot Netflix documentary. You are on to something there. The question is do we want it a Netflix documentary, or do you think that it would just make the University look bad? If the right person did it, I would be 100% on board.
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Jun 7, 2020 20:53:32 GMT -8
Being compelled to "agree" (as a legally-mandated condition) is different than "agreeing with the accusation."
You lose. Again.
Dude, once again you're punching above your weight class. He pleaded to a lesser chart. He's on the books as guilty. He has a criminal record. Period. End discussion. You want to debate this, come back when you've passed the Bar Exam. Bwaaahaaa!!!! As I often here on this board - *source?* LH has no criminal record. Period. End of discussion. 1) Never even charged as an adult. 2) He has no record, juvenile or otherwise. Maybe you should come back when you have passed the bar exam.
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on Jun 7, 2020 21:00:17 GMT -8
My understanding is he does not have a criminal record, no? You are 100% correct. Texas tried to make him register, when he went to pitch down there for the lone Texas team in the Mexican League, and he rightly told them that he did not have to, because his adjudication had been sealed. I am curious, though, if he ever runs into legal trouble again, if they can unseal his adjudication and use it against him later. Certain laws are geared to bring prior bad sexual acts in, but I do not know if the fact that he was a minor in the State of Washington precludes those laws from applying. It would be an interesting conversation, at least. seastape should weigh in on this. He has got to be the closest thing that we have on here to an expert on criminal law. But maybe he is smart enough to just ignore this whole thing.......... Certainly smarter than me............. Unless I am completely mistaken, sealed is not expunged. LH's record was expunged. As I understand it, for a juvenile offense, means he has no record at all - different than having it sealed. There is no there there.
|
|
|
Post by pitbeavs on Jun 7, 2020 21:05:48 GMT -8
Dude, once again you're punching above your weight class. He pleaded to a lesser chart. He's on the books as guilty. He has a criminal record. Period. End discussion. You want to debate this, come back when you've passed the Bar Exam. My understanding is he does not have a criminal record, no? Actually, you are correct IF he was put into deferred adjudication. I conflated this with the impacts on an immigrant. In this case, deferred or not, the INS would consider it a conviction and, therefore, deportable. But was it deferred? I can't recall.
|
|
|
Post by pitbeavs on Jun 7, 2020 21:07:10 GMT -8
Dude, once again you're punching above your weight class. He pleaded to a lesser chart. He's on the books as guilty. He has a criminal record. Period. End discussion. You want to debate this, come back when you've passed the Bar Exam. Bwaaahaaa!!!! As I often here on this board - *source?* LH has no criminal record. Period. End of discussion. 1) Never even charged as an adult. 2) He has no record, juvenile or otherwise. Maybe you should come back when you have passed the bar exam. See my response to ag87.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 7, 2020 21:15:14 GMT -8
You are 100% correct. Texas tried to make him register, when he went to pitch down there for the lone Texas team in the Mexican League, and he rightly told them that he did not have to, because his adjudication had been sealed. I am curious, though, if he ever runs into legal trouble again, if they can unseal his adjudication and use it against him later. Certain laws are geared to bring prior bad sexual acts in, but I do not know if the fact that he was a minor in the State of Washington precludes those laws from applying. It would be an interesting conversation, at least. seastape should weigh in on this. He has got to be the closest thing that we have on here to an expert on criminal law. But maybe he is smart enough to just ignore this whole thing.......... Certainly smarter than me............. Unless I am completely mistaken, sealed is not expunged. LH's record was expunged. As I understand it, for a juvenile offense, means he has no record at all - different than having it sealed. There is no there there. Black's Law states that expungement of a record is the "Process by which record of criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed from the state or Federal repository." Whether it is destroyed or merely sealed is up to the State of Washington. However, judging from subsequent articles, I believe that Washington merely seals them. (But that is just an educated guess.) Regardless, it may be a crime (or at least a fireable offense), if you do not disclose that you have an expunged conviction. But that gets back to whether it is a "conviction" or not.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jun 7, 2020 22:16:44 GMT -8
Unless I am completely mistaken, sealed is not expunged. LH's record was expunged. As I understand it, for a juvenile offense, means he has no record at all - different than having it sealed. There is no there there. Black's Law states that expungement of a record is the "Process by which record of criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed from the state or Federal repository." Whether it is destroyed or merely sealed is up to the State of Washington. However, judging from subsequent articles, I believe that Washington merely seals them. (But that is just an educated guess.) Regardless, it may be a crime (or at least a fireable offense), if you do not disclose that you have an expunged conviction. But that gets back to whether it is a "conviction" or not. I’ve never disclosed my expunged conviction. I was told it was like it never happened. No records exist.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 7, 2020 22:28:11 GMT -8
Black's Law states that expungement of a record is the "Process by which record of criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed from the state or Federal repository." Whether it is destroyed or merely sealed is up to the State of Washington. However, judging from subsequent articles, I believe that Washington merely seals them. (But that is just an educated guess.) Regardless, it may be a crime (or at least a fireable offense), if you do not disclose that you have an expunged conviction. But that gets back to whether it is a "conviction" or not. I’ve never disclosed my expunged conviction. I was told it was like it never happened. No records exist. It depends on state where the crime was committed. It also depends on what type of job you are applying for. Fields where it could be problematic would be accounting, banking, financial planning, law enforcement, security, teaching, and law. (I know a woman, who graduated from law school and passed the California Bar and was subsequently not permitted to practice law in the State of California over failure to disclose an expunged conviction.) In other fields, I would not expect it to be as problematic, unless your crime touches on your responsibilities. It also depends on where you committed your crime. Based on my very limited knowledge of the law in the state of Washington, it sounds like an expungement in Washington merely results in the criminal conviction records are sealed, rather than destroyed. If you committed the crime in another state, your records may truly be destroyed, and it would be less problematic.
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Jun 8, 2020 0:04:04 GMT -8
My understanding is he does not have a criminal record, no? You are 100% correct. Texas tried to make him register, when he went to pitch down there for the lone Texas team in the Mexican League, and he rightly told them that he did not have to, because his adjudication had been sealed. I am curious, though, if he ever runs into legal trouble again, if they can unseal his adjudication and use it against him later. Certain laws are geared to bring prior bad sexual acts in, but I do not know if the fact that he was a minor in the State of Washington precludes those laws from applying. It would be an interesting conversation, at least. seastape should weigh in on this. He has got to be the closest thing that we have on here to an expert on criminal law. But maybe he is smart enough to just ignore this whole thing.......... Certainly smarter than me............. So...I haven't read the discussion re: LH on this thread and I'm not going to, but I'll answer what I can about the information in your post, wilky, along with ag87's question. The quick answer is no, LH's conviction can not be used against him if he is ever charged with a new crime as an adult, at least not in California. It has nothing to do with expungement/dismissal however. If you want a more detailed explanation, I provided one below. But you can quit reading now if you know (and I wouldn't blame you) that the answer below will be a little long and a lot boring. Before I answer further, you need to know this: criminal law can be wildly different in different states. States often have very similar criminal statutes, but there can be severe differences. Everything I say below relates to CA, which is where I practice. I have a feeling that it is similar in Washington, but in no way would I guarantee that. You also need to know that I have never defended a minor in criminal court; the only reason I know the answer to this question is because some juvenile convictions can be used to enhance the penalties against an adult defendant. This has happened to my clients 5-6 times in my career and it is infrequent enough that I have to look up the law every time it comes my way. The general rule of expungement or dismissal or whatever you want to call the process of wiping a conviction from a person's record will often have no effect for purposes of priorability. "Priorability" means that the defendant, if they have a priorable crime on their record, faces enhanced penalties if the person picks up a new case which can be affected by the priorable crime. A great example is DUI's: DUI's are priorable. Your first conviction has a standard sentence that, if it is a run-of-the-mill misdemeanor, will likely not include jail time and will require a 3 month DUI class to get your license fully reinstated. A second conviction for DUI within a ten year period will get you a minimum four days in jail and your mandatory DUI class will be 18 months (or more). It does not matter whether your first DUI was expunged; it is still priorable. Juvie crimes are different. Most juvie "convictions" are not convictions at all; a juvie conviction is usually called a "true finding" and will never see the light of day again without some truly unusual circumstances. Some juvenile crimes can be later used against the defendant if the person is accused of a new crime as an adult. The juvie crimes that can be used against an adult defendant are mostly serious or violent felonies ("serious" and "violent" are two different things), which under California's three strikes law are called "strikes." Strikes are priorable crimes in that they enhance the penalties in future felony cases. A defendant with a prior strike conviction who is facing a new felony charge is presumed ineligible for probation on the new felony charge and his sentencing range for the new felony will be doubled. If the new felony is also a strike, then the defendant is presumed ineligible for probation, his sentencing range is doubled, and he faces an additional five years ("nickel") on his sentence. If a person has two or more strike priors on his record and is now facing a third, his sentencing range is doubled, at least two nickels are added, and the maximum of his sentencing range is "life." Some, but not all, juvie strikes can be used to enhance the penalties against an adult offender if the juvie strike was committed when the child was 16 years of age or older. I think children age 16 or older can charged as an adult for those crimes, as well, but I could be wrong. These strikes include the things one would think they include: rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc. That includes the crime that LH was accused of. But LH was fifteen when he was alleged to have committed that crime and thus he was a year too young to have the crime come out in an adult criminal prosecution. Like I said, the dismissal/expungement has nothing to do with it. PS-- I say "LH was fifteen when he was alleged to have committed that crime" because there are plenty of circumstances in which the accused will cop to a crime they didn't commit. Those circumstances include when a conviction after trial will result in a severe sentence and an innocent person is not willing to take that chance. If LH was facing lifetime registration as sex-offender, then he was smart to take that deal even if he didn't commit the crime. I have given that advice to a few defendants who were accused of sex crimes but swore up and down that they did not commit the offense. I even believed a couple of them. Yes, innocent people do plead guilty when the price is too high to risk a conviction. Personal anecdote: I had a client who was facing almost 25 years as a maximum penalty in a residential burglary case. The evidence was weak, the case law was on my side, and i am fairly certain that we would have won at trial. I think I would have even won a motion to dismiss if it went to trial. But my client was offered a credit-for-time-served deal and discretion was the better part of valor when he took the deal and got released that day.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Jun 8, 2020 8:20:26 GMT -8
Meanwhile, here's another former OSU football player's take on things:
|
|
|
Post by jefframp on Jun 8, 2020 8:56:39 GMT -8
Yes, innocent people do plead guilty when the price is too high to risk a conviction. Personal anecdote: I had a client who was facing almost 25 years as a maximum penalty in a residential burglary case. The evidence was weak, the case law was on my side, and i am fairly certain that we would have won at trial. I think I would have even won a motion to dismiss if it went to trial. But my client was offered a credit-for-time-served deal and discretion was the better part of valor when he took the deal and got released that day. A good friend plead guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge that he was not guilty of after his attorney put it to him this way: "Plead guilty and pay a total of $2000 in costs or plead innocent and I might be able to get you off but my fee will me $20,000 minimum even if we do win". The court system can really suck sometimes!
|
|