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

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
35,000
They only need the masseuses’ testimony, no? I assume they’ll get that in exchange for immunity, which Kraft’s team will use to impeach her, but still should be effective.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
3,757
They only need the masseuses’ testimony, no? I assume they’ll get that in exchange for immunity, which Kraft’s team will use to impeach her, but still should be effective.
If the video is out for the masseuse as well, what do they have for a charge on her?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,012
AZ
I think the state pretty much has to appeal, since this ruling would presumably affect many defendants. Unless they all pled I guess.

They only need the masseuses’ testimony, no? I assume they’ll get that in exchange for immunity, which Kraft’s team will use to impeach her, but still should be effective.
Is there any motion that Kraft can make now, arguing that the jury pool is hopelessly tainted given that the prosecutor chose to go to the press talking up a tape that now has been ruled inadmissible?

Lots of these juror pool arguments are kind of a stretch, but this actually seems to have merit. How are you going to find 12 people where at least a few of them are not going to bring the existence of the tape that they are not allowed to see, into the jury room. I'm sure some jurors will lie in voir dire, but a he-said/she-said trial where there has been extensive press coverage of a video that supposedly confirms one side of the story for a famous defendant, but the video itself is inadmissible, seems like a pretty tilted trial.

For a danger of unfair prejudice this specific, I can't imagine a general "don't speculate based on things you've heard in the press" instruction is good enough. And certainly, you can't give a more specific instruction: "You may have heard of a video tape showing the defendant engaged in illegal acts, but there is no such videotape in evidence and you are not speculate about what such a video might or might now show if it did or didn't exist."
 
Last edited:

RetractableRoof

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,233
Quincy, MA
And further, the Kraft attorneys would like it on the record that the video that does or doesn't exist definitely does not show activities with the region encompassing his buttocks.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
8,497
guam
I think the state pretty much has to appeal, since this ruling would presumably affect many defendants. Unless they all pled I guess.

Is there any motion that Kraft can make now, arguing that the jury pool is hopelessly tainted given that the prosecutor chose to go to the press talking up a tape that now has been ruled inadmissible?

Lots of these juror pool arguments are kind of a stretch, but this actually seems to have merit. How are you going to find 12 people where at least a few of them are not going to bring the existence of the tape that they are not allowed to see, into the jury room. I'm sure some jurors will lie in voir dire, but a he-said/she-said trial where there has been extensive press coverage of a video that supposedly confirms one side of the story for a famous defendant, but the video itself is inadmissible, seems like a pretty tilted trial.

For a danger of unfair prejudice this specific, I can't imagine a general "don't speculate based on things you've heard in the press" instruction is good enough. And certainly, you can't give a more specific instruction: "You may have heard of a video tape showing the defendant engaged in illegal acts, but there is no such videotape in evidence and you are not speculate about what such a video might or might now show if it did or didn't exist."
I’m a Patriots fan and have been paying pretty much no attention to this before sadly opening this thread today. I could easily qualify. You think you can’t find 12 random people in Florida who don’t give a fuck about the Patriots owner and haven’t been paying any attention to all this?
 

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
34,108
I’m a Patriots fan and have been paying pretty much no attention to this before sadly opening this thread today. I could easily qualify. You think you can’t find 12 random people in Florida who don’t give a fuck about the Patriots owner and haven’t been paying any attention to all this?
Problem is, you do not have to be a patriots fan or even a sports fan to be aware of this news...You do not even need to be actively Seeking out news on this story.

do you want to guess NBC nightly news lead story tonight?

Trump? No

Storms? No
CHINA? NO
Pilot arrested for a triple murder while in the cockpit?


Kraft? DING DING! YUP!

 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
14,142
Wouldn't be surprised if this follows the same script as the Michael Bennett HOU case. Just constantly delayed until the DA thinks everyone has forgotten then dumped on a Friday afternoon.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
8,497
guam
Problem is, you do not have to be a patriots fan or even a sports fan to be aware of this news...You do not even need to be actively Seeking out news on this story.

do you want to guess NBC nightly news lead story tonight?

Trump? No

Storms? No
CHINA? NO
Pilot arrested for a triple murder while in the cockpit?


Kraft? DING DING! YUP!

They found a jury for OJ. (And who watches the NBC evening news?)
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
11,191
New York City
Kraft looks smart for hiring some good lawyers and fighting this.
Not so much. He spent a half million bucks and had the story in the papers for weeks and everybody who cares at all knows there absolutely is a video of him paying for sex acts but great, he doesn't have to pay a $1000 fine and take a course.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
4,774
Not so much. He spent a half million bucks and had the story in the papers for weeks and everybody who cares at all knows there absolutely is a video of him paying for sex acts but great, he doesn't have to pay a $1000 fine and take a course.
Presumably avoids punishment and a public shaming from the NFL.
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
13,780
<null>
Presumably avoids punishment and a public shaming from the NFL.
Which is weird, because the admissibility of evidence in court is not the standard by which NFL players are suspended.

I think preventing the release of the video is really the win, here. If he had pled, the video would have been released because of the Sunshine laws, right?
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
11,191
New York City
Presumably avoids punishment and a public shaming from the NFL.
NFL can do whatever. Perhaps it changes the odds of the NFL doing something but getting a lot of publicity probably increases rather than decreases the chance of league punishment.

Jnai has a good point but I'm not sure if it changes the odds of the video being released.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,012
AZ
I am not sure this ruling blocks release of the video. Its release was held up by concerns of tainting the jury pool I believe. If the case gets dismissed that concern goes away.
 

drleather2001

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,342
Florida law only exempts from public inspection those law enforcement records that relate to an active investigation (barring, again, some other exception). So this doesn't impact the public's ability to access the information once the case is closed.

Advisory Opinion from FL AG.

Relative to the issue of active or inactive files, it is only active criminal intelligence or investigative information--as defined and delimited by the provisions of s. 119.011(3), F. S.--which is exempt from the Public Records Law;
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,012
AZ
It seems like bullshit, though. I wonder if any of the innocents on the tape would have some sort of civil claim. Basically, they were captured pursuant to an unconstitutional warrant, doing private things, that the State is now claiming that it has no choice but to reveal to the public under sunshine laws.

I'm sure there's immunity or some statutory protection, but looked at from the perspective of the innocent person wrongfully captured pursuant to an unconstitutional warrant, it seems like a problem.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Sep 27, 2016
7,488
Is there some discretion about the means of disclosure? i.e., if it can only be viewed at the local DA's office, with an appointment and accompaniment, with no recording or copying or notes allowed, then it's "public" in the sense that it's not a secret, but there's no practical means of further invading any innocents' privacy or compounding the policing mistake. It just seems that there are lots of middle roads between "all copies burned, let us never speak of this again" vs "upload it on youtube!".
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
7,986
Washington, DC
They found a jury for OJ. (And who watches the NBC evening news?)
Yeah, my wife has zero clue about this story, and still knows nothing about who Robert Kraft is. Outside of sports and SoSH, most of my news sources have not even mentioned this story. Easy enough to find people ignorant of the story.

There is very little that you can assume is universally known. I met someone who didn't know about Game of Thrones the other day - I don't mean "I don't watch the show" , I mean "can you tell me what Game of Thrones is?".
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
24,983
Yeah, my wife has zero clue about this story, and still knows nothing about who Robert Kraft is. Outside of sports and SoSH, most of my news sources have not even mentioned this story. Easy enough to find people ignorant of the story.

There is very little that you can assume is universally known. I met someone who didn't know about Game of Thrones the other day - I don't mean "I don't watch the show" , I mean "can you tell me what Game of Thrones is?".
There were folks on the jury for the USFL v. NFL suit who had never heard of the NFL.
 

drleather2001

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,342
It seems like bullshit, though. I wonder if any of the innocents on the tape would have some sort of civil claim. Basically, they were captured pursuant to an unconstitutional warrant, doing private things, that the State is now claiming that it has no choice but to reveal to the public under sunshine laws.

I'm sure there's immunity or some statutory protection, but looked at from the perspective of the innocent person wrongfully captured pursuant to an unconstitutional warrant, it seems like a problem.
Again:

1) There are almost always provisions in sunshine laws to protect innocent witnesses/victims if the agency *reasonably* believes their ID should be protected for their safety. Now, it's possible that FL has a provision that protects victims of sexual trafficking, but it's still an open question whether the "masseuses" are such victims or simply engaged in uncoerced prostitution. If it's the latter, I'm not sure why they warrant protection from public disclosure laws. "That's embarrassing" is not enough, and would give law enforcement all the authorization it needs to withhold 99.9% of would-be public documents from ever seeing the light of day. That would be bad.

2) The proper recourse here for anyone suffering damages as a result of the improper collection and resulting release of video would be to sue the police department.
 
Last edited:

RetractableRoof

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,233
Quincy, MA
Again:
2) The proper recourse here for anyone suffering damages as a result of the improper collection and resulting release of video would be to sue the police department.
Legality and fairness aren't in lockstep here. Knowing potential damages are inevitable to the actual innocents is reason enough to prevent the release in some fashion.
 

drleather2001

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,342
Legality and fairness aren't in lockstep here. Knowing potential damages are inevitable to the actual innocents is reason enough to prevent the release in some fashion.
What damages? What innocents?

What are you talking about? Give specifics. Because if there is recognizable damages, then yes, the identity can be withheld. But "This is so embarrassing" is not, per se, "damages". And that goes double when we are talking about people who are in the process of breaking the law in the video.

Law enforcement does not, and should not, have discretion to limit public availability of information that reveal the extent of its own fuckups. Otherwise you're enabling the PDs that scratch and claw for a way to keep body and squad cam video of a shooting or assault by a Police Officer under wraps. "We are opting to withhold the video of the assault because it will be hurtful to the victim's family, and besides, we really shouldn't have this in the first place because it was all a big mistake. We're really trying to look out for the victim here, swear."

Having the ability to hold law enforcement accountable is far more important than saving a few people some embarrassment or agita.
 
Last edited:

RetractableRoof

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,233
Quincy, MA
What damages? What innocents?

What are you talking about? Give specifics. Because if there is recognizable damages, then yes, the identity can be withheld. But "This is so embarrassing" is not, per se, "damages". And that goes double when we are talking about people who are in the process of breaking the law in the video.

Law enforcement does not, and should not, have discretion to limit public availability of information that reveal the extent of its own fuckups. Otherwise you're enabling the PDs that scratch and claw for a way to keep body and squad cam video of a shooting or assault by a Police Officer under wraps. "We are opting to withhold the video of the assault because it will be hurtful to the victim's family, and besides, we really shouldn't have this in the first place because it was all a big mistake. We're really trying to look out for the victim here, swear."

Having the ability to hold law enforcement accountable is far more important than saving a few people some embarrassment or agita.
There were citizens filmed in the act of disrobing, redressing, and receiving 100% legal above board massages during this investigation. I think it is fair to term them "actual innocents". I fail to see why their expectation of privacy in a private venue should be violated and/or video allowed to be disseminated as 'work product of a police investigation'. As such, I don't agree that they should be sacrificed to the gods of "law enforcement accountability". I'd not want it for myself, nor anyone I know. Your statement was that there are "almost always provisions" in the law to protect innocents if the agency "*reasonably" believes they should be protected for their safety - so we can't trust the agency so we must endure embarrassments - unless the agency we can't trust decides we have a reasonable safety issue. Seems mighty circular. And clearly, being embarrassed is not a safety issue, so just let the video be put on youtube.

Otherwise, it isn't much of a step that video gathered in a restroom in an attempt to catch a shoplifting ring could be made public under those same laws. And you can't say that wouldn't happen - because they used elements of the Patriot act to get the warrant they did get, it could be inappropriately stretched the same way in this hypothetical. But hey - anything to catch a bad cop is fair game - sorry everyone in town got to see you drop your drawers and how effectively you wash your hands after.

Note: It is my understanding that ALL video gathered by LE personnel in this case is subject to being made available to the public - even that concerning persons who committed no crimes in the establishments being investigated. If I'm incorrect in this understanding, I'm happy to be corrected - as long as it's done in a civil fashion. Your response is coming across pretty strongly in a football thread - maybe save the intensity for V&N?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,012
AZ
Again:

1) There are almost always provisions in sunshine laws to protect innocent witnesses/victims if the agency *reasonably* believes their ID should be protected for their safety. Now, it's possible that FL has a provision that protects victims of sexual trafficking, but it's still an open question whether the "masseuses" are such victims or simply engaged in uncoerced prostitution. If it's the latter, I'm not sure why they warrant protection from public disclosure laws. "That's embarrassing" is not enough, and would give law enforcement all the authorization it needs to withhold 99.9% of would-be public documents from ever seeing the light of day. That would be bad.

2) The proper recourse here for anyone suffering damages as a result of the improper collection and resulting release of video would be to sue the police department.
I think we're talking past each other.

A sneak and peek warrant that does not minimize intrusion is unconstitutional because it constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It seems perverse to say that such an invasion of privacy then must be made public under state law. This is most apparent from the perspective of a person who was naked in the massage parlor and who did nothing wrong and who is now in public records solely because of the unconstitutional activities of state officials who did not adequately take their privacy into account.

Who is saying anything about giving law enforcement the power to block what is revealed under public records laws? I would, were I writing the law, give those whose privacy would be violated by public disclosure the right to see to enjoin the disclosure, especially if the only reason the information is in the public record is because of illegal state conduct.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
11,191
New York City
I think we're talking past each other.

A sneak and peek warrant that does not minimize intrusion is unconstitutional because it constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It seems perverse to say that such an invasion of privacy then must be made public under state law. This is most apparent from the perspective of a person who was naked in the massage parlor and who did nothing wrong and who is now in public records solely because of the unconstitutional activities of state officials who did not adequately take their privacy into account.

Who is saying anything about giving law enforcement the power to block what is revealed under public records laws? I would, were I writing the law, give those whose privacy would be violated by public disclosure the right to see to enjoin the disclosure, especially if the only reason the information is in the public record is because of illegal state conduct.
Forget it Denny, it's Florida law.

(Seriously, shit like this is revealed under public records law in Florida all the time.)
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
21,598
Again:
2) The proper recourse here for anyone suffering damages as a result of the improper collection and resulting release of video would be to sue the police department.
I think that's one remedy, but preventing disclosure is a more logical one. If the case is dismissed, presumably the police will join a motion not to release the tape becasue they realize they do have this potential liability.

Two things that I think should be clear to all:

1. It is really beneficial to have access to high-priced lawyers with large investigatory budgets
2. The police and prosection in this case do not look good at all---from the "investigation" to the warrant to the "human trafficking" claim it basically looks like some combination of corruption and amateur hour for both.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,287
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Also pretty clear that the others busted without the Kraft budget were very fortunate to have a billionaire fighting the big issues for them.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,275
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Also pretty clear that the others busted without the Kraft budget were very fortunate to have a billionaire fighting the big issues for them.
That can work both ways, there are plenty of private defense counsel happy to let the public defenders do the heavy lifting.

Not to take anything away from Kraft's defense counsel - it was good work.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
21,598
There was a hostage situation a handful of years ago where an American and, I believe, a Dane were being held. One morning Seal Team Six showed up and took out the bad guys and brought the American and the Dane to safety. Someone interviewed the Dane and he said something along the lines of “I was very fortunate to be kidnapped with an American”

At least that’s how I remember reading the story...
 

LoweTek

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2005
1,454
Central Florida
It seems to me with all the holes in the police/state attorney's case here, it wouldn't take a billionaire's lawyer to get this tossed. The whole thing was ridiculous on it's face. Kraft ought to use his resources to sue the police once this thing is over with. There is some potential value to be had from such an action.

They can't even get the therpists to testify. Really bad, possibly illegal police work here, IMO.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,275
Miami (oh, Miami!)
It seems to me with all the holes in the police/state attorney's case here, it wouldn't take a billionaire's lawyer to get this tossed. The whole thing was ridiculous on it's face. Kraft ought to use his resources to sue the police once this thing is over with. There is some potential value to be had from such an action.

They can't even get the therpists to testify. Really bad, possibly illegal police work here, IMO.
We still doing "phrasing?"
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,317
ct
What damages? What innocents?

What are you talking about? Give specifics. Because if there is recognizable damages, then yes, the identity can be withheld. But "This is so embarrassing" is not, per se, "damages". And that goes double when we are talking about people who are in the process of breaking the law in the video.

Law enforcement does not, and should not, have discretion to limit public availability of information that reveal the extent of its own fuckups. Otherwise you're enabling the PDs that scratch and claw for a way to keep body and squad cam video of a shooting or assault by a Police Officer under wraps. "We are opting to withhold the video of the assault because it will be hurtful to the victim's family, and besides, we really shouldn't have this in the first place because it was all a big mistake. We're really trying to look out for the victim here, swear."

Having the ability to hold law enforcement accountable is far more important than saving a few people some embarrassment or agita.
In terms of "innocent" bystanders or 3rd parties being harmed by the release of the video , couldn't their bodies or faces be pixilated or otherwise made unidentifiable on the video? I remember watching the old Cops TV show as a kid and the producers on the show always managed to pixilate the faces of the bystanders in a crime scene. Why couldn't that be done in this case?
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,317
ct
So if the innocent bystanders are unidentifiable, what would claims of damages be based on? How would they be harmed?
 

drleather2001

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,342
In terms of "innocent" bystanders or 3rd parties being harmed by the release of the video , couldn't their bodies or faces be pixilated or otherwise made unidentifiable on the video? I remember watching the old Cops TV show as a kid and the producers on the show always managed to pixilate the faces of the bystanders in a crime scene. Why couldn't that be done in this case?
PDs can absolutely blur the faces of people, assuming they have the technology (it can be expensive, but larger PDs surely have it). It's used frequently.

One "trick" PDs sometimes play is that they say the video's content and context makes it impossible to adequately protect one validly-protected person's identity, even with face-blurring, so they have to withhold the whole thing. Sometimes, of course, that's a totally valid response, but not always.

You can go to youtube and find all sorts of police video. In practice, what a lot of PDs do is blur IDs (whether it's legally justified or not) and then wait for the requester to push back and ask for an un-blurred copy. 90% of the time, the requester doesn't care, but sometimes they do. When that happens, the PD (or whatever government entity) does an internal risk assessment, and at a minimum drags their heels, but more likely comes up with a dubious justification for withholding and tells the requester they need a court order to release anything more. Unless it's a news source (who are typically the only ones willing to go through the hassle of filing a motion to compel, and the only ones with the ability to broadcast, and even then only if they're willing to disregard ethical concerns), the stuff being fretted about rarely actually happens.

That's why, for all the concern about protecting innocent parties, the practical reality is that there is so much material that actually implicates public concern (e.g. police shootings, robberies, assaults), and government almost always errs on the side of over-redacting, that the "Granny in her underwear!" concerns almost never really materialize outside of a hypothetical.

Now, for the Kraft thing...maybe, because it's a big news story and lots of people have an ax to grind with him. But I'd guess that the video of the non-Kraft clients never gets shown in the public un-redacted.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,287
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
I'm pretty sure you just have to yell "Enhance!" at the computer screen a few times, and the image will resolve to incredible levels of detail...
Mission Impossible 7 is set to be released in 2021, so I bet they aren't using their computers till at least next summer. Should be able to get those cheap on loan.
 

MainerInExile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2003
4,730
Bay Area
Mission Impossible 7 is set to be released in 2021, so I bet they aren't using their computers till at least next summer. Should be able to get those cheap on loan.
"This system is encrypted with a truly random key the same length as the encrypted data! ... Okay, I'm in."