Doesn’t look like we’re going to get a question-and-answer truth and reconciliation meeting at NYU, huh? That’s okay. Nobody listens to me, I know. Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen have done their best impersonations of Song Binbin and that is that. We must decide on the “evidence” that we have. At least I must decide for Ms. Farrow has “convicted” me of inflicting pain on her by watching Woody Allen movies because he molested her. She charges Allen of course with the molestation and she also has convicted Hollywood, the Golden Globes people for honoring Allen, and actors and actresses who have worked with Allen, for inflicting pain on her. There is an issue here with “retrospective punishment,” for the lack of a better phrase, with “notice,” and with a “statute of limitations,” all criminal law concepts of fairness. I have to seek guidance here where I can as this is truly a matter of “first impression.” I am a common movie-watching Joe here, not a lawyer. I take my conviction seriously because I take Dylan Farrow’s pain seriously. I must then determine to my satisfaction, and upon this “evidence,” if Woody Allen molested Dylan Farrow. If (in my opinion) he did, then I must address the “fairness” concepts above-mentioned. By what standard should I make this determination? I'll look around and borrow. Whatever seems to me to be the best, fairest fit for this unusual situation.
The above serves as road-map for the exercise ahead and as introduction to the following post which is a continuation of “On Kris Dylwood, Thursday, February 7. It was written on Friday:
"Probable cause." Hmm.
Cops, for whom probable cause serves as the standard for an arrest, were involved in both Jameis Winston's and Woody Allen's sex crimes investigations. As were prosecutors. The way it works, or is supposed to work, is that cops, non-lawyers, make their probable cause determination to arrest on the streets. Their case then gets forwarded to the prosecutor for review. (S)he makes (or is supposed to) an independent legal evaluation on whether formal charges are to be filed in court. The prosecutor's standard for filing charges in court is not probable cause. The prosecutor's standard is two-pronged: (1) (S)he must actually believe that the accused committed the crime charged. (If an individual prosecutor does not so believe (s)he is ethically obligated to not handle the case.) (2) The prosecutor must make a legal determination that a reasonable jury would convict the accused at trial using the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
In both the Winston case and the Allen case the prosecutors announced to anxious audiences that they were not going to file charges in court. Birds hit air pumps in both announcements, however. Willie Meggs, the head prosecutor in the Winston case said:
"[W]e did not feel we had sufficient evidence to go forward and bring the case to trial."
That's an incomplete, but sufficient, statement of the prosecutor's standard.
"[I]t was not a case that we could bring forward because we would not have the burden of proof, the probable cause and the reasonable likelihood of a conviction.”
Thus, "probable cause." What else? Other standards. Winston received an award, too. What were the standards employed by his branch of the entertainment industry for the award?
The above serves as road-map for the exercise ahead and as introduction to the following post which is a continuation of “On Kris Dylwood, Thursday, February 7. It was written on Friday:
"Probable cause." Hmm.
Cops, for whom probable cause serves as the standard for an arrest, were involved in both Jameis Winston's and Woody Allen's sex crimes investigations. As were prosecutors. The way it works, or is supposed to work, is that cops, non-lawyers, make their probable cause determination to arrest on the streets. Their case then gets forwarded to the prosecutor for review. (S)he makes (or is supposed to) an independent legal evaluation on whether formal charges are to be filed in court. The prosecutor's standard for filing charges in court is not probable cause. The prosecutor's standard is two-pronged: (1) (S)he must actually believe that the accused committed the crime charged. (If an individual prosecutor does not so believe (s)he is ethically obligated to not handle the case.) (2) The prosecutor must make a legal determination that a reasonable jury would convict the accused at trial using the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
In both the Winston case and the Allen case the prosecutors announced to anxious audiences that they were not going to file charges in court. Birds hit air pumps in both announcements, however. Willie Meggs, the head prosecutor in the Winston case said:
"[W]e did not feel we had sufficient evidence to go forward and bring the case to trial."
That's an incomplete, but sufficient, statement of the prosecutor's standard.
"[I]t was not a case that we could bring forward because we would not have the burden of proof, the probable cause and the reasonable likelihood of a conviction.”
That's a confusing mix of the police standard and the prosecutor's standard but the man said there was no probable cause so that's that.
No p.c. Winston, keep calm and carry on. And he did.
In Allen's case the head prosecutor, Frank Maco, announced that he was not filing charges in order to spare young Dylan Farrow the trauma of testifying, a common concern. Maco did not opine on whether the evidence met the prosecutor's standard of actual belief in guilt plus legal judgment that the case could be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. But, Maco also said, there was probable cause to arrest. Maco has said recently that he stands by what he said back in 1993. Another confusing mix.
No p.c. Winston, keep calm and carry on. And he did.
In Allen's case the head prosecutor, Frank Maco, announced that he was not filing charges in order to spare young Dylan Farrow the trauma of testifying, a common concern. Maco did not opine on whether the evidence met the prosecutor's standard of actual belief in guilt plus legal judgment that the case could be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. But, Maco also said, there was probable cause to arrest. Maco has said recently that he stands by what he said back in 1993. Another confusing mix.
In neither case had the police made their probable cause determination to arrest. Neither Winston nor Allen were ever arrested on probable cause. In both, as happens frequently in high-profile cases, the District Attorneys snatched the matter out of police hands.
So, taking these two legal scholars at their word we have: (1) No reasonable likelihood of conviction at trial by standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in Winston. (2) No probable cause in Winston. (3) No statement on whether Allen case could have been filed according to prosecutor's standard in court. (4) Probable cause, but no arrest, in Allen. Hmm, messy.
So, taking these two legal scholars at their word we have: (1) No reasonable likelihood of conviction at trial by standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in Winston. (2) No probable cause in Winston. (3) No statement on whether Allen case could have been filed according to prosecutor's standard in court. (4) Probable cause, but no arrest, in Allen. Hmm, messy.
No arrest. Allen, keep calm and carry on. And he did.
Thus, "probable cause." What else? Other standards. Winston received an award, too. What were the standards employed by his branch of the entertainment industry for the award?
