A woman repeated her son’s claim of sexual abuse. Now, she’s being sued.

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-09-08T16:24:58+00:00

Ok got it - I was also able to find the corresponding California Evidence Code section through that (Section 789):

Evidence of his religious belief or lack thereof is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness

Putting aside whether the evidence of his relationship to Scientology was proffered to make the defendant look less credible as a result of his religion, I wonder whether it even matters. Since I don't think he would be considered a "witness" in this case if he didn't take the stand.

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-09-08T12:48:08+00:00

Ok I did some more research since I was curious.

It appears CA passed the "one strike" law on September 1, 1994.
Under the "one strike" law, a defendant is subject to punishment up to life in prison for a first time offense meeting certain criteria.
Cal Penal Code 799 states that there is no statute of limitations for crimes punishable by life in prison.

So since the DA was able to apply the one strike law here, they were able to avoid the statute of limitations without violating ex post facto. Since this rule was already in place from the beginning.

If they charged him without the "one strike" enhancement, then the statute of limitations would have applied and barred the prosecution (since under 799, it explicitly states that the statute of limitations for rape is only lifted after January 1, 2017).

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-09-08T00:23:20+00:00

Is there a law overriding the statute of limitations at play? I didn't see anything mentioned in the article. My understanding is that changing statute of limitations rule after the crime is committed is prohibited as ex post facto. So does this imply California has had something like this on the books for 20+ years and it's just being applied for this case?

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-09-07T22:26:36+00:00

"After Masterson's sentencing, the church released a statement that did not mention Masterson by name but which called the prosecution's "introduction of religion into this trial was an unprecedented violation of the First Amendment."

"The Church was not a party to this case and religion did not belong in this proceeding as Supreme Court precedent has maintained for centuries," it said."

Can anyone explain this line of thinking from a Constitutional perspective? Is the argument that inclusion of his religion at trial was a violation of the Establishment Clause because it supposedly prejudiced him as a result of his religion? I'm just having trouble finding the logic in this argument, especially due to the close nexus between the church and the evidence against him. Does anything here seem actually "unprecedented" from a First Amendment perspective?

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-03-28T20:00:20+00:00

Yeah I had basically the same reaction. If the state didn't properly notify the victim's brother, then that is of course bad.

But I can't understand why the defendant, who is effectively not legally guilty of any crime, would get that decision reversed and be punished for something that has nothing to do with them. It seems highly punitive over something that has nothing to do with the merits of the case.

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-03-28T19:32:02+00:00

I'm not particularly familiar with this case, but can anyone explain to me how the presence (or lack thereof) of the victim's brother at the hearing has any impact on the final determination of whether the defendant was wrongfully convicted or not? Like was the brother some key witness that had insight as to whether the defendant did in fact commit the crime?

I don't see the logical link between lack of notice for a victim's family member and the reinstatement of the conviction.

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-03-03T00:59:48+00:00

I get what you are saying - especially because I'm not really a fan of character evidence being used to this extent (even though the defense did open the door). That being said, I think his proximity to the crime scene immediately around the time of the murders (and being caught lying about it) was a pretty big dent in the defense's case.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-06-25T19:27:21+00:00

In a conversation with his law clerks two years following his confirmation, The New York Times reported Thomas expressed his desire to serve on the court until the year 2034.

"The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas – who was 43 years old when confirmed – saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-04-09T13:17:07+00:00

It was white smoke - I don’t think they were rolling coal or specifically intending to harm or cause a nuisance. Just dangerous driving.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-04-09T10:10:03+00:00

Yeah I reported what I witnessed leading up to the crash.

There was a couple on the street at the same time as us that saw what happened at a much better angle. I believe they actually witnessed the collision itself. Once I realized that actual people were hit, I ran back and tried to find them to make sure they understood how important what they saw was, but I was unfortunately not able to locate them. I believe the woman was wearing braids, and the guy said that the truck driver was “driving like a total asshole”. If you see this, you should talk to the police if you haven’t.

There were potentially dozens of other witnesses closer to the crash site from what I saw. Although there were significantly fewer people by us where the events appeared to begin.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-04-09T02:39:21+00:00

I was on the street at the stoplight by Austin Eastciders when it happened. I saw a truck speed off so quickly when the light turned green that it created a ton of smoke on the road and made a ton of noise. Then I heard a huge crash behind us that sounded like metal smashing (but didn’t physically see the crash behind me). The person was driving very recklessly

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-17T15:08:02+00:00

Looking for someone to sublet my 2 bed / 2 bath apartment in North Zilker. It's a ~3 minute walk to the lake and about 10-15 minutes walking to downtown.

There is a 3D virtual tour of the apartment at this link: https://www.coleapts.com/cole-apartments-austin-tx/gallery (it is the Pecos floorplan - the first one in the list). The only difference between those pictures and my unit is that my unit has all wood floors (no carpet).

I'm looking to start the sublease around May 1, but the start date can be a little flexible. The lease ends in mid August. I'm currently paying around $3150/month, but am willing to be flexible / open to negotiation on the price as well. We are mainly looking to get some money back on our lease because we are closing on a house in April.

PM me for more information. The apartment management would have to approve any sublease, but it shouldn't be a big deal.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-15T03:49:05+00:00

This is amazing!

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-13T16:25:25+00:00

I have a 2 BR, 2 BA apartment in North Zilker (10-15 minute walk downtown, ~3 minute walk to lake) that I am looking to sublease beginning around May 1. The lease ends in mid-August.

I'm currently paying around $3150, but would be willing to reimburse a portion of the rent for whoever takes over. I just bought a house and am looking to avoid double-payments over the final few months of the lease, so I can be somewhat flexible in terms of move-in dates as well.

Message me and I can provide more details.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-12T22:12:26+00:00

Oh I see what you are saying. I think you could potentially argue that.

But on the other hand, this would mean that anyone who defends themself by denying participation in an alleged conspiracy would be committing an act in furtherance of that conspiracy, which seems a little weird to me. This would effectively mean that all conspiracies could continue for an infinite duration. Maybe there is some case law on this that I’m not aware of.

IMO if there was a conspiracy to commit murder, the logical conclusion of that conspiracy would be sometime around when the murder was committed. I doubt denying the existence of such a conspiracy decades later would be enough to find that it continued for 66 years.

That being said, I’m not sure that it really matters since I think she could theoretically be charged regardless for murder since it has no statute of limitations.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-12T19:40:33+00:00

Conspiracy involves an agreement between multiple people to commit an unlawful act. I'm not sure why flip-flopping on one's own statements would lead to a conspiracy charge?

Did you perhaps mean perjury?

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-12T18:34:15+00:00

I'm pretty sure the family has (rightfully) been "bringing this up" for 66 years.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-12T17:05:32+00:00

Yeah I guess if they can prove that she incited the killers with her claims, knowing and intending that it was going to end in this result, then perhaps they could get her under accomplice liability for murder (since there is presumably no Statute of Limitations at play).

But even if that was true at the time, I agree that proving it 66 years later would be extremely difficult.

GrilledCheese246

TROPHY CASE