Appeals court overturns man's prostitution conviction

this is just an article i found interesting


Appeals court overturns man's prostitution conviction

An Atlanta man who was among the 13 people arrested for allegedly soliciting sex from undercover investigators in a prostitution sting last year has had his conviction overturned.

(he) argued that he had simply asked for a "body rub" before he was arrested...

The Minnesota Court of Appeals on Monday agreed that (his) arrest was unwarranted, reversing his gross misdemeanor conviction for prostitution in a public place.

"By our decision today, we do not mean to diminish the seriousness of sexual trafficking or prostitution," Judge Larry Stauber wrote in the six-page opinion. "Nevertheless, we are obligated to follow the law."

(he) responded to an advertisement placed by investigators on the website Backpage and met with two undercover female investigators, authorities said

When asked what service he wanted, (he) stated: "Just a body rub, and maybe see." However, when asked if he "wanted more," or if he had brought condoms, the defendant stated that he had not, according to court documents. He was arrested at that time.

(he) waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to have his case heard by a judge on stipulated facts. Sixth Judicial District Judge John DeSanto found him guilty in September.

The three-judge panel of the appeals court held that (his)'s statements to the investigators were too ambiguous to clearly infer sexual intent.

"When viewed in context, this language could refer to non-sexual conduct, such as a specialized massage, or could possibly refer to sexual contact," Stauber wrote. "As such, the statement is far too indefinite to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intended to agree to or make an offer of sexual contact."

I read that and I wonder what the trial judge was thinking. He certainly wasn't thinking about the presumption of innocence. I'm glad the defendant had the wherewithal to pursue an appeal.

Come on Shyster, you know what the trial judge was thinking. 'I have to run for re-election, and I'm not letting some jerkwad run a campaign against me that makes me look like I go easy on sexual offenders'!
In Texas a good judge on the Corpus court of appeals lost for that very reason. And trial judges are even more susceptible to a riled up electorate. Very unfair and shouldn't be that way, but it is. Not all judges, obviously, or the appeals court wouldn't have reversed the conviction. But too many of them have their re-election in the back of their minds pretty much all the time.

Occasionally a trial judge will make a ruling believing the case will be reversed on appeal, which gives him "political" cover with either the subject matter or the party "winning" in the trial court. It is also "tough" when other defendants similarly situated have pled guilty based on the same or substantially similar facts. That is always problematic in a multi-defendant operation. Disparate treatment.

Good points, LL. And with all the 'watchdog' groups these days, anything a judge does will piss somebody off. Might as well try to do the right thing.

As a rule, judges don't give a shit about law or precedent or silly nonsense like "presumption of innocence". They do what they feel like doing, just like a four year old. If an ordinary person shows up in court without counsel, they are screwed, no matter what. It's like giving a four year old a candy bar, telling them it's against the rules to eat it, and walking away.

As a rule, judges don't give a shit about law or precedent or silly nonsense like "presumption of innocence". They do what they feel like doing, just like a four year old. Originally Posted by Buying a *Way to Heaven

I don't agree with that statement at all. I've been practicing law for more than 35 years. I've appeared before hundreds of judges. I found most of them to be fair-minded professionals who followed the law and precedent.

I think it was an excellent ruling, and entirely plausible. More people should fight this type of situation when financially able to do so.

By extension, I think going into a place for a "foot rub" and not speaking Chinese when the proprietress primarily speaks Chinese (or Korean or whatever, assuming she is ESL) should provide sufficient confusion relative to intent to engage in sexual contact for a consideration.

Nevertheless, before you contemplate any such action, you should consult your own attorney, and not listen to me, a humble baker.

I agree with ShysterJon. Judges have an enormous amount of political pressure on them, at least from time to time, and most (emphasis on most) of them really do try to get it right.At least, that's been my experience.

It's a shame that our legal is so broken, that only a person with the Financial means can fight a bad judge. There should be a way to sue the judge personally and put a stop to this crap.

Come on Shyster, you know what the trial judge was thinking. 'I have to run for re-election, and I'm not letting some jerkwad run a campaign against me that makes me look like I go easy on sexual offenders'!
In Texas a good judge on the Corpus court of appeals lost for that very reason. And trial judges are even more susceptible to a riled up electorate. Very unfair and shouldn't be that way, but it is. Not all judges, obviously, or the appeals court wouldn't have reversed the conviction. But too many of them have their re-election in the back of their minds pretty much all the time. Originally Posted by dannyboy13

Good advice on Judge.Prostitution illegal business