Child bride testifies against polygamist 'prophet'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs

I think they should've worked a more solid case against the guy. Jeffs is probably a criminal. But "probably" shouldn't be enough to convict someone.

---

It appears to me they worked a very solid case against Jeffs. He was convicted of both charges by a jury of his peers. I don't see how you can do better then that.

And I do have some experience with polygamy and its a very sad deal. If this was consenting adults in their 20's I'd have no problem with it..... but its not.... The young women in polygamy are borne into a form of slavery and do not get to experience the same freedoms you and I do. Something as simple as arguing Jeffs innocents on the internet is something a young female born into polygamy would never be given the choice to experience.

:cool2:

Just quickly looked at the thread and it appears that there is a need for a couple of points of clarification as to the law- Statutory rape is "A person commits rape of a child when the person has sexual intercourse with a child who is under the age of 14." U.C.A. 76-5-402.1 (1) Rape on the other hand is "A person commits rape when the actor has sexual intercourse with another person without the victim's consent. (2)This section applies whether or not the actor is married to the victim.

As to the issue of the marriage, if the two were first cousins, it is an "incestuous marriage"= illegal. A 14 year old CANNOT marry in Utah. It is illegal too. Also, as to "consent". The general rule is that minors can't contract, can't consent to most things. There are exceptions.

Personal opinion, the prosecution was brilliant in going after Jeffs first and the "husband" second. I hope the above (and quickly drafted) legal stuff helps the discussion.

http://tinyurl.com/yrfjhz

He's been charged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Card

As to the issue of the marriage, if the two were first cousins, it is an "incestuous marriage"= illegal. A 14 year old CANNOT marry in Utah. It is illegal too. Also, as to "consent". The general rule is that minors can't contract, can't consent to most things. There are exceptions.

Personal opinion, the prosecution was brilliant in going after Jeffs first and the "husband" second. I hope the above (and quickly drafted) legal stuff helps the discussion.

---

Thanks for the clarification Scott. As for the marriage, they weren't "legally" married, I don't think. It wasn't recognized by the state, was it? If the state had to approve a marriage license, why didn't they stop it at the time? I think this was a cultural marriage.

I did read some stuff late last night about why the prosecution went after Jeffs first, and I found it interesting, but still don't understand why it is "brilliant." Care to clarify?

The main reason I read that they went after Jeffs first is because they didn't want the blame to be spread out between the two perps. Plus, they got the cousin/husband to convict himself with the testimony. What was he thinking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

And I do have some experience with polygamy and its a very sad deal.

---

What, you didn't like your child brides? :ne_nau:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs

I did read some stuff late last night about why the prosecution went after Jeffs first, and I found it interesting, but still don't understand why it is "brilliant." Care to clarify?

The main reason I read that they went after Jeffs first is because they didn't want the blame to be spread out between the two perps. Plus, they got the cousin/husband to convict himself with the testimony. What was he thinking?

---

I say brilliant because a jury could sympathize with he 19 year old because of the oppressive church thing too. In other words, they may have not covicted him if he was portrayed as the victim also. Second, now that they have the conviction of Jeffs they, the prosecution, can point to one jury having already considered what the 19 year old did as rape. It would be tough for another jury to totally disregard what the Jeffs jury did. As to the 19 year old's testimony, the real question is what were the attorneys thinking. I wonder if he was ever advised that he had the right to remain silent. He probably still would have testified and will go down with Jeffs at a minimun as a devout follower. I think the guy should have waived his rights on the record. The attorneys may have exposed themselves to a bar complaint and malpractice suit. However, Wally Bugden is no dummy and I wouldn't be surprised if doesn't already have a signed waiver of rights in his file to cover his butt. Finally, you are right. There was no "legal" marriage. Is there any "legal" marriage in that society? doubtful. Funny thing is that these leaders can be prosecuted for a 3rd degree felony simply for performing the illegal marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Card

I say brilliant because a jury could sympathize with he 19 year old because of the oppressive church thing too. In other words, they may have not covicted him if he was portrayed as the victim also. Second, now that they have the conviction of Jeffs they, the prosecution, can point to one jury having already considered what the 19 year old did as rape. It would be tough for another jury to totally disregard what the Jeffs jury did. As to the 19 year old's testimony, the real question is what were the attorneys thinking. I wonder if he was ever advised that he had the right to remain silent. He probably still would have testified and will go down with Jeffs at a minimun as a devout follower. I think the guy should have waived his rights on the record. The attorneys may have exposed themselves to a bar complaint and malpractice suit. However, Wally Bugden is no dummy and I wouldn't be surprised if doesn't already have a signed waiver of rights in his file to cover his butt. Finally, you are right. There was no "legal" marriage. Is there any "legal" marriage in that society? doubtful. Funny thing is that these leaders can be prosecuted for a 3rd degree felony simply for performing the illegal marriage.

---

Bugden read him his Miranda rights in the courtroom. Steeds said he would waive his rights, because he wanted the truth to come out. Like I said, he must've known what was coming.

Thanks for that tidbit. As you can guess, I really didn't follow the case very closely. I have a few too many of my own to worry about right now. And, I'm trying to get out of town tonight. :mrgreen:

Out of town? You act like you've got somewhere to go...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs

Out of town? You act like you've got somewhere to go...

---

I'm not leaving the state and as we all know, there is really nothing to do in Utah so no biggie just gettin' away for a couple of days of leisure fun, you know, hiking with w/ ropes.(I'm so excited :mrgreen: )

FWIW: The marriage was a spiritual marriage, which means it was recognized by the FLDS but not by the state of Utah or anyone else with legal jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Card

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs

I did read some stuff late last night about why the prosecution went after Jeffs first, and I found it interesting, but still don't understand why it is "brilliant." Care to clarify?

The main reason I read that they went after Jeffs first is because they didn't want the blame to be spread out between the two perps. Plus, they got the cousin/husband to convict himself with the testimony. What was he thinking?

---

I say brilliant because a jury could sympathize with he 19 year old because of the oppressive church thing too. In other words, they may have not covicted him if he was portrayed as the victim also. Second, now that they have the conviction of Jeffs they, the prosecution, can point to one jury having already considered what the 19 year old did as rape. It would be tough for another jury to totally disregard what the Jeffs jury did. As to the 19 year old's testimony, the real question is what were the attorneys thinking. I wonder if he was ever advised that he had the right to remain silent. He probably still would have testified and will go down with Jeffs at a minimun as a devout follower. I think the guy should have waived his rights on the record. The attorneys may have exposed themselves to a bar complaint and malpractice suit. However, Wally Bugden is no dummy and I wouldn't be surprised if doesn't already have a signed waiver of rights in his file to cover his butt. Finally, you are right. There was no "legal" marriage. Is there any "legal" marriage in that society? doubtful. Funny thing is that these leaders can be prosecuted for a 3rd degree felony simply for performing the illegal marriage.

---

~*~swoon~*~

A real lawyer ... I LIKE it! :hail2thechief: