09/24/2007
Airport Prosecutor Slams Larry Craig in Lengthy Brief
In a 41-page brief filed today, an attorney for the Metropolitan Airports Commission says that Idaho Senator Larry Craig should not be able to withdraw his guilty plea "because the basis for his request is not injustice but rather his 'displeasure at the outcome'," according to the Pioneer Press.
The prosecutor, Christopher Renz, writes that Craig had more than enough time between his arrest on June 11 and August 1st, when the plea petition was signed, to think about what a guilty plea might mean for him.
The AP reports: "'Denying Craig's motion "prevents further politicking and game playing on the part of the defendant in relation to his plea,' Renz wrote. Renz wrote that Craig didn't decide to withdraw his plea until after he was hurt by the publicity of the allegations. Craig clearly 'had hoped that he could plead guilty and that the plea would not be discovered by the media or public,' Renz wrote. 'The defendant chose to plead guilty and consciously took that risk. The defendant's current pursuit of withdrawal of his guilty plea is reactionary, calculated and political.' Renz warned of a 'deluge' of defendants who would ask to withdraw guilty pleas if Craig succeeds. The prosecutor said his office was contacted by a defendant trying to withdraw his plea after Craig announced that he regretted pleading guilty."
Renz also blasted Craig's version of events in the bathroom stall: "'The defendant's explanation for his hand being down underneath the stall divider - that he was picking up a piece of toilet paper in a heavily trafficked public restroom - stretches the bounds of credibility, particularly considering: the hand observed underneath the divider was palm up,' and it was Craig's left hand, reaching over to his right side, the memorandum said. And Karsnia 'observed no paper on the ground.'"
Larry Craig is scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday.
Prosecutor: Idaho Senator 'stretches the bounds of credibility' [pioneer press]
Prosecutor: Craig is 'politicking' [ap]
Posted 6:19 PM EST by Andy Towle in Crime, Idaho, Larry Craig, Minneapolis, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
THROW THE FUCKING BOOK AT HIM!!!!!!!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Sep 24, 2007 6:42:27 PM
Christopher Renz has a very interesting report.
ummm... can he PROVE any of it?
Posted by: James P. | Sep 24, 2007 6:46:16 PM
I am so glad he is fighting this, you can't by better press. The Moral Majority are going to be sitting on their hands come Nov.
Posted by: patrick nyc | Sep 24, 2007 6:48:19 PM
Throw the fucking book at him for what? What law did he break? I think he's scum but he was entrapped. It is not illegal to make a pass at someone--even in a public restroom. He didn't have sex with anyone in that restroom and he didn't expose himself.
Posted by: DB | Sep 24, 2007 7:03:53 PM
Seems like the prosecutor has a weak case to me. Hand jive under a bathroom stall divider? This is a crime? Weird and maybe some code for sex eventually, but at that stage of the game, a crime? Me thinks not.
Posted by: Vi Agara | Sep 24, 2007 7:05:40 PM
@vi
This is not a trial on whether he is guilty or not. He plead guilty. Its done. There will be no trial. This case is about having that plea revoked. Which is extremely difficult in this state. The prosecutor has a great case and will win it.
If he plead innocent at the time of his arrest - the only charge (of the two) that he is even remotely guilty of is the invasion of privacy. As for the second charge of disorderly conduct - based on his actions any gay man who has entered a bar would be guilty of that.
(btw - here is the arrest report: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html)
Posted by: yoshi | Sep 24, 2007 7:24:51 PM
Yoshi, I've gone back and forth on this, but you're absolutely right. As much as he was entrapped, he also plead guilty. He deserves the scorn being heaped upon him.
Posted by: Tread | Sep 24, 2007 9:44:08 PM
Scorn, absolutely. But not a conviction.
The fact that he pleaded guilty already is of legal significance only, in the sense that the justice system is a bureaucracy and has little patience for people who change their mind about their guilt. From an ethical or moral standpoint, his previous plea is totally irrelevant. It doesn't make him actually guilty of anything. Nothing he says will change the truth.
If we acknowledge that he didn't actually do anything, then why does he "deserve" a criminal conviction and punishment?
I think this guy is a complete asshole and deserves plenty, but not because of anything he might've considered doing in some airport bathroom.
Posted by: rafi (not rafael) | Sep 24, 2007 10:41:16 PM
In other news, why has his mug shot been altered? The picture from the front, his shirt has been colored in black. I noticed that last time it was posted too.
Posted by: rafi (not rafael) | Sep 24, 2007 10:44:44 PM
Isn't the past tense of plead, "pled"? I don't know for sure, I don't use it very often, maybe it's legalese? It just seems like "pled guilty" sounds better. Anybody?
Posted by: Johann/sf | Sep 24, 2007 11:15:59 PM
Reporters always write "pleaded", if they're following AP style. I'd never bothered before to check if that's just a style thing or because only one is right, but apparently Dictionary.com says either one is fine.
I think "pled" sounds better too. :)
Posted by: rafi (not rafael) | Sep 24, 2007 11:22:34 PM
Well, we don't know a whole lot of details here...perhaps solicitation is a crime in Minnesota, and the gesture that Craig allegedly made with his "upheld palm" could constitute solicitation. Can anyone with a actual knowledge of Minnesota statutes actually comment here...otherwise, we are really talking out of our asses. We might feel that "nothing happened," but according to state law, something might have!
Posted by: tom | Sep 24, 2007 11:51:09 PM
Apart from his blatent hypocrisy (which is a moral crime in my mind), Craig did not commit any crime. He didn't break the law. Wanting a guilty plea to go away undiscovered is not a crime either. Let him have his conviction overturned, run for the Senate again, and lose.
Posted by: kyle | Sep 25, 2007 12:24:24 AM
Tom,
I believe solicitation usually involves payment of money for sex...not simply coming on to someone. Larry Craig is guilty of simply propositioning someone (and being a major asshole).
xo,
peterparker
Posted by: peterparker | Sep 25, 2007 12:26:32 AM
What. The. Hell. is an "airport prosecutor", anyway?
Clearly they're out to crucify him for toe-tapping.
Ludicrous, entrapment at its worst.
Of course he's a hypocrite and probably a moral toad: but gleeful sorts here might ask: what crime did he commit?
A prosecutor , prob. enjoying the attention, coming down hard on him is no victory for us gay people. It's actually pretty harsh.
Even if he had verbally propositioned the undercover cop, why is that a crime? Much less toe-tapping.
The case against him shall be tossed, as it should. This is seperate from his personal hypocrisy and closetdness.
What a sad wretch he must be. But they have no case. Toe-tapping's a crime? Pathetic.
Posted by: Deschanel | Sep 25, 2007 12:51:38 AM
It doesn't matter what Minnesota law says, I'd bet it'd be found unconstitutional. There are limits to what states can make illegal.
At any rate, I thought he only pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, after being arrested on suspicion of lewd conduct. Neither of those charges is solicitation... I guess unless the DC charge explicity covered it. I dunno.
If the court allows him to withdraw his plea, I'm betting he gets acquitted or the charges get dropped.
Posted by: rafi (not rafael) | Sep 25, 2007 12:53:34 AM
He already pleaded guilty and paid the fine--it's all over as far as the courts are concerned. He's asking for a new trial on the basis that he received poor legal council, however, courts are meticulous in obtaining guilty pleas from defendants without council and so the odds are against Craig legally. As for the actually police work done, please refer to administrative law regarding everything in the arrest report--one needs to understand how the police operate within certain discretionary bounds before making informed decisions.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Sep 25, 2007 4:12:36 AM
Okay ... I am good friends w/ one of the lieutenants at the Mpls International Airport. My friend actually hired the officer who arrested Senator Craig.
For MONTHS, men have been complaining to the Airport Police about lewd conduct in the mens' room. So, the department decided to do a sting. That month they arrested about 40 men, including Senator Craig. The arresting officer pulled aside those gentlemen and gave them the exact same treatment as Senator Craig. All of them knew what they were doing and as you know, most were married men.
I say keep that damn charge on Senator Craig.
Posted by: Allen | Sep 25, 2007 9:57:07 AM
It's not entrapment as many people want to call it. He was not induced to do anything he didn't want to do.
Posted by: Rhea | Sep 25, 2007 10:15:04 AM
I really think it's impossible to say whether or not he's guilty of a crime unless we know what he was charged with and all of the elements of that crime under MN law.
Also, it's not really fair to say that he was just "making a pass" at someone, as if he was just hitting on someone in a bar (or in a restroom, for that matter). The apparent goal was sex in a public place, which is illegal in most jurisdicitons. He wasn't asking him out to dinner, or back to his place.
Posted by: darb | Sep 25, 2007 11:16:24 AM
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/mn-larry-craig-70207cmp.html
Larry Craig is a Peeping Tom. The toe tapping and hand gestures just assert that the invasion of privacy charges were sexual in nature.
Read the law on invasion of privacy, Read the police report and read the actual criminal charges.
This isnt about freedom of speech or two guys hooking up in the mens room or a bar. Its about Larry Craig's actions leading to his arrest. "Peeping Tom".
Most people look for feet or gently press against the door to see if another person is present or the stall is occupied. Larry Craig's stares through the cracks, and then re-stares through them.
Thats a "Peeping Tom" and "Inappropriate" to me.
I say Trial by Jury.
Posted by: edensasp | Sep 29, 2007 8:19:03 PM