It’s troublesome to second guess juries, but this sounds like just awful sentencing. If there is one “good” thing I read in that article it was:
It’s troublesome to second guess juries, but this sounds like just awful sentencing. If there is one “good” thing I read in that article it was:
The Texas Medical Board has since suspended Sheikh’s license, saying his “continuation in the practice of medicine poses a continuing threat to public welfare.”
Agreed. I think this is the reason why most courts have juries only decide guilt or innocence. As the article notes, only 6 states - Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia...
It’s troublesome to second guess juries, but this sounds like just awful sentencing.
Agreed. I think this is the reason why most courts have juries only decide guilt or innocence. As the article notes, only 6 states - Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia (pdf source) require the jury to decide the sentence as well as the verdict.
I hope they revoke it. Don't fucking have sex with patients in the hospital. Ever. I don't care what they do (In this case, I truly believe that she was not consenting, nor would she have been...
I hope they revoke it. Don't fucking have sex with patients in the hospital. Ever. I don't care what they do (In this case, I truly believe that she was not consenting, nor would she have been able to consent). I don't care if they grab your crotch or tell you their genitals will make you a billionaire. The power gap is huge, the potential for loss is huge. Be a professional, be an adult, keep your shit in your pants, and jerk it when you get home.
The defense's argument is not "she deserved it" it's "she initiated and consented to it". With with no physical evidence to prove consent (or if she was sedated) that's the argument the defense...
The defense's argument is not "she deserved it" it's "she initiated and consented to it". With with no physical evidence to prove consent (or if she was sedated) that's the argument the defense has decided to make.
Which makes the statement amazingly racist in my view since the implication is a Latina woman with fake boobs is more likely to seduce a Dr for a lawsuit payout.
I fail to see how could possibly be confused with consent. The hospital medication records would establish she'd been sedated. The reporter buried the lede. Maybe the prosecution was sloppy, the...
I fail to see how
she suffered serious injuries in the assault
could possibly be confused with consent.
The hospital medication records would establish she'd been sedated.
The reporter buried the lede.
Maybe the prosecution was sloppy, the judge gave bad instructions... but the doctor's criminal act sounds unambiguous, and I don't want to think about the culture of a jury that would let him walk free.
Well the records could be wrong and the injuries could be self inflicted? Especially if she's plotting her lawsuit. It does sound like a racist & sexist jury is more likely to me at that point.
Well the records could be wrong and the injuries could be self inflicted? Especially if she's plotting her lawsuit.
It does sound like a racist & sexist jury is more likely to me at that point.
I understand that you're trying to mentally model what the jury may have been thinking, but the stories suggest a mountain of documentary evidence, from multiple independent records, that the...
I understand that you're trying to mentally model what the jury may have been thinking, but the stories suggest a mountain of documentary evidence, from multiple independent records, that the doctor enacted a pattern of predatory behavior:
he would have had to initiate the contact with someone who wasn't his patient;
he was caught on video and badge readers repeatedly visiting;
the patient had no way to signal for help;
[IANAD, but a patient hospitalized and medicated for severe asthma is always heavily monitored for hours - they can die from a relapse, or have heart arrhythmias and other severe reactions from the drugs. If the call button in the room wasn't intentionally disabled, the patient had good grounds for a lawsuit on the basis of defective equipment alone];
The doctor never admitted contact with the patient until he was identified through the rape kit.
Perhaps there's evidence that the victim concocted her own injuries, but no sane person would conclude fabrication is the pattern of events without that evidence.
The jury concluded the perpetrator (I won't use the word "doctor") was guilty.
The problem is that he was able to leverage his privileged stature to escape due punishment for a crime which that privileged stature allowed him to commit in the first place.
Guess I didn't read the OP article as closely as I should've. It does really make jurys selecting sentences seem crazy to me. Still no idea if they're racist, sexist or wowed by a medical degree.
Guess I didn't read the OP article as closely as I should've.
It does really make jurys selecting sentences seem crazy to me. Still no idea if they're racist, sexist or wowed by a medical degree.
That is the defense attorney's job. I am not going to attack someone for doing their professional duty. This is all kinds of wrong, and this women's loss of trust can never be undone. At least it...
That is the defense attorney's job. I am not going to attack someone for doing their professional duty.
The woman, who was attached to machines and was sedated, was unable to fight and tried to call for help, but the nurses’ call button had been unplugged, court records say. She reported the incident the following morning and agreed to a rape-kit test.
This is all kinds of wrong, and this women's loss of trust can never be undone. At least it is good to know he has already lost his medical License and will be unable to practice.
I am not the jury, so I do not know the facts that they were present with, but maybe they saw 10 years probation a harsher sentence then 2-4 in jail w/ chance of early parole. This article leaves a lot unsaid.
True, it's the defense attorney's job to give the best defense they believe the jury will find credible. I think it's a statement about our society as a whole that the attorney thought calling the...
That is the defense attorney's job. I am not going to attack someone for doing their professional duty.
True, it's the defense attorney's job to give the best defense they believe the jury will find credible. I think it's a statement about our society as a whole that the attorney thought calling the victim "a Latina with fake boobs" would help his client in the eyes of the jury.
maybe they saw 10 years probation a harsher sentence then 2-4 in jail w/ chance of early parole
As the article said, the maximum possible sentence was 20 years in jail, which the prosecutors asked for.
I'm not going to attack someone for doing their job either, especially because it is a critical part of the justice system. However, the following: I just can't reconciliation professionalism with...
I'm not going to attack someone for doing their job either, especially because it is a critical part of the justice system. However, the following:
Here we have this Latina woman with her fake boobs that came on to that little nerdy middle-aged guy and he lost his mind.
I just can't reconciliation professionalism with the ability to say something so disrespectful. Surly there should be somethings that a lawyer is both allowed and not allowed to say.
The judge should have ruled that whole line of argument as speculative and out of order, facts not in evidence. As an aside, I'm wondering if defense attorneys can be sued for slander. This comes...
The judge should have ruled that whole line of argument as speculative and out of order, facts not in evidence.
As an aside, I'm wondering if defense attorneys can be sued for slander. This comes perilously close, even if material damages might be hard to prove.
I did some more digging about this and it turns out those facts actually were in evidence: So the victim-blaming was much more than just the closing argument, it seems to have been central to the...
The judge should have ruled that whole line of argument as speculative and out of order, facts not in evidence.
I did some more digging about this and it turns out those facts actually were in evidence:
Honestly not sure. I would say there's definitely some things that are going to be more black and white than others and as usual there'll be grey. Personally, (not saying it doesn't happen), I...
Honestly not sure. I would say there's definitely some things that are going to be more black and white than others and as usual there'll be grey.
Personally, (not saying it doesn't happen), I can't imagine hearing anything like "So you have this big scary N-gger coming up to a nerdy..." in a courtroom.
I don't know how this can be implemented, but how can there be justice if there is already obvious discrimination allowed in the courtroom itself?
EDIT: I am unsure of proper etiquette when proven wrong, doing strike through as of now. I assumed the judge would have much more leeway in what was allowed in their court room. I am pretty sure...
EDIT: I am unsure of proper etiquette when proven wrong, doing strike through as of now. I assumed the judge would have much more leeway in what was allowed in their court room.
I am pretty sure how that works now is that the Prosecutor and the Judge have a say as to what is allowed to be used in the court room.
The prosecutor objects to language used under any number of grounds, and the judge rules if he will allow it.
The Judge themselves out right object to the language used.
Is the above good enough, or do we need more hard and fast rules applied across the board?
(it is a sad commentary on our society that the Defense Attorney was able to use an incapacitated women appearance against her to get a probation sentence from this jury)
The objections to argument by parties are very limited, or stated differently, the latitude afforded to parties making arguments to the jury is very wide. Some juries would probably be offended by...
The objections to argument by parties are very limited, or stated differently, the latitude afforded to parties making arguments to the jury is very wide.
Some juries would probably be offended by a party insinuating they should consider the race of a witness when making their decision, so the tactic could be a gamble.
I defer to your knowledge, mine is very limited, and would be eclipsed by most. This gets into courtroom tactics and other low level discussion about what is best for the client and how juries...
I defer to your knowledge, mine is very limited, and would be eclipsed by most.
Some juries would probably be offended by a party insinuating they should consider the race of a witness when making their decision, so the tactic could be a gamble.
This gets into courtroom tactics and other low level discussion about what is best for the client and how juries react to certain tactics. I just cannot square the circle that some are arguing that a defense attorney should be limited in the range of the arguments they can make.
It really is a sad commentary. My understanding is that there's a very real balancing act between when a judge will step in too, as to stay impartial, so as not to give ammo for appeals. Though...
It really is a sad commentary.
My understanding is that there's a very real balancing act between when a judge will step in too, as to stay impartial, so as not to give ammo for appeals. Though this is basically impossible to tell outside the courtroom.
which pretty much makes my point moot, if judges cannot make those statement without seeming impartial. I just cannot square the circle, that some are arguing, that a defense attorney should be...
which pretty much makes my point moot, if judges cannot make those statement without seeming impartial. I just cannot square the circle, that some are arguing, that a defense attorney should be limited in the range of the arguments they can make.
I find it absolutely abhorrent when those who cannot adequately defend themselves are chewed up by our justice system spit out into our penal system. A Penal System which is setup to re-capture...
I find it absolutely abhorrent when those who cannot adequately defend themselves are chewed up by our justice system spit out into our penal system. A Penal System which is setup to re-capture them and place them back into the system they just escaped,further ruining and delaying any chance of contributing to society or local community. Often the only fault of these individuals to begin with is not having the means to afford a proper defense.
I say all this to make my stance clear, I know the faults in our current system. But just as it is inhuman to deny a proper defense to those who do not have the means to afford it, it is also inhuman to deny it to someone we dislike.
so fine -- defend that person but don't be a sexist or a racist in the process. like, a property that all innocent people share is that you don't have to call someone "a latina with fake boobs" to...
so fine -- defend that person but don't be a sexist or a racist in the process. like, a property that all innocent people share is that you don't have to call someone "a latina with fake boobs" to dispute the story of whether they did it or not.
i get that this is a reality of the legal system. but to me this is basically just "the CEO is obligated to maximize value for his shareholders, of course he had to dump all the toxic waste into the river."
Just another thought: In most cases jury verdicts have to be unanimous. It might be the case that there was just the one dude who was sympathetic to the irresistible racist sex demon defense, and...
Just another thought:
In most cases jury verdicts have to be unanimous. It might be the case that there was just the one dude who was sympathetic to the irresistible racist sex demon defense, and the other 11 jurors, despite considering it distasteful, decided it would be better to get to a verdict and lighter sentence rather than get hung and risk no accountability for the defendant at all.
This quote from the defense attorney's closing argument is textbook victim blaming:
It’s troublesome to second guess juries, but this sounds like just awful sentencing. If there is one “good” thing I read in that article it was:
Agreed. I think this is the reason why most courts have juries only decide guilt or innocence. As the article notes, only 6 states - Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia (pdf source) require the jury to decide the sentence as well as the verdict.
I hope they revoke it. Don't fucking have sex with patients in the hospital. Ever. I don't care what they do (In this case, I truly believe that she was not consenting, nor would she have been able to consent). I don't care if they grab your crotch or tell you their genitals will make you a billionaire. The power gap is huge, the potential for loss is huge. Be a professional, be an adult, keep your shit in your pants, and jerk it when you get home.
The defense's argument is not "she deserved it" it's "she initiated and consented to it". With with no physical evidence to prove consent (or if she was sedated) that's the argument the defense has decided to make.
Which makes the statement amazingly racist in my view since the implication is a Latina woman with fake boobs is more likely to seduce a Dr for a lawsuit payout.
I fail to see how
could possibly be confused with consent.
The hospital medication records would establish she'd been sedated.
The reporter buried the lede.
Maybe the prosecution was sloppy, the judge gave bad instructions... but the doctor's criminal act sounds unambiguous, and I don't want to think about the culture of a jury that would let him walk free.
Well the records could be wrong and the injuries could be self inflicted? Especially if she's plotting her lawsuit.
It does sound like a racist & sexist jury is more likely to me at that point.
I understand that you're trying to mentally model what the jury may have been thinking, but the stories suggest a mountain of documentary evidence, from multiple independent records, that the doctor enacted a pattern of predatory behavior:
[IANAD, but a patient hospitalized and medicated for severe asthma is always heavily monitored for hours - they can die from a relapse, or have heart arrhythmias and other severe reactions from the drugs. If the call button in the room wasn't intentionally disabled, the patient had good grounds for a lawsuit on the basis of defective equipment alone];
Perhaps there's evidence that the victim concocted her own injuries, but no sane person would conclude fabrication is the pattern of events without that evidence.
The jury concluded the perpetrator (I won't use the word "doctor") was guilty.
The problem is that he was able to leverage his privileged stature to escape due punishment for a crime which that privileged stature allowed him to commit in the first place.
Guess I didn't read the OP article as closely as I should've.
It does really make jurys selecting sentences seem crazy to me. Still no idea if they're racist, sexist or wowed by a medical degree.
That is the defense attorney's job. I am not going to attack someone for doing their professional duty.
This is all kinds of wrong, and this women's loss of trust can never be undone. At least it is good to know he has already lost his medical License and will be unable to practice.
I am not the jury, so I do not know the facts that they were present with, but maybe they saw 10 years probation a harsher sentence then 2-4 in jail w/ chance of early parole. This article leaves a lot unsaid.
True, it's the defense attorney's job to give the best defense they believe the jury will find credible. I think it's a statement about our society as a whole that the attorney thought calling the victim "a Latina with fake boobs" would help his client in the eyes of the jury.
As the article said, the maximum possible sentence was 20 years in jail, which the prosecutors asked for.
I'm not going to attack someone for doing their job either, especially because it is a critical part of the justice system. However, the following:
I just can't reconciliation professionalism with the ability to say something so disrespectful. Surly there should be somethings that a lawyer is both allowed and not allowed to say.
The judge should have ruled that whole line of argument as speculative and out of order, facts not in evidence.
As an aside, I'm wondering if defense attorneys can be sued for slander. This comes perilously close, even if material damages might be hard to prove.
I did some more digging about this and it turns out those facts actually were in evidence:
So the victim-blaming was much more than just the closing argument, it seems to have been central to the defense's strategy.
It is disconcerting that the Prosecutor didn't objected and that the Judge allowed such statements to be made.
How would that work in practice? How would we determine what is okay and not okay for any defense attorney to say?
Honestly not sure. I would say there's definitely some things that are going to be more black and white than others and as usual there'll be grey.
Personally, (not saying it doesn't happen), I can't imagine hearing anything like "So you have this big scary N-gger coming up to a nerdy..." in a courtroom.
I don't know how this can be implemented, but how can there be justice if there is already obvious discrimination allowed in the courtroom itself?
EDIT: I am unsure of proper etiquette when proven wrong, doing strike through as of now. I assumed the judge would have much more leeway in what was allowed in their court room.
I am pretty sure how that works now is that the Prosecutor and the Judge have a say as to what is allowed to be used in the court room.The prosecutor objects to language used under any number of grounds, and the judge rules if he will allow it.The Judge themselves out right object to the language used.Is the above good enough, or do we need more hard and fast rules applied across the board?(it is a sad commentary on our society that the Defense Attorney was able to use an incapacitated women appearance against her to get a probation sentence from this jury)
The objections to argument by parties are very limited, or stated differently, the latitude afforded to parties making arguments to the jury is very wide.
Some juries would probably be offended by a party insinuating they should consider the race of a witness when making their decision, so the tactic could be a gamble.
I defer to your knowledge, mine is very limited, and would be eclipsed by most.
This gets into courtroom tactics and other low level discussion about what is best for the client and how juries react to certain tactics. I just cannot square the circle that some are arguing that a defense attorney should be limited in the range of the arguments they can make.
It really is a sad commentary.
My understanding is that there's a very real balancing act between when a judge will step in too, as to stay impartial, so as not to give ammo for appeals. Though this is basically impossible to tell outside the courtroom.
which pretty much makes my point moot, if judges cannot make those statement without seeming impartial. I just cannot square the circle, that some are arguing, that a defense attorney should be limited in the range of the arguments they can make.
when being sexist and racist becomes your job, the moral thing to do is to shirk your duties, not to be sexist and racist
I find it absolutely abhorrent when those who cannot adequately defend themselves are chewed up by our justice system spit out into our penal system. A Penal System which is setup to re-capture them and place them back into the system they just escaped,further ruining and delaying any chance of contributing to society or local community. Often the only fault of these individuals to begin with is not having the means to afford a proper defense.
I say all this to make my stance clear, I know the faults in our current system. But just as it is inhuman to deny a proper defense to those who do not have the means to afford it, it is also inhuman to deny it to someone we dislike.
so fine -- defend that person but don't be a sexist or a racist in the process. like, a property that all innocent people share is that you don't have to call someone "a latina with fake boobs" to dispute the story of whether they did it or not.
i get that this is a reality of the legal system. but to me this is basically just "the CEO is obligated to maximize value for his shareholders, of course he had to dump all the toxic waste into the river."
Just another thought:
In most cases jury verdicts have to be unanimous. It might be the case that there was just the one dude who was sympathetic to the irresistible racist sex demon defense, and the other 11 jurors, despite considering it distasteful, decided it would be better to get to a verdict and lighter sentence rather than get hung and risk no accountability for the defendant at all.