That'd be up the butt, Bob - Kraft Charged with Soliciting.

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,351
I think you're right that this fact is important to Kraft from a PR standpoint, but that doesn't really get decided in his legal case, does it? I'm not really sure how it's even relevant to his guilt or innocence.
Not at all relevant IMO. He’s not getting acquitted. But the legal risk is the smallest part of this. He has not been charged with a felony; the penalties have a low ceiling.
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
1,714
Higher penalty than Eddie Jr? Over a misdemeanor that usually has no jail time - for a person with no criminal record? GTFO
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
17,257
Newton
Between Goodell’s fragile ego, the owners’ rank jealousy of Kraft and the league’s desperation to have some kind of win for a demographic they supposedly care about, there are a lot of things that suggest the NFL will issue anything anything but a measured response.

What is more interesting to me is whether the Kraft Scandal Playbook changes. Bob Kraft is a conciliator at his core, not a zero sum game guy. This has always been his approach, and for the most part it’s been very successful for him whether in business (where he has a reputation for being effective but not a win-at-all-costs shark), in politics (where he can support people like Trump publicly but push back in private) and certainly as an owner.

Indeed, in the latter, when the integrity of his coach and QB have been attacked (in Spygate and Deflategate respectively), Kraft has put up a mild fight in public before going along with the league’s ruling and mending fences behind closed doors. In all of these instances, he's believed that trying to get along with everybody and working with people behind closed doors to heal divisions is the way you move forward.

With this, however, Kraft’s own integrity is at stake – and potentially his ownership as well. It may well be a zero sum game – and there may not be a path forward. All of which is to suggest that what’s worked for him in the past won’t here. Which may well be why he’s fighting the substance of the charges themselves.

I suspect over the next few weeks we are going to learn whether Bob Kraft has lost his fastball at 77 or found another gear.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
34,106
- I doubt the Pats are actually “reeling".
Yeah. While ownership may be "reeling" I seriously doubt that *this* is what causes the team to suddenly fall apart. I mean, my god, they have had a murderer on team, Spygate shit, Brady getting suspended, the drama with benching of Butler etc. They'll be fine.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,303
Kraft certainly intends to defend himself as far any excessive NFL discipline goes. That's the real reason he's hired the legal bigwigs.

The NY Post isn't exactly wrong; there have been a lot of questions about this raid. Kraft still likely gets hit with something in court, but it will be far less than the max sentence. As noted many times, this case will never see a jury.

With the NFL, Kraft would accept a fine and probably even a suspension. He and his lawyers will make some noise about his innocence. In the unlikely event of a loss of draft picks, there will probably be some furrowed brows and another "Florida in context" web site, but probably nothing further. But Kraft will go nuclear if the league tries to pull the franchise from him, and will be on solid ground to do so. Unlike Brady's and the NFLPA's, Kraft's legal team can go head to head with the league's, and the threat of discovery is real.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
2,208
Bow, NH
But Kraft will go nuclear if the league tries to pull the franchise from him, and will be on solid ground to do so. Unlike Brady's and the NFLPA's, Kraft's legal team can go head to head with the league's, and the threat of discovery is real.
Yeah, about that...
I know it's Kraft and the Patriots, but come on. That is ludicrous to even discuss.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,678
Kraft certainly intends to defend himself as far any excessive NFL discipline goes. That's the real reason he's hired the legal bigwigs.

The NY Post isn't exactly wrong; there have been a lot of questions about this raid. Kraft still likely gets hit with something in court, but it will be far less than the max sentence. As noted many times, this case will never see a jury.

With the NFL, Kraft would accept a fine and probably even a suspension. He and his lawyers will make some noise about his innocence. In the unlikely event of a loss of draft picks, there will probably be some furrowed brows and another "Florida in context" web site, but probably nothing further. But Kraft will go nuclear if the league tries to pull the franchise from him, and will be on solid ground to do so. Unlike Brady's and the NFLPA's, Kraft's legal team can go head to head with the league's, and the threat of discovery is real.
It wont see a jury because he requested a bench trial. He wont get the max sentence because I'd guess that not a single first-time prostitute-hirer EVER got the max sentence.

Pull the franchise? C'mon man. o_O
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,303
I was (over)reacting to a post above that quoted an article that hinted that the NFL could come down hard on Kraft. I agree that there is zero chance the NFL attempts to force Kraft out. Move along....
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,130
Yes, but her not being trafficked doesn't mean that it wasn't prostitution. He's charged with soliciting prostitution, not soliciting trafficked prostitution. If the prosecutor claims in court that she was trafficked, then proving she wasn't trafficked is a valid defense. If not, it's kind of weird to bring up, no?
Of course you’re correct, but whether they were trafficked seemed to many to have relevance to the outcome from a Shield perspective. If you read through the thread there’s a fair amount of thought that:

1) these women were obviously trafficked;
2) Kraft had to know they were trafficked;
3) his actions (if not the literal crime) were worse because the women were trafficked and he had to know this;
4) because this wasn’t a simple sex for money case but a human trafficking case there was going to be a much stronger reaction from the NFL.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,649
Waltham, MA
Of course you’re correct, but whether they were trafficked seemed to many to have relevance to the outcome from a Shield perspective. If you read through the thread there’s a fair amount of thought that:

1) these women were obviously trafficked;
2) Kraft had to know they were trafficked;
3) his actions (if not the literal crime) were worse because the women were trafficked and he had to know this;
4) because this wasn’t a simple sex for money case but a human trafficking case there was going to be a much stronger reaction from the NFL.
Yeah, I’m not disputing that. But how does the trafficking / not trafficking come up in court if the prosecutor doesn’t make that accusation as part of the narrative against Kraft? Seems like a very awkward defense. That’s my point. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
27,385
South Boston
He’s saying that it’s a defense w/r/t the league, not a legal defense against a solicitation charge.

Things don’t look as bad for Kraft, generally, if the woman he got a blowjob from was not a sex-slave, correct?

Edit: Lots of negatives. He’d look worse if he got a blowjob from a sex slave, right?
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,649
Waltham, MA
He’s saying that it’s a defense w/r/t the league, not a legal defense against a solicitation charge.

Things don’t look as bad for Kraft, generally, if the woman he got a blowjob from was not a sex-slave, correct?

Edit: Lots of negatives. He’d look worse if he got a blowjob from a sex slave, right?
Okay. I thought this whole sub-thread started with someone saying Kraft has incentive to play this out legally, and then it morphed to where we are now. Hence the confusion :)
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
27,385
South Boston
No problem. “The Shield” was sort of a slightly oblique reference that was his signal that he was talking about a different forum.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,649
Waltham, MA
Yes, that part was obvious.

On a related note, I agree with the majority here that they won't try to push Kraft out of ownership. However, I do think we need to be mindful that our track record on this sort of prognostication is pretty terrible. The overwhelming consensus here was that the Wells Report was going to exonerate Brady. Of course it was because science. That was after 4 Lombardi Trophies. We now sit at 6. Enough is enough, amirite?

Let's not underestimate the league's disdain (jealousy) of the Patriots. I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that at least 9 of 10 owners have paid for a hand job or more within the past year. But that doesn't matter. They smell blood in the water. They might not take his team away from him, but the punishment is going to be severe unless he somehow clears his name.
 

LoweTek

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2005
1,457
Central Florida
So what if the primary basis for the granting of the warrant to place the cameras was suspicion of trafficking and it turns out there was no trafficking? If the only evidence used to obtain the warrant was a trafficking investigation based on a suspicious Health Department inspector leaping to the conclusion when women reside in the spa they are doing so because they are prisoners when the usual case is because they want to save rent money?

Warrant gets tossed, ergo no evidence, therefore a dismissal.

There have been many busts around here over the years of Asian and other operations providing similar services. They have always been the result of undercover work. If law enforcement could obtain a video surveillance warrant purely for solicitation based on a few weak traffic stop confessions, they would have done it by now and frequently. I'm guessing surveillance warrants for misdemeanors aren't usually granted.

Bets on all of this getting thrown out when the warrant is declared invalid for purposes of solicitation charges because it was obtained based on the non-existent trafficking probable cause?
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
27,385
South Boston
So what if the primary basis for the granting of the warrant to place the cameras was suspicion of trafficking and it turns out there was no trafficking? If the only evidence used to obtain the warrant was a trafficking investigation based on a suspicious Health Department inspector leaping to the conclusion when women reside in the spa they are doing so because they are prisoners when the usual case is because they want to save rent money?

Warrant gets tossed, ergo no evidence, therefore a dismissal.
That’s generally not how this works. Either the evidence was sufficient for the warrant or not, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the search.

There have been many busts around here over the years of Asian and other operations providing similar services. They have always been the result of undercover work. If law enforcement could obtain a video surveillance warrant purely for solicitation based on a few weak traffic stop confessions, they would have done it by now and frequently. I'm guessing surveillance warrants for misdemeanors aren't usually granted.

Bets on all of this getting thrown out when the warrant is declared invalid for purposes of solicitation charges because it was obtained based on the non-existent trafficking probable cause?
$50 to the Jimmy Fund?
 
Last edited:

axx

lurker
Jul 16, 2005
6,092
Bets on all of this getting thrown out when the warrant is declared invalid for purposes of solicitation charges because it was obtained based on the non-existent trafficking probable cause?
IIRC they got evidence of prostitution before the warrant by dumpster diving. Soiled napkins and towels and such.
 

axx

lurker
Jul 16, 2005
6,092
That's evidence of sex and/or masturbation, not prostitution.
True. But they dumpster dove because (IIRC) they saw a Spa staff member throw it out. And you are not using it as evidence of a crime; just as part of the argument to get the warrant.

The big benefit of using video as opposed to undercover is that it avoids any entrapment claims, I would think.
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
13,780
<null>
So what if the primary basis for the granting of the warrant to place the cameras was suspicion of trafficking and it turns out there was no trafficking? If the only evidence used to obtain the warrant was a trafficking investigation based on a suspicious Health Department inspector leaping to the conclusion when women reside in the spa they are doing so because they are prisoners when the usual case is because they want to save rent money?

Warrant gets tossed, ergo no evidence, therefore a dismissal.

There have been many busts around here over the years of Asian and other operations providing similar services. They have always been the result of undercover work. If law enforcement could obtain a video surveillance warrant purely for solicitation based on a few weak traffic stop confessions, they would have done it by now and frequently. I'm guessing surveillance warrants for misdemeanors aren't usually granted.

Bets on all of this getting thrown out when the warrant is declared invalid for purposes of solicitation charges because it was obtained based on the non-existent trafficking probable cause?
I have no idea if you're a lawyer, so if this is pedantic and shitty, I apologize, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Leon

More or less, if the police go and get a warrant, and search on that warrant, it doesn't matter if it was all a big misunderstanding at the top. In Leon, the warrant was later found to be invalid. Didn't matter.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,629
Portsmouth, NH
I’m not a lawyer nor am I any kind of legal expertise but my understating was always that they present ‘sufficient evidence’ to a judge to get a warrant and then after that it’s fair game if approved. But there’s plenty of people here to correct me, simply going off what I’ve heard from lawyer/Leo friends.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Sep 27, 2016
7,590
That’s generally not how this works. Either the evidence was sufficient for the warrant or not, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the search.



$50 to the Jimmy Fund?
You're betting against a guy whose knowledge of procedure appears to derive chiefly from Law and Order. It's not even sporting.
 

splendid splinter

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
957
Greenville, SC

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,285
Miami (oh, Miami!)
There was an article in the NY Post speculating that Kraft’s attorneys might argue that the video evidence should be thrown out because the police had other evidence with which to make their case, and the surveillance was an unnecessary violation of his privacy. What do the resident attorneys think of that line of defense?

https://nypost.com/2019/02/28/how-patriots-owner-robert-kraft-could-get-off-in-prostitution-case/
Not much.

Look, either the video is suppressible or it's not. If it's not suppressed, it's coming in. Even if Kraft wanted to stipulate to everything on the video, the prosecution still has the option of submitting the evidence they think is best to the jury.

The main grounds for suppression are usually that the police lied (or illegally gathered information) to obtain the warrant. The analysis of that is moderately complex and fact intensive. But to cut to the chase, it appears that there was prostitution happening at the spa.
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
There was an article in the NY Post speculating that Kraft’s attorneys might argue that the video evidence should be thrown out because the police had other evidence with which to make their case, and the surveillance was an unnecessary violation of his privacy. What do the resident attorneys think of that line of defense?

https://nypost.com/2019/02/28/how-patriots-owner-robert-kraft-could-get-off-in-prostitution-case/
I agree with @PedroKsBambino and @Rovin Romine here.

There’s a world of difference between evidence that’s seized pursuant to a search warrant and evidence that’s seized without a warrant. 99% of the cases that you read about where evidence is excluded involve a warrantless search. Evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant is excludable only in very narrow circumstances, usually involving bad faith on the part of the police.