HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Contempt motion dropped a...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:42 PM

 

Contempt motion dropped against Ky. teenager

Source: Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- A 17-year-old Kentucky girl who defied a court order by tweeting the names of two teenagers who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting her won't face a contempt charge.

David Mejia (meh-HEE'-yah), an attorney for one of the accused boys, says the motion to hold 17-year-old Savannah Dietrich of Louisville in contempt was withdrawn Monday.

Mejia says the decision had nothing to do with public sentiment in the case, although an online petition campaign had garnered more than 62,000 signatures. He said there's no need for the motion now that Dietrich spread word about the case over the Internet.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TWITTER_TEEN_ASSAULTED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

11 replies, 2688 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply Contempt motion dropped against Ky. teenager (Original post)
Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 OP
AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #1
Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #2
ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2012 #3
1monster Jul 2012 #7
ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2012 #10
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #4
Gman Jul 2012 #5
Gothmog Jul 2012 #6
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #8
A Simple Game Jul 2012 #9
Liberal_in_LA Jul 2012 #11

Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:44 PM

1. What would have happened to her, 20 years ago?

What would have happened if this hadn't gone viral, and outrage marshalled against it?

Sad, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:47 PM

2. Yep, I don't believe that lawyer for a second...

 

When he says that the public outrage had nothing to do with the decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 06:01 PM

3. I can understand the request for a gag order

I can understand trying to cover up a crime against a 17 yr old.
I can understand it, but unless the boys were minors, in many cases, courts do protect the ID of yutes. If they were 18 or older, fuck em.

But, to seek sanctions AFTER the release of their IDs, now, someone was not thinking very hard ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:07 PM

7. Regardless, there never should have been a gag order that pertained to the victim.

Telling her that she could not talk about her experience as a victim indefensible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 08:43 AM

10. I'm with you on this

I am surprised the judge granted it initially, and very surprised the atty decided to move for sanctions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 06:09 PM

4. Good to hear.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:00 PM

6. This is good news

This contempt motion would not stand up if challenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:07 PM

8. Good

 

I could see it if the trial was still ungoing but once they were found guilty? Makes no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:42 PM

9. No sense at all. Part of the reason for publishing the names of the guilty

is deterrent for people that may want to commit the same offense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 09:17 PM

11. excellent!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread