Good, now hopefully some justice will be done.

Sweet.

YESSSS!!!!

I don't know California law, but it would be highly unusual for the AG to actually have the ability to weigh in on the decision itself. Prosecutorial discretion is generally absolute and not reviewable by anyone. At most (imagining the worst-case scenario where a prosecutor declined to prosecute due to a cash bribe), I think that the decision itself cannot be reversed but the prosecutor could be removed or charged, leaving the successor to review the decision.

I don't think that charges are going to happen here, but I do think that this will have the very positive effect of counteracting the public pressure to not indict gang rapists with public pressure to indict gang rapists, putting prosecutors back on neutral footing.

Wrote too soon -- the AG staff may bring their own charges. That would be fantastic.

This is great news! I hope that the victim finally gets some justice and closure.

Excellent! When I saw the interview my jaw practically hit the floor. A friend of mine was raped last year in London and the way it has been handled has been horrid. It just goes to show how much stigma is attached to women when they drink. Authorities act like you are "asking for it" if something happens to you. Truly horrid.

Glad my vote for Jerry Brown wasn't wasted...

Here's the standard of review, according to Jerry Brown's spokesman:

"The question is not whether reasonable minds might disagree with the D.A.'s decision," Kravets said, "but whether a reasonable prosecutor, looking at all the facts of the case, would almost always reach a different decision than that originally reached by the district attorney in this case."

Two other things: (1) the DA wanted this review because they had been prohibited from releasing any sort of evidence backing up its decision to the press and (2) it appears that a criminal investigation for lesser-included charges (statutory rape?) is still open in the Sheriff's Department.

Yippy skippy! This is such great news. If you want to offer words of support to the victim, check out my little site I just started (it's pretty sad right now, just waiting for people to comment!)

http://de-anza-support.livejournal.com/

Just click on the link and write a little message.

Wow, it's nice to get some good news every once in a while! I hope this investigation lives up to its promise.

quick question. is is at all possible that the d.a. dropped the charges because the survivor did not want to go through with the case and is only trying to protect the young woman?

quick question. is is at all possible that the d.a. dropped the charges because the survivor did not want to go through with the case and is only trying to protect the young woman?

quick question. is is at all possible that the d.a. dropped the charges because the survivor did not want to go through with the case and is only trying to protect the young woman?

quick question. is is at all possible that the d.a. dropped the charges because the survivor did not want to go through with the case and is only trying to protect the young woman?

oops. sorry i posted that like fifty times. i am new at this.

Very cool. If the AG ends up agreeing with the DA's decision, will he be able to publically disclose why, or would that violate the privacy of those involved?

The young woman has come out as wanting her day in court, katiemarie, so I don't think that's the case.

“I don't think that charges are going to happen here, but I do think that this will have the very positive effect of counteracting the public pressure to not indict gang rapists with public pressure to indict gang rapists, putting prosecutors back on neutral footing.� – Thomas

There is public pressure not to indict gang rapists?

Do you mean that there is public pressure not to indict alleged gang rapists when there is insufficient evidence to convict them? If so, is that a notion you would really like to countact?

So Carr invited Brown to look at the case? Doesn't sound like she's too worried.

noname, the fact that DA Carr invoked the Duke case, in which the only commonality is that the accused are athletes and the assault took place at a house party, suggests to me that the DA feels there's public pressure not to indict men accused of gang rape when they're popular college athletes. So does the fact that the three women who got the victim out of there have been threatened and harrassed since the event.

is is at all possible that the d.a. dropped the charges because the survivor did not want to go through with the case and is only trying to protect the young woman?
Crimes can still be prosecuted even without the victim's support. It's hella difficult but it can be done. That's b/c crimes are considered as attacks on the state, not the individual.

noname, the fact that DA Carr invoked the Duke case, in which the only commonality is that the accused are athletes and the assault took place at a house party, suggests to me that the DA feels there's public pressure not to indict men accused of gang rape when they're popular college athletes. So does the fact that the three women who got the victim out of there have been threatened and harrassed since the event. - Darkrose

Maybe there is more in common between the two cases than you think. Maybe, just like in the Duke case, there is public pressure to indict them despite a lack of evidence (or even better in the Duke case, evidence of innocence). Hopefully the AG will be able to shed some light on this.

Awesome news; thanks for the tip.

I worry about the political fallout if the decision stands; I sure as hell hope this works.

katiemarie,

The victim has had an advocate make a PUBLIC STATEMENT that she wants the case tried.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_6035869

noname,

Consider this information before you go drawing Duke parallels:

1) The third eyewitness can i.d. one of the men who had sex with the victim, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/03/MNG7EQ6QJ81.DTL

2) her BAC was estimated at 0.27 by the hospital, http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_151205633.html

3) and she had someone else's vomit on her face, according to Dolores Carr.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6000299?nclick_check=1

Oh, and I think this editorial does a brilliant job of describing exactly what the players did WRONG even if they are totally innocent of rape. http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6000309

As the author writes: "If three female De Anza soccer players could be strong enough to break up such a sordid scene, why couldn't some of the other male De Anza jocks at the party have done the same?"

noname Rape Apologist to the rescue!!!!

Actually I agree with noname, in that I would also like for the CA AG (my man Brown) to shed more light on why the Santa Clara County district attorney thought that three eye witnesses did not constitute enough evidence to continue through with prosecution.
Not knowing anything about the case, it sounds to me like the Santa Clara County district attorney was paid off, or is bowing to political pressure.

Way to go AG Brown, we want to know everything that transpired to cause the Santa Clara County district attorney to come to her decision.

Ismone
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6000309

that's a good one

“noname Rape Apologist to the rescue!!!!� - alicepaul

Wow. That is extraordinarily insulting. Here is the definition for “apologist� I found at the Free Dictionary:

“A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.� - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologist

I challenge you to find even one instance of me defending or justifying rape. I most certainly have argued that rape did not happen (Duke case) or may not have happened, but I never attempted to defend or justify rape as a doctrine, policy, or institution. Why would you even bring that up while talking about a case for which I am already on record as believing that a rape occurred (given what we know so far) and as being happy that the state AG is going to further investigate the claims?

This is an unfounded, personal attack, plain and simple. Disgusting.

“noname Rape Apologist to the rescue!!!!� - alicepaul

Wow. That is extraordinarily insulting. Here is the definition for “apologist� I found at the Free Dictionary:

“A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.� - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologist

I have never defended or justified rape. I most certainly have argued that in certain specific circumstances rape did not occur (Duke), may not have occurred (Fresno, Tom Head argument from the Boozy Women thread, ect.), or may be too difficult to prove in a court of law (this case); but I never attempted to defend or justify rape itself.

Why would you even bring that up while talking about a case for which I am already on record as believing that a rape occurred (given what we know so far) and as being happy that the state AG is going to further investigate the claims?

This is an unfounded, personal attack, plain and simple. Disgusting.

Sorry about the double post. The first post was not finished (I meant to hit preview, not post). The second one is what I wanted to post (I added references to other arguments and got rid of the "challenge", which would only serve to start a flame war in all likelihood). I guess being called a Rape Apologist pissed me off so much that I didn’t look at the buttons before clicking.