What Should Sen. Larry Craig Have Done?

Craig's plea was mistake, legal experts say

By: David Mark
Aug 30, 2007 08:11 AM EST



Sen. Larry Craig has good reason to regret his guilty plea to a count of disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis airport bathroom — according to legal experts, a good lawyer could have made it go away.

But the Idaho Republican didn’t tell anyone and copped a plea after his now-famous encounter in June with an undercover cop investigating reports of sexual activity in the men’s restroom.

According to the police report of the incident, “At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. ... Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times.”

Minnesota Statutes Section 609.72, Subdivision (3) says it is a crime for an individual to engage in conduct that “will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace.”

Sen. Craig later said he has a “wide stance” when using the toilet and he was trying to pick up a piece of paper on the floor. Whether or not those explanations are believable, there’s little reason to believe that Craig alarmed, angered or disturbed his stall neighbor, said University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter.

After Craig tapped his toes, the undercover officer wrote in the report that “I moved my foot up and down slowly.” According to Carpenter, that signaled a response or acceptance of Craig’s actions.

“There’s a basis, but only a weak basis, for a disorderly conduct charge,” Carpenter said. Craig’s actions might be construed as unwelcome behavior, as opposed to extremely belligerent behavior, as the Minnesota statute envisions, Carpenter said. “The things that Craig is alleged to have done might be bothersome or annoying, but not necessarily criminal.”

The bottom line, Carpenter said, is that Craig could have hired a lawyer and successfully fought the charges and gotten them dismissed. A sensible prosecutor might very well have concluded, “We have much bigger fish to fry.”

Carpenter noted that a second charge, Interference with Privacy, was dropped during proceedings at the Hennepin County District Court. That charge related to Craig’s actions before entering the bathroom stall. According to the police report the senator had peered through the crack and would “fidget” with his fingers.

Of course, fighting the charges in court would have made the issue public, which Craig seemed desperate to avoid.

But Steve Simon, another University of Minnesota law professor, said prosecutors might have won their case in court if they were intent on pressing it.

“It is a fairly innocuous form of disorderly conduct,” he said. Disorderly conduct usually involves “much more overt, much more physical activity,” such as rowdy behavior that precipitates a bar fight. “This is right on the edge of what would be criminal.”

If anything, Simon said, Craig’s alleged peering through the stall door provided greater grounds for the disorderly conduct charge, because it invades a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.

Most importantly, had the senator consulted a Minnesota lawyer he would have soon learned there are at least three different ways of resolving a criminal case to avoid having a conviction on record, according to Simon.

The judge could have granted a continuance of dismissal, which usually goes to first offenders, like shoplifters. Such cases are kept pending (open) for a year. If a defendant demonstrates good behavior, it disappears.

Another option would have been a stay of adjudication, Simon said. Under that scenario Craig would have admitted to the facts alleged by prosecutors and pled guilty. But the judge would have kept the plea in pending status. With probation and good behavior, the plea would have stayed pending, and would have been dismissed after a year.

Finally, Craig could have proffered an Alford plea, in which he wouldn’t admit to doing anything wrong, but would agree that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find him guilty. Upon receiving an Alford plea from a defendant, the court may immediately pronounce the defendant guilty and impose a sentence as if the defendant had otherwise been convicted of the crime; however, in many states, including Minnesota, a plea which "admits sufficient facts" more typically results in the case being continued without a finding and later dismissed.

“Had he talked to a lawyer, the attorney would have explored those options,” Simon said. But again, that would have involved making the case public, which Craig was loath to do. More than two months after the fact, the story blew wide open, and certainly not on the terms sought by the senator.

On Tuesday, Craig held a press conference in Boise: “While I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct at the Minneapolis airport or anywhere else, I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in the hope of making it go away. I did not seek any counsel, either from an attorney, staff, friends, or family. That was a mistake, and I deeply regret it.”

 

This really highlights the stupidity (and the implied guilt) of the Republican senator.

Normal reaction of an innocent person upon the arrest:
1. Strongly protest the charges, especially denying the intent for solicitation.
2. Demand that the charges be dropped and threaten to go to court to fight the charges.
3. Consult a lawyer if 1 and 2 do not produce positive results.

Craig's reaction:
1. Admitted that the feet bumped, that the hand crossed the divide (to pick up a piece of paper!). Claimed "entrapment" which is curious if the charges were phantom. Denied being gay. That was totally unnecessary and irrelevant unless he was implicitly admitting that he was soliciting gay sex.
2. Never challenged the charges directly. Tried to explain them away ("wide stance"). Pleaded guilty at the end.
3. Never told anyone about it, not his lawyer nor his wife.

Every aspect of his reaction telegraphed "guilty." Although in our system, if you can hire a good enough lawyer, you even can get away with a murder. So it should be easy for Craig to get rid of these charges, whether he's guilty or not.

 

ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS DO WHATEVER BARNEY FRANK DID AND HE GETS TO MILK THE TAXPAYERS FOR A FEW DOZEN MORE YEARS..MR. HSU IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF HRC'S PROBLEMS...SHE HAS SOME STUFF THAT DICK MORRIS SAYS MIGHT BE INTERESTING...BUT THE 40% LIKEABILITY FACTOR IS NOT A PURDY THANG.....

 

“While I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct at the Minneapolis airport or anywhere else, I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in the hope of making it go away. I did not seek any counsel, either from an attorney, staff, friends, or family. ”

????????????? I'm astonished.

Has the DA, PD or clerk's office said anything about just what happened as far as him pleading?

 

Curiously, the only mention I have seen of Article One, Section Six of the U.S. Constitution, the Speech or Debate Clause, was a letter to the editor. That provision states in relevant part:

" ...They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. "


This provision, which has been broadly construed by the courts, would seem to place an absolute bar on prosecution of Sen. Craig.

 

Something similiar happened to one of the guys at our recent bi-annual trip to Burning Man. He was sitting in the stall at one of the local Salloons bathrooms. On the stall door someone had written "$5 for Boob sex with Danni Ashe, $10 to bang Jenna Jamison, just knock twice on the wall."

So he pulled out the 15 bucks and wrapped twice on the wall. A voice from the other stall said "Slide the cash through the crack" So he did and then a set a Danni Ashe rubber boobs comes flying over the top of the stall, and a life like Jenna snatch is slid under the stall. Half an hour later the old boy walks out of the bathroom pulling up his britches and gets taken down by the waiting cops "To catch a predator " style.
We left his ass there in Burning Man still in jail. This is the same guy that got caught whacking when our RV Club had a rally point at the Tia Juana Donkey Show. They need to put these freaks pictures in the newspaper, and make them stand at busy intersections with a sandwich board admitting they are pervs.

Rennick out:eek:

 

Headline by MSNBC: (I am not making this up)

"Don't try to re-enter through the 'Exit' door"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20609223/

 

Ann Coulter's take:

CRUISING WHILE REPUBLICAN
September 5, 2007


If you've just returned from your Labor Day vacation and are scanning the headlines from last week's newspapers -- don't panic! America is not threatened by a category 5 hurricane named "Larry Craig."

Despite the 9/11-level coverage, Larry Craig is merely accused of "cruising while Republican." There is nothing liberals love more than gay-baiting, which they disguise as an attack on "hypocrisy."

Chris Matthews opened his "Hardball" program on Aug. 28 by saying Larry Craig had been "exposed as both a sexual deviant and a world-class hypocrite."

Normally, using the word "deviant" in reference to any form of sodomy would be a linguistic crime worse than calling someone a "nappy headed ho." Luckily, Craig is a Republican.

As a backup precaution, Matthews has worked to ensure that there is virtually no audience for "Hardball." I shudder to think of the damage such a remark might have done if uttered about a non-Republican on a TV show with actual viewers.

The New York Times ran 15 articles on Craig's guilty plea to "disorderly conduct" in a bathroom. The Washington Post ran 20 articles on Craig. MSNBC covered it like it was the first moon landing -- Three small taps for a man, one giant leap for public gay sex!

In other news last week, two Egyptian engineering students, Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed and Youssef Samir Megahed, were indicted in Tampa on charges of carrying pipe bombs across states lines. They were caught with the bombs in their car near a Navy base.

But back to the real news of the week: CNN's Dana Bash reported that the Larry Craig story was "everywhere and it is not going to let up."

If liberals were any happier, they'd be gay.

Just as liberals were reaching a fever-pitch of pretend shock and dismay at Larry Craig, it was announced that Craig was resigning. And there went MSNBC's fall program schedule.

Indignant that Craig had short-circuited their gleeful gay-baiting, liberals quickly switched to a new set of talking points. In the blink of an eye, they went from calling Craig a "deviant" to attacking Republicans for not insisting that Craig stay.

Liberals said the only reason Republicans were not blanketing the airwaves defending Craig -- maybe running him for president -- was because of Republican "homophobia." After howling with rage all week about gay Republicans, to turn around and call Republicans homophobes on Friday was nothing if not audacious.

But last Friday -- or, for short, "the day the two bomb-carrying Egyptian students were indicted and the mainstream media was too busy jeering at Larry Craig to notice" -- The New York Times editorialized:

"Underlying the (Republicans') hurry to disown the senator, of course, is the party's brutal agenda of trumpeting the gay-marriage issue. To the extent Sen. Craig, a stalwart in the family values caucus, might morph into a blatant hypocrite before the voters' eyes, he reflects on the party's record in demonizing homosexuality. The rush to cast him out betrays the party's intolerance, which is on display for the public in all of its ugliness."

Liberals don't even know what they mean by "hypocrite" anymore. It's just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like "extremist" -- or, come to think of it, "gay." How is Craig a "hypocrite," much less a "blatant hypocrite"?

Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk!

Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."

And why is it "homophobic" for Senate Republicans to look askance at sex in public bathrooms? Is the Times claiming that sodomy in public bathrooms is the essence of being gay? I thought gays just wanted to get married to one another and settle down in the suburbs so they could visit each other in the hospital.

Liberals have no idea what they think about homosexuality, which is why their arguments are completely contradictory. They gay-bait Republicans with abandon -- and then turn around and complain about homophobia.

They call Larry Craig a "deviant" based on accusations that he attempted to solicit sex in a public bathroom -– and then ferociously attack efforts to prevent people from having sex in public bathrooms.

They say people are born gay -- and then they say it's the celibacy requirement that turns Catholic priests gay.

They tell us gays want nothing more than to get married -- and then say it's homophobic to oppose homosexual sex in public bathrooms.

Unlike liberals, the "family values caucus" that the Times loathes has only one position on homosexuality: Whatever your impulses are, don't engage in homosexual sex. In fact, don't have any sex at all unless it is between a husband and wife.

The Idaho Statesman spent eight months investigating a rumor that Craig was gay. They interviewed 300 people, going back to his college days. They walked around Union Station in Washington, D.C., with a picture of Craig, asking people if they had seen him loitering around the men's bathrooms.

And they produced nothing.

All they had was the original anonymous charge of sodomy in a bathroom at Union Station that started the eight-month investigation in the first place -- and his plea to "disorderly conduct" after an ambiguous encounter in a bathroom in Minneapolis. Even his enemies said they had never seen any inappropriate conduct by Craig.

If the charges against Craig are true -- and that is certainly in doubt -- he's a sinner (and barely that, according to The Idaho Statesman), but he is among the least hypocritical people in America.

 

>If the charges against Craig are true -- and that is
>certainly in doubt -- he's a sinner (and barely that,
>according to The Idaho Statesman), but he is among
>the least hypocritical people in America.

She's often very funny, but she wouldn't recognize a fact if it were the size of a truck and ran over her.

(actually the above likely isn't true either as I consider her an entertainer and her shtick it really just an act.)

JB

 

She does have a point about how democrats are running around screaming "hypocrisy" when they are the ones who think homo sex is just fine, except when republicans do it. Then it is perverted. Kind of like the way rappers can say anything they want and it's ok, but Don Imus gets canned.

I guarantee you if it had been Barney Frank who was arrested, there would have been an outcry in the media about homosexuals being targeted by police.