<< Nevada Appeals Bizarre Execution Drug Ruling | Main | A Head-Shaker of an Argument >>


As if Brock Turner were not infamous enough for his father's "20 minutes of action" letter, now there is his lawyer's oral argument Tuesday in California's Sixth District Court of Appeal.  Tracey Kaplan reports for the San Jose Mercury News:

A lawyer for a former Stanford swimmer ... tried to convince an appellate court Tuesday to overturn his client's conviction -- on the novel grounds that the athlete wanted "outercourse" with his intoxicated victim, not intercourse.

"Outercourse," his lawyer Eric S. Multhaup explained to the three poker-faced justices, is sexual contact while fully clothed. Turner had his clothes on when he was caught by two Swedish graduate students making thrusting motions on top of a half-naked, intoxicated, unconscious woman, his lawyer noted.

Mili Mitra opines in the WaPo that "the 'outercourse' defense is so patently ridiculous that it reads like a headline from the Onion."

Clever word plays may be good for giving academic articles catchy titles, but they are not so good for advocacy.  Remember "affluenza"?

I really have to wonder about the defense's decision to appeal in this case.  There are six grounds in the appellant's opening brief.  Only one is sufficiency of the evidence, an argument which, if successful, precludes retrial.  If he "wins" on any of the others, the case goes back for retrial and, if reconvicted, resentencing.  Does the defendant really want that?  A greater sentence cannot be imposed just to be vindictive about the appeal, but a greater sentence can be imposed if the second judge believes that a greater sentence is appropriate for the crime.

Having gotten off much too lightly the first time, shouldn't Turner quit while he is "ahead," relative to where he is likely to be on resentencing?

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives