I was specifically asking kanicbird because she is a Christian.
There are ways around that. I’d argue res gestae: the jury has to hear the birth certificate to understand why he let her move in. The jury can get a limiting instruction.
Yes but you left out the crucial detail that I mentioned way back in post #8. As someone who investigates these types of cases (never had one that fit this scenario) I can say you left out the one big piece of information. What is the proof that any sexual intercourse or activity took place. Is she cooperating? Is she testifying that he had sex with her? Did someone watch them boink? Before it gets anywhere near a courtroom or questions of strict liability the prosecutor would have to believe that he could prove the act even occurred.
You must have missed this from my OP:
No, Tom just denies it happened, or doesnt admit it. On the advice of his lawyer he shuts up.
So, now there’s doubt. Did sex actually occur? or is she making it up?
If you insist, yes, there was sex and she was not a virgin.
It could just be luck of the draw. My parents both had Ph.Ds. My mother never got called for jury duty, and now that she is over 65, probably won’t. My father got called three times, and served twice. He got dismissed once for essentially calling the defense attorney a sexist jerk. NYC had one of its first woman ADAs trying the case, and the defense attorney was asking all the men if it would bias them in favor of the prosecution that the ADA was such an attractive woman. My father said “No, but it might bias me against your client that his lawyer would ask such an offensive question.”
I’ve been summonsed twice, and once got deferred because I was away at college. I got called another time and served. My husband got summonsed, but not called.
Indiana has a system where there are three stages: summons, call, and seat. If you get summonsed, all you may do is call a number every day for a month. If you get called, you go in and sit in a room for a couple of hours, where you may or may not go through voir dire. If you go through voir dire, and aren’t dismissed, you are seated on the jury.
I worked in a preschool, a garage, and a National Guard unit where no one else had ever been called, let alone served, but then I worked with a woman who administered a group home who had been summonsed four times and served once. I really doubt they have special love for either professors of political science or group home managers. If you look at the whole country, there are a few jobs that really do get dismissed more often, but they are people in law enforcement, and other people presumed to have a prosecution bias, and stay-at-home-mothers with infants. And for some reason, in Indiana, veterinarians, but not people doctors, used to get dismissed. Apparently there were a lot of farming communities who really depended on the vet, and there might just be one per county.
Actually, Loach’s question is not whether sex happened, as I understand it. The question is, what is going to be the proof in court that it happened? Is the girl going to testify that they had a sexual relationship? Is there going to be any actual evidence that sex took place? Because without that, there’s not going to be much of a trial, and it’s not likely that our unhappy defendant is going to testify about it.
Conceivably, she might be pregnant.
I see what you did there!
There are too many details, not too few. And they don’t add up.
People generally have one by age 20. Massive red flag.
Why has she lived to age 20 without a bank account, only to suddenly cut ties with any family or friends and move blind to a strange city? What was her story? Why did he believe her?
You’ve constructed a scenario were I, as a juror, am asked to believe that a 14-year old spontaneously constructed a story about herself, her family background, her life and her plans so detailed and coherent that it stood up to not only one-night-stand chit-chat but days and weeks of small-talk in a full-time living situation with an actual adult. No. Not believable.
Bullshit. If I picked up a male drifter on the buss and brought him home and bad stuff happened as a result, “WTF where you thinking” would be the first thing anyone would say to me.
Well adjusted adults (also known as “the only people you should have sex with ever”) do not behave like this without some some sort of reason or coherent narrative.
And what was her plan before the lucky break on the buss? Did she just think jobs and rental places magically appeared when she wanted them? Why did she say to Mr. Buss that made so much sense to him that no red flags were raises?
No, you’re over-complicating a simple question. Ask the ACTUAL question, or deal with us engaging with the scenario you actually presented.
I am of an age where everyone under 30 looks very young, but based on Loach’s comment and Urbanredneck’s, I would have to say guilty. OTOH, I would be so torn I would ask not to serve on that jury because I am not sure I could follow that crazy law.
I mean, why have a trial at all? Confirm the age on the birth certificate and confirm that sex had ensued, end of discussion. No law should be written like that. Circumstances matter, always.
Accused by who? The parents of the girl perhaps?
The Unbanked Population is higher than you think.
THIS.
It’s not so much that most 14 year olds lack maturity, but that so many 20 year olds act like they’re 14.
If the girl is willing to testify that it happened, that would generally be enough for the prosecutor, especially if the guy is not willing to testify in court and explicitly deny.
I frequently see people making the type of claim that Loach is putting forward, but while I don’t have his experience in these matters I do follow the news enough to be familiar with many many cases of prosecution where the prosecutors are relying on the testimony of the victim or alleged victim.
I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying here.
The problem that (I think) Loach is addressing is that there is little to no incentive, based on the characterization of the events in the OP, for the girl to want to put this guy in jail. She knows he thought she was older, and presumably, she doesn’t have any hard feelings toward the guy. So why would she want to testify against him?
In the scenario, the only obvious source of evidence for the fact that the two had intercourse would come from the girl herself, there would essentially be no case if she didn’t testify against him. So rather than trying to speak further for Loach, I’ll just ask the question myself: is the girl going to testify against the defendant? If so, why would she be doing that? And if not, what evidence is there against the defendant to prove the two had sex?
The reason she would testify is because she had a falling out with the guy and currently wishes that she had never met him. This is not uncommon among people ending relationships, especially 14 year olds, and even more especially if she reconciled with her parents who blame the guy for it.
Certainly possible. But the OP specifically states that they were happy up until the point the police interrupted them, so your explanation is not where my mind went.
As a juror, it would make a huge difference to me whether the girl testified that they had sex vs. whether a prosecutor was asking me to assume that’s what had happened. That sex had actually happened would be a necessarily element of the crime he’s being accused of, and while her testimony would probably get over the “reasonable doubt” hurdle for that element, a lawyer standing in front of me saying, “Well, they were living together for a month and he thought she was old enough—it’s OBVIOUS what happened!” would not, for me.
Why would they? If an honest mistake was a defense, it wouldn’t be “strict liability”, by definition.
(bolding mine)
Basically, with strict liability, the only thing that matters is whether or not you commited the crime. In this case “was she underage?” and “did he have sex with her?” are the only relevant questions. Whether you intended to commit it, thought you were committing it, had excellent reasons to believe you weren’t committing it, even took all reasonable steps to make 100% sure you weren’t commiting it are all completely irrelevant questions.
And given that the US system is very strict about what evidences can be presented, I doubt he would be allowed to even mention the existence of the birth certificate, or anything showing that he had good reasons to believe that she wasn’t underage, because it’s immaterial. So, I suspect the OP question is moot, because as an hypothetical jurors, you wouldn’t know about it.