Brock Turner is seeking an appeal to his felony convictions
On January 18th, 2014, 19-year-old Brock Allen Turner was arrested after a couple of students on bikes spotted Turner thrusting his body on top of a half naked, unconscious woman behind a dumpster on the Stanford University grounds. The students tackled Turner after he attempted to run, and called police. When the police were interviewing the men, one was crying so hard he could barely speak because of what he had seen.
After being caught in the act by the students, he was arrested and charged with five felony counts: rape of an intoxicated person, rape of an unconscious person, sexual penetration by a foreign object of an intoxicated woman, sexual penetration by a foreign object of an unconscious woman, and assault with intent to commit rape. He was released from jail on $150,000 bail.
He was found guilty of three of the five felonies he had been charged with: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated/unconscious person, penetration of an intoxicated person, and penetration of an unconscious person.
Then Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky sentenced him to six months in Santa Clara County jail. He was facing a maximum sentence of 14 years.
He walked out of county jail three months later — after serving only half of laughable sentence.
Now he’s filing for an appeal.
Turner’s lawyers are claiming their client was denied due process during his trial, and that the trial was “fundamentally unfair.” Why? Because of the prosecuting lawyer’s repeated reminders that the assault took place “behind a dumpster.” Turner’s lawyers argue that what transpired that evening took place “in the open” not behind a dumpster. CNN reports the appeal states that “the implication that the crime occurred ‘behind the dumpster’ prejudiced the jury against Turner.”
The appeal states that the dumpster detail “implied an intent on the appellant’s part to shield and sequester his activities” and “implied moral depravity, callousness and culpability on the appellant’s part because of the inherent connotations of filth, garbage, detritus and criminal activity frequently associated with dumpsters.”
The “dumpster” isn’t what made this morally depraved. Cannot believe this is something that even has to be said.
The appeal also states the conviction was unfair because Turner was denied character witnesses to attest to what a stand-up guy he is.
“What we are saying is that what happened is not a crime,” NBC reports John Tompkins, Turner’s legal adviser, said. “It happened, but it was not anywhere close to a crime.”
“In the appeal, Turner’s legal team claims they were at a disadvantage on three fronts: The jury did not get a lot of evidence that represented Turner’s character; The jury was not allowed to consider a lesser offense; The jury was subjected to “extensive ‘behind-the-dumpster’ propaganda.”
What exactly would a “lesser offense” be? How else would they describe the repeated shoving of fingers into an unconscious woman’s vagina? The charges fit the crime. The punishment did not. And as if Jane Doe hasn’t already been through enough, this POS wants to bring this all up again to clear his record. And why? Because he truly doesn’t believe he’s done anything wrong.
“His life will never be the one he dreamed about and worked so hard to achieve. That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life,” his father said after his conviction.
These people are so morally depraved, they would call the penetration of an unconscious woman “action” and think the biggest problem in this narrative is the dumpster. And all after their client paid for three felony convictions with three months of his life. In county jail.
The most dangerous type of criminal is one who thinks he’s done nothing wrong. Where is the reassurance that he won’t repeat a crime he apparently doesn’t think he actually committed?
How could any woman ever feel safe in a world where this argument exists, and where lawyers would actually step up to make it?