Monday, December 14, 2009

The Prosecution rests

DNA evidence has been presented that almost certainly established paternity in the eyes of the jury and then:
"Law professor John J. Sampson of the University of Texas then testified that the alleged victim was not married to Keate. Sampson said he is a tenured professor and that he operates a children's rights legal clinic where he and two other lawyers supervise law students that advocate on behalf of children.

Sampson then said that he had reviewed evidence in the case and expressed his opinion again that the alleged victim was absolutely not the legal wife of Allan Keate." - The Eldorado Success.
The case seems to be pretty simple. Keate is the father, this is his child, this is his mother, they are married, she's too young. Randy Wilson preserved his appeal options by moving to dismiss, which I would have denied, had I been the judge, but Randy has to do his job.

Whatever defense there is, will commence tomorrow morning.


Sphere: Related Content

8 comments:

kbp said...

Coverage is lacking in the news. The SLT had quite a bit on Musser testifying about the religion. Reads more like guilt by association. I'm not certain why it's allowed.

I_hate_bigots said...

How can a lawyer give an opinion on guilt?

Shouldn't the jury hear evidence about the first marriage and then be instructed on the law.

Let the jury then draw the conclusion on whether they are married or not.

I'm not exactly sure how this would work but wouldn't it excuse him if he really believed he was married? Don't you have to purposely break the law? If you in good faith believe you are married you can you knowingly break the law? Shouldn't the jury decide this fact?

The Pharisee said...

The reasoning is, it's Mr. Keate's child, he knew what the mother's age was, they weren't married.

I suppose you could be right that there might be some defense in the idea that he THOUGHT he was married.

What the state will come back to is that ignorance of the law is no excuse and that when it comes to what the state does, the state only cares about how it defines words.

Jam Inn said...

Isn't the whole fundamentalist practice of 'Celestial Marriage' a recognition from Joseph Smith's revelation to today that no State in the Union recognizes bigamy as a practiced form of wedlock legally allowed. The whole polygamy practices of the LDS Church were renounced in 1890 or Utah would not have received statehood. Doesn't this then show why and how the fundamentalist LDS ended up excommunicated from the LDS Church? No informed jury is going to buy a FLDS congregant didn't know this law, remember the '53 Raid was concerning the very same unlawful defiance.

So, if 'Answer Them Nothing' is still the chosen defense, we can have a Jury quorum and verdict by 5:00pm.

The Pharisee said...

Really,

What's your point Jam? That I don't know some of those basics? That the reader of this blog does not know this?

The elements of the state's case are to drive home that:

A.) It's Allan's child.
B.) That Veda was underage.
C.) Allan knew "B."
D.) They weren't legally married, which, by the way, is an ADMISSION that legal marriage can occur, and that merely having sex with a 14 or 15 year old girl as an adult man in Texas is NOT a crime. It's a crime when no legal marriage is in place.

All of this brings me back to the fact that we're putting a man in jail for possibly the rest of his life for essentially driving without a registration.

All the elements of commitment are there. Allan has not abandoned his "celestial" bride. If he drove his truck into Eldorado without a license plate, he'd get a ticket.

If Veda stays with him as AN ADULT and he stays committed to her, something that has BEEN DEMONSTRATED to have taken place, all he really hasn't done is get the license plate because Texas says you can only have so many licenses at a given time.

Again, they have no objection to Allan Keate having carnal knowledge of Veda Keate, they have an objection to it occurring without a registration slip in the glove box.

That's almost voyeuristic.

Jam Inn said...

Sexual assault in the 1st. degree carries the sentence of life or 5 tom 99 years because the Texas Legislature gives this felony the greatest punishment. Your likening it to a automobile license shows your contempt for the dignity of a female human being being elevated above an physical object. Is a wife just another piece of property? To a fundamentalist a woman doesn't hold a greater value, haven't you overlook the human rights aspects to your analogy?

The Pharisee said...

No, it's not, you're making several errors, some are habitual, that of equivocation, pretending that I am talking about or give a flying leap that Texas has decided to class the crime as a first degree felony. Shall we discuss the possession and consumption of Marijuana which was, in the last 50 years, a crime that could get you locked up for nearly life?

Texas in my view is WRONG so I don't CARE that they called it a "1st degree felony" and I'll thank you NOT to bring that up her. It is, beside that objection of mine, a GIGANTIC "DUH." We all KNOW that.

Next, it is SEXUAL ASSAULT in LEGAL terminology. If it is REALLY sexual assault, why do we not lock up 14 year olds for "shagging" 14 year olds? Isn't it "Sexual?" Dirty rotten SEX? Isn't it "Assault?" Mean violent ego crushing life wrecking damaging ASSAULT? You bandy these terms about as if an adult Veda Keate is complaining that she was VIOLATED. She is not. Does she not, above all people, have the capacity NOW to complain that she was "Assaulted?" If she isn't, is Texas saying age does not equate to judgment? Isn't THAT WHAT WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT in part? There is a principle in contract law called "affirmation," in which a minor contracts and continues in an arrangement past the age of majority and is said to "affirm" a contract. Hasn't Veda DONE this by now?

With regard to treating her as an object, you equivocate again, and commit the error of "analogy as fact." I by no means say that Veda is a mere object, I'm saying that it is like a registered car in that one aspect.

All that is different about Alan and Veda taking EACH OTHER for a "drive" is that they don't have a REGISTRATION in the glove box. Veda's "virtue" is HERS, not the State of Texas. Law assumes her virtue needs protection at age 15. She's an adult now. Do you hear her complaining? Isn't SHE above all people on the face of the planet, now best qualified to say if she was violated?

Who is treating WHO as an object in this case? IT IS THE STATE, who acts as if Veda IS NOT THERE, who IGNORES her wishes.

It is the STATE that treated all the children as PIECES OF EVIDENCE and as CATTLE, herding them here and there, examining their most private parts, taking children who had not committed a crime and violating their physical selves to obtain MATERIAL as EVIDENCE in the TOTAL ABSENCE of a COMPLAINT.

Jam Inn said...

Defense called only two witnesses, namely John Walsh and Sheriff Doran, discussing Mormon practices and search warrant process and access to the YFZ Ranch. Defense then rested it's defense. Closing statements will be in the afternoon and Jury should be in deliberations immediately thereafter.