Calhoun defendants' attorneys intend ...

Calhoun defendants' attorneys intend to prove post-prom sex acts were consensual

There are 157 comments on the Chattanooga Times Free Press story from Jul 8, 2014, titled Calhoun defendants' attorneys intend to prove post-prom sex acts were consensual. In it, Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that:

Attorneys for two Calhoun, Ga., 18-year-olds shelved talk of a plea deal the day after a grand jury indicted their clients on charges of aggravated sexual battery and said witness testimony will prove that any sexual acts their clients engaged in were consensual.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chattanooga Times Free Press.

First Prev
of 8
Next Last
Calhoun

Calhoun, GA

#1 Jul 9, 2014
Lifting these families up. They have been through so much and are not of criminal mind, so it has been beyond overwhelming for the boys and their family's. Beat me up all you want for that statement; it is a true and very fair statement. I hope the boys can clear their names. I will be the first to say I do not agree with the immoral sex life of so many of these teenagers and it has opened my eyes to the true moral decay we now live in. If anything good could possibly come out of this incident is that it created so much awareness among parents and what their kids have access to and what they can get caught up in. And I hope that it has opened the eyes of all the teenagers in Calhoun. There are dangers in practicing this kind of lifestyle as well sexting. Pictures are forever, even if they have been deleted for a year. Even your snapchats are forever, please always read the fine print, it means something. No picture, boy or girl is worth destroying your life over and putting your family through the worst hell they can imagine on earth.
SMH

Dalton, GA

#2 Jul 9, 2014
Why is this a headline? Of course they intend to say it is consensual--that I the only way out of the aggrevated sexual battery charges--it can't be plead down from 25 years and it can't be paid with a fine unlike sodomy and sexual battery charges which can be plead down to a fine or 1 year.
Calhoun

Calhoun, GA

#3 Jul 9, 2014
Does anyone notice a trend in the headlines below, all I did was copy and paste the headlines that are listed in the right bottom corner where it lists Calhoun News........notice the difference in the headline...they capitalize the beginning of every pertinent word in all other headlines (the ones with the juicy stuff in it), but then all they do when it is an article that sheds light on what the defendants are doing they only capitalize the first word. It is because they don't care to draw attention to the story. The way the media has covered this and their choice of words have definitely been enlightening in how they try to sway the public in what they want them to believe...last night I was wondering how many innocent people suffer due to inflammatory media coverage just so they can bring attention to their story.

Calhoun defendants' attorneys intend to prove p...
Dalton Woman's Death Under Investigation
Two Charged in Dalton Woman's Death
Naked Vandal Trashes Stranger's Home
Dalton Woman's Death Under Investigation
3 Calhoun Teens Charged with Aggravated Sexual ...
Police: Suspects Offered To Help Runaway Child ...
Naked Vandal Trashes Stranger's Home
Two Charged in Dalton Woman's Death
NEW Details: Gilmer County Investigating Report...
More Calhoun News from Topix ยป
lil longer

Lubbock, TX

#4 Jul 9, 2014
All this just blows my mind. The law CLEARLY states that you can NOT consent if intoxicated. She was obviously intoxicated, there has never been any question about that. And if it was consented to, why did they need a 4th person to watch the door? IF it was consented to, I THINK (meaning my opinion) that once it got carried to the point of causing SUBSTANTIAL injury is when it became non-consented. REMEMBER all it takes is her to say stop or no. Again though, the bottom line being that she was intoxicated, and the law states can NOT consent at this point.
Thomas

Tucker, GA

#5 Jul 9, 2014
Seriously these boys know what they did was wrong, 3 boys and 1 drunk girl, consented or not is was wrong either way they knew she was drunk and completely took advantage of it. And all of you on here supporting the accused act as if this is ok and to be expected, NO IT IS NOT. They should be held accountable.
get it right

Chickamauga, GA

#6 Jul 9, 2014
Where are all these young guys from? Are they all from the Calhoun area?
Just an FYI

Cumming, GA

#7 Jul 9, 2014
lil longer wrote:
All this just blows my mind. The law CLEARLY states that you can NOT consent if intoxicated. She was obviously intoxicated, there has never been any question about that. And if it was consented to, why did they need a 4th person to watch the door? IF it was consented to, I THINK (meaning my opinion) that once it got carried to the point of causing SUBSTANTIAL injury is when it became non-consented. REMEMBER all it takes is her to say stop or no. Again though, the bottom line being that she was intoxicated, and the law states can NOT consent at this point.
I agree which is why I think they are proceeding with the charges. The 4th person is problematic for their story if they were indeed a look out. I believe that is rumor. Not that the person was in the room but that he/she was acting as a lookout. I remember the Sheriff saying that said witness provided valuable information that helped lead to their initial arrests. My impression is that a deal may have been made not to press charges for failure to report a crime or any other charges that could stem from being a witness to the alleged crime in return for his testimony. Even if all he confirmed was that he believed her to be intoxicated and didn't realize that the law states she can no longer consent. Again I don't know this to be the case but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. The person rumored to be the 4th lawyered up pretty fast and the attorney was quick to speak out on his only being a suspect etc. his college had also put out a statement that they are monitoring this case and any developments. He has motivation to cooperate.

I assume the prosecution will say she had been lured because of her intoxication. Thats pretty much a done deal if jurors follow the letter of the law exactly. We shall see. Consent is always very hard to prove depending on individual state laws. GA's are pretty straight forward. I think these boys may have crossed the line but if found guilty I think they will have fallen victim to not knowing the laws and their poor judgement of right and wrong landed them in this mess. I do not think, in their minds, that they thought they were breaking the law initially. I do think one kid took things to far and had he not they might not be in this mess. Doesn't mean they didn't break the law just saying I don't think they planned this out.
Just an FYI

Cumming, GA

#8 Jul 9, 2014
Thomas wrote:
Seriously these boys know what they did was wrong, 3 boys and 1 drunk girl, consented or not is was wrong either way they knew she was drunk and completely took advantage of it. And all of you on here supporting the accused act as if this is ok and to be expected, NO IT IS NOT. They should be held accountable.


Yes and if a few witnesses testify that she couldn't have driven home or showed any signs of drunkenness ( slurring, delayed movement, vomiting, trouble walking) that is more than enough so meet the GA non consent due to intoxication statue. This is why, despite what impression they were under, they may very well be convicted. Doesn't matter if she said yes/no/maybe or if others assumed she consented nor anything in her past. I think this will be the focus of the trial. Especially mixed with the medical reports and if she still happened to have alcohol in her system at the hospital (speculation). Not sure what time this all went down and how long after she went to the ER
Outside lookin in

La Fayette, GA

#9 Jul 9, 2014
Just an FYI wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree which is why I think they are proceeding with the charges. The 4th person is problematic for their story if they were indeed a look out. I believe that is rumor. Not that the person was in the room but that he/she was acting as a lookout. I remember the Sheriff saying that said witness provided valuable information that helped lead to their initial arrests. My impression is that a deal may have been made not to press charges for failure to report a crime or any other charges that could stem from being a witness to the alleged crime in return for his testimony. Even if all he confirmed was that he believed her to be intoxicated and didn't realize that the law states she can no longer consent. Again I don't know this to be the case but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. The person rumored to be the 4th lawyered up pretty fast and the attorney was quick to speak out on his only being a suspect etc. his college had also put out a statement that they are monitoring this case and any developments. He has motivation to cooperate.
I assume the prosecution will say she had been lured because of her intoxication. Thats pretty much a done deal if jurors follow the letter of the law exactly. We shall see. Consent is always very hard to prove depending on individual state laws. GA's are pretty straight forward. I think these boys may have crossed the line but if found guilty I think they will have fallen victim to not knowing the laws and their poor judgement of right and wrong landed them in this mess. I do not think, in their minds, that they thought they were breaking the law initially. I do think one kid took things to far and had he not they might not be in this mess. Doesn't mean they didn't break the law just saying I don't think they planned this out.
Just playing devil's advocate--- what if his purpose as look out was to let the guys know if their dates were coming because the girls didn't want them to participate not that he was barricading the door from rescuers? There are so many ways this could go that we will not know until the participants start talking in court.
Just an FYI

Cumming, GA

#10 Jul 9, 2014
Outside lookin in wrote:
<quoted text>
Just playing devil's advocate--- what if his purpose as look out was to let the guys know if their dates were coming because the girls didn't want them to participate not that he was barricading the door from rescuers? There are so many ways this could go that we will not know until the participants start talking in court.
I though of this also actually. I'm not sure that would help the perception of their character if this is the case. Also isn't relevant to consent.
Calhoun

Tucker, GA

#11 Jul 9, 2014
I'm curious why she cannot consent if she was intoxicated and why that same does not apply to the boys being intoxicated? I know they did the acts but they too were impaired? Curious if anyone has read the law in reverse?
Outside lookin in

La Fayette, GA

#12 Jul 9, 2014
Calhoun wrote:
I'm curious why she cannot consent if she was intoxicated and why that same does not apply to the boys being intoxicated? I know they did the acts but they too were impaired? Curious if anyone has read the law in reverse?
I wondered the same. What if impared she said yes and impared, they heard yes. Whose impairment trumps the other. They would not be able to make a good decision either.
Common Sense

Tucker, GA

#13 Jul 9, 2014
What if the 4th person was going to participate in the sexual activity and then decided not to when it was his turn. What if the 4th person says she wanted me to but I didn't . What if the 4th person says they did all of this and when she got hurt during the sexual encounter , that she said stop and they did but the victim was already hurt . Hmmmm ...... I guess we will find out at the trial .
Just an FYI

Cumming, GA

#14 Jul 9, 2014
Calhoun wrote:
I'm curious why she cannot consent if she was intoxicated and why that same does not apply to the boys being intoxicated? I know they did the acts but they too were impaired? Curious if anyone has read the law in reverse?
While its possible for intoxicated people to realistically consent and this happens probably everyday, the written law says otherwise. I think it will come down to her not just "consuming alcohol" but displaying any signs of intoxication

" If a woman is rendered insensible at the time of the attack by sleep, intoxication, or mental incompetence, the law considers her incapable of consent and its absence need not be shown"

According to GA law- Intoxication is not valid defense ;

(c) Voluntary intoxication shall not be an excuse for any criminal act or omission.
Just an FYI

Cumming, GA

#15 Jul 9, 2014
Outside lookin in wrote:
<quoted text>
I wondered the same. What if impared she said yes and impared, they heard yes. Whose impairment trumps the other. They would not be able to make a good decision either.
Hers does as the law is currently written. While unfair in some cases of falsely accused it probably protects more than it hurts in a long run. I don't think the intoxication makes it an open shut case though. It will probably depend on if there was proof that they could "reasonable" conclude she was intoxicated. So if other party attendees gave statements to police that they could tell she was wasted for example the court would instruct jurors to apply their reason to boys knowledge. Its still dicey for sure.
Calhoun

Calhoun, GA

#16 Jul 9, 2014
Thomas wrote:
Seriously these boys know what they did was wrong, 3 boys and 1 drunk girl, consented or not is was wrong either way they knew she was drunk and completely took advantage of it. And all of you on here supporting the accused act as if this is ok and to be expected, NO IT IS NOT. They should be held accountable.
They were drunk too, according to the sheriff's statement all were intoxicated except maybe 2 people in attendance.
Just an FYI

Cumming, GA

#17 Jul 9, 2014
Common Sense wrote:
What if the 4th person was going to participate in the sexual activity and then decided not to when it was his turn. What if the 4th person says she wanted me to but I didn't . What if the 4th person says they did all of this and when she got hurt during the sexual encounter , that she said stop and they did but the victim was already hurt . Hmmmm ...... I guess we will find out at the trial .
You sure do love to show their defenses hand but I'll bite. I guess it will depend on her level of intoxication as to if the consent could have been accepted by a reasonable person meaning "they didn't know she was drunk". If they did, as the law is written consent wasn't technically given.

The sheriff said 4th gave them valuable information that they were able to use towards the initial arrests so if he said he changed his mind because she seemed to drunk then that's could be problematic.

It will be interesting to see what happens. You could have a victim who didn't want to tell her parents how she got hurt and upset someone she didn't even like ( that according to you the others "let join in" )hurt her and you can also have boys scared out of their minds and covering for each other while trying to justify their choices. Hopefully there will be enough evidence that truth prevails.
Outside lookin in

La Fayette, GA

#18 Jul 9, 2014
Just an FYI wrote:
<quoted text>
Hers does as the law is currently written. While unfair in some cases of falsely accused it probably protects more than it hurts in a long run. I don't think the intoxication makes it an open shut case though. It will probably depend on if there was proof that they could "reasonable" conclude she was intoxicated. So if other party attendees gave statements to police that they could tell she was wasted for example the court would instruct jurors to apply their reason to boys knowledge. Its still dicey for sure.
I know there have been a few times when I was the only person not wasted in a room (I was pregnant). Put yourself in that position and you will realize real quick everyone else are idiots when drunk. You are the only reasonable one. Everyone makes bad decisions when drunk, male and female. I just wonder if (saying she said yes while drunk), why can she hide behind, "I'm drunk," and not the others because no one makes good decisions while drunk? It just doesn't seem right. Could the boys say, I was more drunk than her and she took advantage of it?
Common Sense

Tucker, GA

#19 Jul 9, 2014
Just an FYI wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure do love to show their defenses hand but I'll bite. I guess it will depend on her level of intoxication as to if the consent could have been accepted by a reasonable person meaning "they didn't know she was drunk". If they did, as the law is written consent wasn't technically given.
The sheriff said 4th gave them valuable information that they were able to use towards the initial arrests so if he said he changed his mind because she seemed to drunk then that's could be problematic.
It will be interesting to see what happens. You could have a victim who didn't want to tell her parents how she got hurt and upset someone she didn't even like ( that according to you the others "let join in" )hurt her and you can also have boys scared out of their minds and covering for each other while trying to justify their choices. Hopefully there will be enough evidence that truth prevails.
First of all I could careless about their defense . I am in no way associated with them or the victim . I am stating obvious things that any normal defense attorney would look at . The problem with some is they just want to be one sided and want justice so bad they cannot fathom the fact these guys very well may have a defense and not be found guilty . I have know inside knowledge just years of case watching .

Also you might want to go back and re watch the press conference the sheriff said he interviewed someone that gave pertinent info about the case , he did not say it was the 4 th person in the room . He was very reluctant to even tell us there was a 4th person in the room . But you are absolutely right a lot of it will depend on how intoxicated she was .
Concerned GA

Concord, NC

#20 Jul 9, 2014
Hey Outside Looking in

You said, "What if his purpose as look out was to let the guys know if their dates were coming because the girls didn't want them to participate not that he was barricading the door from rescuers?"

What if their dates really did know what they were doing?

What if the 4th person everybody's talking so much about was a girl and not a 4th guy?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Calhoun Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News American pandas have culture shock in China 9 hr Enzo49 3
Review: RS Andrews Company 10 hr ThomaA 6
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 11 hr Dudley 20,710
News Preparing for White House, Trump to attend Army... 14 hr Electors-Trumpwan... 1
Trump's No Racist Fri Mike P 2
News Thieves steal donated Christmas toys meant for ... Fri Tolermans crime t... 3
Papa John's Pizza FOOD POISONING! Not using nat... Fri Tolerman 12

Calhoun Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Calhoun Mortgages