2015-16 NHL thread

[SoxFan562004]

Maybe she either doesn't want to be the one to put Kane behind bars or maybe she feels like her friend is lying but doesn't want to be the one to end the case for her friend. Regardless if she had to be subpoenaed it means she didn't want to give out much information to the police initially.

 

Attorneys do subpoena willing witness. I'm not sure of exact Ny criminal procedure but for some jurisdictions if you don't subpoena a witness and for whatever reason they don't show, sudden emergency, etc..., a judge can justifiably deny a continuance request. Also, for employment purposes she may need it.

 

It also can cut off some cross examining techniques depending on procedure of some jurisdictions.

 

Who knows why she was subpoenaed, but it's not a sure sign she's unwilling to testify

[Dick Allen]

It isn't looking good for Kane to walk away from this with nothing. I was watching the news yesterday, and since this is going to be presented to a grand jury, the legal expert said prosecutors must be pretty confident they have enough to take it trial.

 

Lazerus also wrote last week that the Hawks are very image conscious. Enough so to where they always have to put a Blackhawks cap on during interviews. In his story he mentioned how Hossa had to delay being questioned after a game until he found a hat. He also said he was told Kane was told that the incident in Madison was his final strike.

 

There is a decent chance Kaner is done with the Blackhawks.

[Y2Jimmy0]

It isn't looking good for Kane to walk away from this with nothing. I was watching the news yesterday, and since this is going to be presented to a grand jury, the legal expert said prosecutors must be pretty confident they have enough to take it trial.

 

Lazerus also wrote last week that the Hawks are very image conscious. Enough so to where they always have to put a Blackhawks cap on during interviews. In his story he mentioned how Hossa had to delay being questioned after a game until he found a hat. He also said he was told Kane was told that the incident in Madison was his final strike.

 

There is a decent chance Kaner is done with the Blackhawks.

 

 

So image conscious that habitual wife beater Bobby Hull is a fixture of the organization.

[Dick Allen]

So image conscious that habitual wife beater Bobby Hull is a fixture of the organization.

Yes he is.

 

The fact is, if Kane wasn't a star 99.99% of people would think he's done enough to be kicked to the curb.

 

When a Blackhawk gets in some sort of trouble, why is it usually Kane?

 

Hull was a star, Kane is a star. Stuff that shouldn't be ignored gets ignored.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Dick Allen

[Chisoxfn]

Why would the friend not cooperate with her friend in supporting her story of what happened that night? That's not much of a friend if their testimony has to be compelled, at least to me. If someone had hurt a friend of mine and I was asked by police to testify to what I'd seen I don't think I'd need to be subpoenaed to tell them what I'd seen. If it were standard procedure fine, give me the document and I'll tell you that anyway.

 

OTOH, if I see one of my friends do something and then lie about it later, such that my testimony disagrees with my friend's claim, that would seem to me to be a case where it is much more likely that my testimony under oath would need to be compelled with a subpoena.

 

Again, I don't know that, it could be standard procedure in these cases to compel testimony for whatever reason, but the latter makes more sense to me than the former.

Is that friend embarrassed about what she might have to testify to / what should partook in? Could have a lot more to do with her own personal fear of what she is going to say she and her friend did, etc.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.csnchicago.com/blackhawks/patri...talks-occurring

 

Three different law enforcement sources with knowledge of the legal case against Patrick Kane say a grand jury investigation has been "abruptly postponed," the Buffalo News reported Tuesday.

 

Two of the sources told the newspaper's Lou Michel that "the reason for the delay appears to involve the possibility of ongoing settlement talks between attorneys for Kane and the victim."

 

The friend of the alleged victim, who claims Kane raped her in his Hamburg, N.Y., home last month, was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury this afternoon at 2 p.m. ET.

 

Kane has not been arrested or charged with a crime. Blackhawks training camp begins in 10 days, though it's unknown whether Kane will be in South Bend.

[RockRaines]

Shocker.

[DrunkBomber]

This will be interesting if they actually settle.

[southsider2k5]

if there is a settlement, it opens up the door for the NHL to suspend Kane.

[maggsmaggs]

Let's remember, though, that "settlement" occurs only within the context of civil litigation. A grand jury subpoena is part of criminal litigation. I am not sure the two are related. The police and State's Attorney's Office work toward a criminal prosecution entirely independent of whatever civil litigation is ongoing. The postponing of the grand jury could mean exculpatory evidence was uncovered that renders a prosecution meritless. While it certainly could mean the victim has recanted or admitted to lying, which would destroy the State's case, there are a lot of potential reasons in play.

[Balta1701]

Let's remember, though, that "settlement" occurs only within the context of civil litigation. A grand jury subpoena is part of criminal litigation. I am not sure the two are related. The police and State's Attorney's Office work toward a criminal prosecution entirely independent of whatever civil litigation is ongoing. The postponing of the grand jury could mean exculpatory evidence was uncovered that renders a prosecution meritless. While it certainly could mean the victim has recanted or admitted to lying, which would destroy the State's case, there are a lot of potential reasons in play.

If the victim changes their testimony or declines to testify after reaching a large enough settlement, could that be a legal reason why a grand jury would be dismissed?

[RockRaines]

Let's remember, though, that "settlement" occurs only within the context of civil litigation. A grand jury subpoena is part of criminal litigation. I am not sure the two are related. The police and State's Attorney's Office work toward a criminal prosecution entirely independent of whatever civil litigation is ongoing. The postponing of the grand jury could mean exculpatory evidence was uncovered that renders a prosecution meritless. While it certainly could mean the victim has recanted or admitted to lying, which would destroy the State's case, there are a lot of potential reasons in play.

There wouldnt be a settlement if there was merit to the legal case, so this is kind of playing out as expected. I'm sure the next few weeks will reveal all.

[Chisoxfn]

There wouldnt be a settlement if there was merit to the legal case, so this is kind of playing out as expected. I'm sure the next few weeks will reveal all.

Not necessarily true.

[southsider2k5]

There wouldnt be a settlement if there was merit to the legal case, so this is kind of playing out as expected. I'm sure the next few weeks will reveal all.

 

Seeing as a rape case is about the hardest to prove, merit is a terrible word to use here. My feeling is if they are looking at a settlement, there is enough there to public embarrass Kane to some extent, (otherwise why would he settle) but probably not enough to rise to the level needed to win a rape conviction (hence the victim wanting to settle).

 

Trying to push both sides towards a settlement tells me that both sides have something to lose here, and that there is some smoke to the fire.

[southsider2k5]

If the victim changes their testimony or declines to testify after reaching a large enough settlement, could that be a legal reason why a grand jury would be dismissed?

 

Exactly what I was thinking.

[maggsmaggs]

If the victim changes their testimony or declines to testify after reaching a large enough settlement, could that be a legal reason why a grand jury would be dismissed?

Nothing was dismissed, the grand jury was merely postponed, which may indicate many things. As likely as it could be because the alleged victim has recanted or admitted lying to police, it is just as likely new evidence has been uncovered, which the prosecution would like to review before having the friend testify before the grand jury. Additionally, you cannot (to my knowledge) refuse to testify under grand jury subpoena without being held in contempt.

Edited September 8, 2015 by maggsmaggs

[RockRaines]

Seeing as a rape case is about the hardest to prove, merit is a terrible word to use here. My feeling is if they are looking at a settlement, there is enough there to public embarrass Kane to some extent, (otherwise why would he settle) but probably not enough to rise to the level needed to win a rape conviction (hence the victim wanting to settle).

 

Trying to push both sides towards a settlement tells me that both sides have something to lose here, and that there is some smoke to the fire.

I dont see why merit is a terrible word to use. If there was actual evidence then they would move forward with the grand jury and then indictment.

[southsider2k5]

I dont see why merit is a terrible word to use. If there was actual evidence then they would move forward with the grand jury and then indictment.

 

Merit implies that there is nothing to the case. If there are indeed talks of a settlement going on that means SOMETHING is there that Kane wants to go away. Fully innocent, he would have nothing to lose. But having something there doesn't mean it could reach the legal status of beyond a reasonable doubt either.

 

Again, to me a settlement is a win and a loss to both sides, not just one. If the case were clear one way or the other, that side would have zero incentive to settle.

 

Hell this could mean that this girl doesn't want her reputation and sex life being drug through the mud by victim shaming fanboys and would rather just settle knowing that Kane's reputation is forever ruined and that she had no chance at winning a full blown case even if she was raped. She could understand that even in cases where guilt can be pretty clearly seen, such as OJ Simpson, it doesn't mean you can get a conviction.

[GGajewski18]

if there is a settlement, it opens up the door for the NHL to suspend Kane.

 

Why's that? If that does happen, can Kane sue the NHL because he wasn't charged/arrested to a crime?

[RockRaines]

Merit implies that there is nothing to the case. If there are indeed talks of a settlement going on that means SOMETHING is there that Kane wants to go away. Fully innocent, he would have nothing to lose. But having something there doesn't mean it could reach the legal status of beyond a reasonable doubt either.

 

Again, to me a settlement is a win and a loss to both sides, not just one. If the case were clear one way or the other, that side would have zero incentive to settle.

 

Hell this could mean that this girl doesn't want her reputation and sex life being drug through the mud by victim shaming fanboys and would rather just settle knowing that Kane's reputation is forever ruined and that she had no chance at winning a full blown case even if she was raped. She could understand that even in cases where guilt can be pretty clearly seen, such as OJ Simpson, it doesn't mean you can get a conviction.

Or its easier to pay off now than sit through a long trial even if you are proven innocent..

[southsider2k5]

Or its easier to pay off now than sit through a long trial even if you are proven innocent..

 

See the third paragraph.

[StrangeSox]

FWIW being found not guilty and being "proven innocent" are not the same thing by a long shot.

[RockRaines]

See the third paragraph.

Why?

[iamshack]

FWIW being found not guilty and being "proven innocent" are not the same thing by a long shot.

And neither is being convicted by the court of public opinion and actually being guilty of something unlawful.

[RockRaines]

FWIW being found not guilty and being "proven innocent" are not the same thing by a long shot.

Who said they were?