Friday, April 18, 2008

BREAKING NEWS - Scott Charges Dropped

Just don't expect it to run on ESPN or anywhere that decided to trumpet the charges. Apparently, evidence from the victim's past is "irrelevant" according to Centre County DA. Evidence such as similar charges that resulted in an acquittal weren't pertinent to the matter. I understand that they need to file the motion, but a modus operandi is completely relevant and to act otherwise is obtuse. It's a shame that his time at Penn State had to end this way. Unfortunately, the title of "rapist" will follow him despite the fact that charges were dropped.

Read it here. here. here. See the court document here.

*Update* ESPN does have the story up on it's front page, not buried on the college football page.

6 comments:

Galen said...

Damn dude I started writing this story and you beat me to it. I was never in the "the DA is out to get football players" camp but come on; it's really starting to look that way. One could definitely draw that conclusion given the DA's recent track record. It’s sad that this could have potentially ruined Scott’s chance at the NFL.

Nick said...

In this case he has to pursue rape charges initially, I understand that. But given the background on the case, when it was ruled that the previous accusation made with many similarities could be brought up in the trial, don't act like that history is not important.

big 11th said...

of all the dumb shit the DA has done over the years, this one bothers me the most.

i'm not saying this should be done, but does the girl have anything to worry about from a legal persepctive? would scott have to pursue that?

Nick said...

Scott does have some legal options, but they're very difficult to prove even if he does pursue them.

Galen said...

Where's our legal expert RUTS at? I think Scott can go after the DA but I'm not sure if he can get anything from the accuser.

Nick said...

I believe he has to prove charges were wrongly filed knowing that they could not be proven by the DA's office "purposely and with malice." Or something to that effect anyway. My understanding is there needs to be some sort of "smoking gun" in order to get a favorable ruling, but I'm not a lawyer.