Terrence Shannon, Jr. ordered to stand trial
- Thread starter KenTre1983
- Start date
I’m shocked his trial is within a year of the charge. Don’t you wish all trials were like that?
I read that his lawyers are trying to get DNA evidence thrown out. I don't recall any DNA being mentioned in the documents released a few months ago. Could it be there is more evidence not previously discussed?
I have to believe if charges were filed, the DA feels they have enough evidence for a conviction.
DAs don't tend to take bad cases to trial. An acquittal is way worse than just not going forward.
Doesn't mean he's guaranteed to be convicted, but DAs have high conviction rates for a reason
Doesn't mean he's guaranteed to be convicted, but DAs have high conviction rates for a reason
Probably depends on the prosecutor. I served on the grand jury in my county a couple years ago. That prosecutor explained that his office generally seeks indictments on all charges where they believe it's warranted. That doesn't mean they necessarily have enough for a conviction in every case. They seek plea arrangements on most but sometimes have to drop the case before it goes to trial. An indictment is a really low bar.
This is a higher profile case though. You don't tend to just wing it on those. You tend to take a case you think you can win.
My opinion is that he shouldn’t have been allowed to play this year and the judge’s ruling against the university was not a good decision.
Agreed. Until proven innocent he should have been banned. If convicted that is going to be a PR nightmare for Illinois
I understand this thinking, but the issue is that it would then only take an accuser to sit a star player for a season. That doesn't seem fair either.
There is no "proving innocence."
If the university had followed their own due process they could have but they didn't. That's what the judge ruled.
FYI, the victim had very little male DNA on her butt. But as they were able to test it, it showed to be possibly 3 males and none of those were TSJ.... She had 8 different DNA on her. Definitive presence of male DNA in her underwear was insufficient in quantity to be tested.
PSU used to have a policy that anybody who brought derogatory news or discredited to the university would be placed on suspension until the charges were dropped or the situation was resolved. The person didn’t have to be charged with any crime. I guess today’s judicial and university systems just cave in.
Interesting. Why would TSJ want it excluded?
That's not how the legal system works. A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the accused. In this case, the judge was apparently not satisfied the university met the threshold of probable cause to suspend him.
We'll see where it goes from here.
If Illinois or any other school went through the Sandusky situation they might have that same policy. Not a good example. Also the school did suspend him indefinitely and there was some sort of ruling they didn’t follow due process (I think he sued the school)! Sounds like they had to let him play.
As I understand it, the judge overturned the suspension. I suppose Underwood could have benched him.
The university doesn't determine PC but rather the DA/Prosecutor and the Judge would sign that PC on the notion there is enough evidence provided by the Prosecutor's investigator.
The university could have sat him but would you sit your best player, not been convicted and could be found innocent. TSJ would have had a very slim case trying to sue the university over being sat vs. suspended. I believe the university handled it the best way possible.
Yes, if he's found guilty this will look horrible but they took the proper steps. IMO
In theory yes, but in reality no. I'm sure Underwood was raising hell in the first place when U of I suspended him pending the results of the case. That's all it was. It was a policy of the university to do that. The judge didn't agree and overturned the suspension because his due process rights were violated. Something tells me we will see this again in college sports, depending on the individual school's policies.
As to the defense wanting to exclude the DNA, duh. Of course they do. Does that mean he committed a crime? Of course not, but it's a common defense tactic to limit any evidence that COULD be used to convict him.
On a related note, if a player has a dui or a positive drug test, is the player suspended from the team for a violation of team rules? Or does the player now get a court order to force the team to take no disciplinary actions against him?
Charge has actually been upgraded for the trial. Second charge is now also a felony charge instead of misdemeanor. I still believe that the DA feels the case is strong enough to move forward in a high profile criminal trial and the court has decided it doesn’t appear to be frivolous or it would not move forward. No idea if he’s guilty but I guess I am in the camp of it would have already disappeared if it was as weak as some are arguing it to be.
“The documents also upgraded one of Shannon’s charges. The felony rape charge remains, but the additional sexual battery charge was elevated to aggravated sexual battery.
Originally, the sexual battery charge was a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to one year in jail or a $2,500 fine. The new aggravated sexual battery charge is a felony. Shannon would face 31-136 months in prison and/or a fine of up to $300,000.”
“The documents also upgraded one of Shannon’s charges. The felony rape charge remains, but the additional sexual battery charge was elevated to aggravated sexual battery.
Originally, the sexual battery charge was a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to one year in jail or a $2,500 fine. The new aggravated sexual battery charge is a felony. Shannon would face 31-136 months in prison and/or a fine of up to $300,000.”
Yeah there is. Happens all the time actually. How many people have been charged for something and went to jail and then later down the road have been found innocent? I'm sure the number is way higher than you think. Also I have personally dealt with it as well.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, on appeal, but appeals also often turn the other way due to a technicality or another, not as often due to new evidence being brought forward. At the trial level, you are innocent until proven guilty, and are attempting to show that there is reasonable doubt that the prosecution has made their case.
But everything written about the DNA seems to help his case of being innocent. If that's the case, why try to exclude it?
Disagree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty… Duke Lacrosse…. Matt Araiza…
I agree. And in our system of justice, he is innocent until guilt is proven, not accused. If they had suspended him and he was later found not guilty, his suspension would have been an injustice.
My take, as well. This evidence should be the centerpiece for the defence's case. It makes me wonder why the prosecutor is even pursuing this case. There must be something else not made public.
It's not as though there was no evidence, so I'd disagree with the thought that it would 'only take an accuser'. I understand that not everyone who is charged is ultimately convicted and anywhere you draw the line there's going to be someone who is treated unfairly. Shitty situation.
Having prosecuted and defended you're being quite naive. The system itself is great in theory. In practice, it relies on humans, and any system that relies on humans is far from perfect.
I've defended innocent people before. I don't believe I've prosecuted any all the way to trial but I have started them with alleged victims that were initially beliveable but that was a combination of luck and that I really tried to keep high standards for going forward.
Plenty of prosecutors do not. And even when they do, some witnesses lie or get confused, some accused cannot afford decent representation, and other biases in the system exist.
Each side presents evidence in light most favorable to them.
You can't look at just prosecution or defense evidence in a vacuum. Particularly in a motion.
I'm going to guess that the DNA evidence has some tie to Shannon or else the defense would be admitting it themselves. They are probably trying to argue that the presence of other male DNA makes the sample unreliable. I'd do the same thing.
It's not likely to work though. The judge will likely just say, that's why you have a DNA expert, to allow you to argue to the jury that the presence of other male DNA creates doubt.
But of course I'm also just making a guess, albeit one with a wee bit of experience, still just a guess.
