Sep 12 2007
Craig Gets His Day In Court
Innocent until PROVEN guilty – not harrassed into plea of guilt. It seems we might get a true legal test of Senator Craig’s encounter with the mind reading young police officer in Minneapolis, now that Craig has been given a court date on his request to repeal his guilty plea. I have no idea which way it will end up, but the point is Craig no more deserved to be pushed from the Senate over this incident as it stands now. And the GOP lost a lot of ground in dumping their friend and comrade without any hestitation. Just as they do on many matters, the far right of the GOP turns on its allies at its own convenience. They did so with Craig. Which makes aligning with the far right a useless jester since there is no two-way give on subjects. Their way or the highway. I like highways – they can take you some place new and unexplored.
Harassed into a plea of guilt??
Puhleeze . . . Craig was arrested on June 11th. He pled guilty – via mail – to the court on August 1, 2007, which meant he had 40 days to consider his options and consult with attorneys; the same amount of time Chirst was tempted by Satan in the Wilderness. Jesus made the right decision; Craig screwed the pooch. However . . .
Larry Craig is not some rube unaware of his legal rights; he’s a sitting United States Senator who votes to confirm Supreme Court Justices or to Authorize the Use of Military Force. If he is incapable of making a decision on a guilty plea to a misdemeanor in 40 days, he is not qualified to be a US Senator.
Idaho law only allows a withdrawal of a guilty plea if it would be a “manifest injustice” not to allow it. That’s a very high standard.
Sooth….you keep making yourself look stupid. Idaho law doesn’t matter in this case. It has NOTHING to do with it. Craig’s case is in the state of MINNESOTA. Get your facts straight and someone might actually listen to what you have to say.
Slip of the tongue, Crazy1, allow me to correct the scrivener’s error:
Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.05 requires a showing of “manifest injustice” before allowing withdrawal of a guilty plea.(State v. Nguyen, 2000 WL 198251.
In Nguyen, the Appellant brought a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, because when he pleaded guilty he was not told about possible deportation problems resulting from his plea, and claimed manifest injustice required withdrawal of his plea.
Minnesota law distinguishes between direct and collateral consequences of pleading guilty, limiting manifest injustice to misunderstanding of direct consequences. See Alanis v. State, 583 N.W.2d 573, 578 (Minn.1998) (holding that requirement that plea be intelligent refers to direct consequences of pleading guilty).
Direct consequences are “those which flow definitely, immediately, and automatically from the guilty plea, namely, the maximum sentence to be imposed and the amount of any fine.†Id.
Ignorance of a collateral consequence does not entitle a criminal defendant to withdraw a guilty plea. Id.
Craig was fully aware of the amount of the fine and the sentence to be imposed. The possible loss of Senate committee posts, the bad press, the general hullabaloo over his unlawful behavior and hypocrisy are collateral consequences, therefore, manifest injustice may not be held to flow from his guilty plea, nor from a refusal to grant his motion to withdraw a plea.
Craig was fully aware of the amount of the fine and the sentence to be imposed. The possible loss of Senate committee posts, the bad press, the general hullabaloo over his unlawful behavior and hypocrisy are collateral consequences, therefore, manifest injustice may not be held to flow from his guilty plea, nor from a refusal to grant his motion to withdraw a plea.
No, idiot. He thought it would all go away. And it would have if Hillary? hadn’t needed a diversion over the illegality of her campaign funds. It is truly amusing to see you go all ballistic over this nothing case but give the beast a pass for actually breaking the law. But that is a lesfty liberal for you, don’t let the facts get in the way of your agenda. You latch on to any tiny enfrenchment the republicans commit but give a pass to Jefferson, Mollohan, Webb’s gun, Feinstein’s military contracts, Reid’s land deals, Shumer’s enfrangement of Steele’s privacy, all of which are real crimes. You make yourself ridiculous every time you post and one wonders what kick you get out of interrupting our conversations with your drivel.
Are you unable to read, Barbara?
According to the case law precedents in Minnesota, you may only claim manifest injustice if you were unaware of a direct consequence of your plea (that is, the amount of the jail time, if any, and the amount of the fine).
Any other consequence you may suffer is legally collateral to your plea, and so you may not base a motion to withdraw a plea on such consequence.
Craig may have thought it would all go away. Too bad, so sad. It didn’t. So Craig, like every other person who pleads guilty when charged with a crime, is going to have to live with his guilty plea.
AJ, I’m going to have to disagree with you.
Craig’s conduct–leaving aside the oddities he may or may not have displayed in the men’s room–shows incredibly poor judgement, and he needs to step down on that basis.