Around the league (signings, RFAs injuries)

[Hockey Widow]

It's more common than you think in Canada. In the U.S. the prosecutor can lay charges. However, in high profile cases and/or in cases of he said she said, it is very common for the prosecutor to send it to the grand jury and let them have the burden of deciding if there is sufficient evidence that it is "likely" that the accused could have committed the crime. It is a very very low threshold to get it past a grand jury, beyond reasonable doubt does not come into play, until trial. If the grand jury fails to deliver an indictment the prosecutor can say, well I tried. Again, think black kid in Ferguson. The prosecutor took it to grand jury and they failed to indict.

In Canada we have a preliminary hearing before a judge who decides if there is enough evidence to hold it over for trial. But the defendant in Canada can waive the prelim and proceed directly to trial. Some U.S. states have preliminary trials too. The U.S. Is one of the last jurisdictions to still use a grand jury system and its is optional as the District Attorney has the power to lay charges and forego the grand jury.

Rape is a very difficult case to prove with a very uncertain outcome.

Any person, in Canada or US, that causes harm, even if there are criminal charges, can still face civil charges. Happens all the time. Think OJ. He won his criminal case but lost his civil case.

In a case like this, if the victim can reach a settlement it may be preferable to be dragged through a messy trial. For the high profile accused, he is not only facing jail but loss of a very lucrative career. Mëds is right, money buys you out of a lot of potential problems but this is not unique to the U.S.

So the alleged victim in this case always has a civil right to sue for damages, which are very high in the U.S. This is regardless of the criminal proceedings. It may be a situation were the prosecutor says look we have enough evidence to get it through grand jury but if you can facilitate a civil settlement with the accuser that saves her years of pain and heartache we will stay the proceedings. Kane avoids trial and the potential outcome,the accuser avoids trial and gets her settlement. The State saves millions on not having to prosecute. Keep in mind that a rich defendant can afford a lengthy expensive OJ trial while us poor suckers can't. The cost of a trial would be in the millions for a case like this.

Kane will have a very dark blemish and will need to be careful in the future. He will probably get a non disclosure agreement, much like Michael Jackson did in his first civil case that he settled out of court.

This is so common but ya, if you don't have any money you can't buy your way out. It may not make sense but I'll tell you what, f I was raped, in the U.S., I'd take 10 million any day rather than go through a trial. And if he is innocent, this is still the best way out, closure and certainty, the price you pay for being a high profile jerk.

What all this tells me is there is enough physical evidence to show a sexual interaction between the two without enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was non consensual. If there was clear, irrefutable evidence of non consensual sex they would have filed charges already.

But it happens in Canada all the time. I was in the business, insurance, and handled these sorts of things for a living. It's not an American problem, it is the rich anywhere in the world having a different standard.

[damonberryman]

Paddy Wagon Kane case reportedly going to the Grand Jury to decide if there is enough evidence for charges.

Does one just get "invited" to testify towards whether or not charges will be laid against one?

seems overly polite

Kane can plead the 5th Ammendment in the States, refusing to answer questions on the grounds he might incriminate himself. All witnesses are invited but it means compelled to give evidence. They also have a 5th Ammendment right against self incrimination. Lawyers are not allowed in the Grand Jury room. Kane cannot pick and choose what questions he wants to answer, he can decide to answer all or none. A smart lawyer will advise him to plead the 5th.

The Grand Jury is similar to our preliminary hearing in that a judge hears the evidence and simply decides if there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. The Grand Jury decides if there is sufficient evidence to lay charges. They can then go to preliminary hearing if they want or waive that and proceed to trial. Grand Jury's usually meet in secret and all testimony sealed. Sometimes not sealed and sometimes leaks. See the shooting death of that black kid in Ferguson, Grand Jury refuses to indict. Not all jurisdictions use a Grand Jury anymore but in a high profile and political case like this it takes the pressure off the prosecutor.

Of course it is the prosecutor that is presenting the evidence and if they feel charges are unwarranted they can present the case in that light which has always been one of the criticisms of this process. They are the only one presenting evidence. How they question witnesses and how they spin the evidence can be an issue. But the reverse is true. If they feel strongly that charges should be laid but lack sufficient evidence to get an arrest warrant they can present with that bias too, see Jon Binet Ramsey cases against her parents, Grand Jury failed to indict.

This step is intended to bring closure to speculation. Either they will indict, he will be charged, or they will fail to indict and he will be free, pending new evidence coming to light. But to send it to Grand Jury says they believe the women, in this he said she said, but want the Grand Jury to assess.

It seems every post you write contains something valuable. Thanks.

[Topper]

If she accepts the money does that make her a whore?

[5thhorseman]

Only if it was consensual.

[rats19]

Is she not admitting consent by accepting money? If not she should take it all the way*looks around*

If so...it's just easier to accept a lot of money for something that already happened and well...might as well get paid..No?

[Hockey Widow]

Is she not admitting consent by accepting money? If not she should take it all the way*looks around*

If so...it's just easier to accept a lot of money for something that already happened and well...might as well get paid..No?

Not at all. Civil liability is compensated by money. That's the system. If you are harmed by another either negligence or assault or defamation, as examples, you have a right to seek financial compensation for damages.

If someone punches you in the face and breaks you jaw you have the right to seek damages. Should sexual assault be different? Does it mean you consented to being punched?

[rats19]

Is she not admitting consent by accepting money? If not she should take it all the way*looks around*

If so...it's just easier to accept a lot of money for something that already happened and well...might as well get paid..No?

Not at all. Civil liability is compensated by money. That's the system. If you are harmed by another either negligence or assault or defamation, as examples, you have a right to seek financial compensation for damages.

If someone punches you in the face and breaks you jaw you have the right to seek damages. Should sexual assault be different? Does it mean you consented to being punched?

Valid HW....but that's after going through the process......the process!!

Note: in no way do I condone or think that Kane should "get away" with any wrongdoing in this case.

[Hockey Widow]

Is she not admitting consent by accepting money? If not she should take it all the way*looks around*

If so...it's just easier to accept a lot of money for something that already happened and well...might as well get paid..No?

Not at all. Civil liability is compensated by money. That's the system. If you are harmed by another either negligence or assault or defamation, as examples, you have a right to seek financial compensation for damages.

If someone punches you in the face and breaks you jaw you have the right to seek damages. Should sexual assault be different? Does it mean you consented to being punched?

Valid HW....but that's after going through the process......the process!!

Note: in no way do I condone or think that Kane should "get away" with any wrongdoing in this case.

The process always involves attempts at a negotiated settlement. You have to believe that the district attorney does not have irrefutable evidence of guilt or they would absolutely pursue charges.

[SKYO]

So the prosecutor can still go after Kane - civil settlement or not, it's just the alleged victim might not be so cooperative, then after all that the NHL can conduct it's own investigation...all around not a good situation for Kane/Blackhawks obviously.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacrama ... ault-case/

According to the Buffalo News, grand jury proceedings into Patrick Kane’s alleged sexual assault have been suspended pending the outcome of settlement negotiations between Kane and the alleged victim.

Assuming this report is indeed accurate, what does this mean?

The criminal proceeding is managed by the prosecutor and not the alleged victim. Accordingly, any settlement that is brokered between Kane and the complainant does not bind the prosecutor. The prosecutor may still proceed with a criminal case against Kane, which includes sending it back to a grand jury. So the criminal matter and the civil matter are not directly connected.

That being said, a civil settlement between Kane and the complainant may result in the complainant changing her mind and electing not to cooperate with the prosecution. While she may still be called to testify at a criminal trial, anything less than entirely convincing testimony would likely be fatal to the prosecution’s case unless there is other compelling evidence of wrongdoing. If the complainant elects not to cooperate or is an unwilling participant, the likelihood of a conviction is low particularly in cases of he said, she said. Remember, a rape prosecution relies heavily on the complainant’s testimony. If the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the matter, the prosecutor may drop the case.

As well, a criminal trial may cause a complainant significant psychological and physical stress. Bearing that in mind, a prosecutor may be reluctant to insist on an unwilling complainant’s participation.

It is important to note that it is unlawful to tamper with witnesses, which includes paying a witness for agreeing not to testify at a criminal trial. So you can’t pay someone not to testify. For that reason, any settlement would need to be crafted carefully to ensure that it does not run afoul of state law. Not surprisingly, some have criticized civil settlements as undermining the effective enforcement of rape law.

A civil agreement between the parties would not in theory preclude the complainant from cooperating with a criminal trial. Still, once cases are settled civilly, cooperation becomes less likely. So the assumption should be that a civil settlement in this case would result in the full disposition of the matter.

A settlement agreement would also include a confidentiality provision precluding the complainant from sharing any information with the public, including the NHL. Should the case settle civilly and the prosecution elect not to move forward, the NHL would need to conduct its own investigation into the matter with a view to determining whether it will suspend Kane.

[Hockey Widow]

Thanks for posting that SKYO. That is a pretty good summary of what is going on. Given all of that it does seem strange that the prosecutor would suspend the grand jury. I really think there is, in all likelihood, insuffienct compelling, irrefutable evidence and it is a full blown he said she said case.

And even though Kane's side would demand a non disclosure she can say no. It too becomes part of the negotiation. She could for example agree to a confidentiality clause with exceptions, such as for therapy or medical treatment, financial advisors, under court order or in cooperation with an NHL investigation. It's all part of the settlement. She may feel she needs vindication and refuse a confidentiality clause because she wants Kane to have to accept responsibility. Both sides will push.

I have to think that he NHL will suspend him if this is not resolved before he is due to report to camp.

[Hockey Widow]

Glencross PTO with the leaves. Booth potentially getting a PTO with the Panthers.

[Strangelove]

Poster Rumsfeld told me Kane would make a great prison bitch.

(I have no idea what that means)

Wasn't he a Prison Bull ?

What sort of prisoner would the dude be ?

Dude would be like Tracy Morgan in The Longest Yard.

[Strangelove]

Booth potentially getting a PTO with the Panthers.

Panthers trying to get the Sunrise Express back on the rails?

[Hockey Widow]

Steve Bernier signs PTO with the Islanders.

[SKYO]

Cody Franson signs with Buffalo for $3.3M per, canucks fans/bloggers commence throwing a hissy fit/tantrum crying to anyone who'd listen.