⛓️ Incarcerated Nick Bate / Nickalaus B. Stoutzenberger - (Thread 3: JUDGEMENT DAY)

[sugoi-chan]

Our only source of info prior to his arrest was Nick himself who was A: Not the brightest bulb in the box and B: Did have an idea of how fucked he would be so could have been hiding details from Twitter.

It's possible they may be seeking to introduce evidence of other kinds, like things he said to AO about butts and wanting to touch hers? The sort of thing that could be confirmed given the shit stained trail he left on the internet?

If this is as concerning as @AnOminous suggests, it could be why Nick's going to trial despite everyone agreeing it's the worst possible decision he could have made and why his public defender is being so unexpectedly aggressive. It is worrying.

*rates self optimistic*

 

[AnOminous]

The "Tender Years Hearsay Exception" seems to refer to this:

From PA 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5985.1:

§ 5985.1. Admissibility of certain statements.
(a) General rule.--An out-of-court statement made by a child
victim or witness, who at the time the statement was made was 12
years of age or younger, describing any of the offenses
enumerated in 18 Pa.C.S. Chs. 25 (relating to criminal
homicide), 27 (relating to assault), 29 (relating to
kidnapping), 31 (relating to sexual offenses), 35 (relating to
burglary and other criminal intrusion) and 37 (relating to
robbery), not otherwise admissible by statute or rule of
evidence, is admissible in evidence in any criminal or civil
proceeding if:
(1) the court finds, in an in camera hearing, that the
evidence is relevant and that the time, content and
circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of
reliability; and
(2) the child either:
(i) testifies at the proceeding; or
(ii) is unavailable as a witness.

--

Maybe the prosecution wants to introduce something AO told someone that wasn't a cop? Maybe the CPS investigator?

I'm hoping this is under the (2)(i) part of that statute that involves the victim-witness actually testifying.

In that case, I'd just go straight back to my "he's going away forever" opinion.

 

[MasterDisaster]

Well if he ends up at the crazy farm it'd be the better outcome. While jail/prison comes with a sentence mental hospitals do not; Sick Nick is required to stay until his he deemed 'capable' of being reintegrated into society. Seeing as how he already smeared shit on his walls at home him ending up in a padded cell isn't going to be that big of change to what he's used to. What I really want to know is how his current time in lock-up is going.

 

[seagull]

I may call the Court Monday and see what I can find out as to contents of the Order. I will post if I find anything out.

Monday is a national holiday (Martin Luther King Jr. Day), so it's very likely the court will be closed. Just wanted to keep you from wasting your time.

 

[Long Sun]

However, it can't be understated that using out of court hearsay like that as the sole evidence in a case is just flat out unconstitutional and the case law is not ambiguous at all. Crawford v. Washington and a lot of other similar cases just flatly state you can't do that.

Just looking into this and reading Ohio v Clark 576 US 1 I think that the statements may not engage sixth amendment protection . Here we don't know what statements are attempting to be admitted, Clark held that statement made during an "on-going emergency" (In that case a teacher looking in possible Child Abuse) were not subject to the confrontation clause and generally the understanding of the person make the statement and of whom they are making the statement to are important. Thus, it appears to me that Statements made 1) To the Victims Father 2) Child protection investigator (who were arguable not investigating Nick ) may not be subject to the Sixth, it may be but I would, were I to argue this case, look into this issue very very carefully.

 

[Crustypuff101]

Nick's basically screwed. I'm predicting 8 to 15 years, lifetime sex offender registration, and by extension, homelessness after he gets out.

I can't feel bad for him and it'll finally be nice to see that literal shit-eating grin smacked clear off his face.

I think he will get only 3-6 years. I knew someone who raped 3 children during his juvenile years,He did it again at 18 more than once to his best friends sister, who was 8 years old. He only got 3 years and got out and did it again. He only got 5 years for raping, a 10 year old special needs student on her front porch.Anyways lets hope for 8 years or more.

 

[AnOminous]

I think he will get only 3-6 years. I knew someone who raped 3 children during his juvenile years,He did it again at 18 more than once to his best friends sister, who was 8 years old. He only got 3 years and got out and did it again. He only got 5 years for raping, a 10 year old special needs student on her front porch.Anyways lets hope for 8 years or more.

So long as he's permanently registered he's unlikely to be much of a threat to anyone outside of his immediate presence.

He's so personally disgusting that he's practically the personification of a sex offender and very unlikely to be able to victimize someone outside of his family. Any normal child would be disgusted and horrified by his mere presence.

Just looking into this and reading Ohio v Clark 576 US 1 I think that the statements may not engage sixth amendment protection . Here we don't know what statements are attempting to be admitted, Clark held that statement made during an "on-going emergency" (In that case a teacher looking in possible Child Abuse) were not subject to the confrontation clause and generally the understanding of the person make the statement and of whom they are making the statement to are important. Thus, it appears to me that Statements made 1) To the Victims Father 2) Child protection investigator (who were arguable not investigating Nick ) may not be subject to the Sixth, it may be but I would, were I to argue this case, look into this issue very very carefully.

I'm at a loss as to what the exact statements are. If the witness is actually also testifying that also completely eliminates the confrontation issue.

I'm just not sure why the prosecution made this motion if that's the case, though. Maybe the statements are really damning.

Unfortunately, there's not really time to get the document before the trial.

 

[Alex Krycek]

So long as he's permanently registered he's unlikely to be much of a threat to anyone outside of his immediate presence.

Bingo, he's already cut off from a lot of government programs, unable to get any well paying job, and can't ever harm anyone again.

Even if he survives prison and gets a short sentence, he's done.

 

[Aiyane]

Looking forward to hearing about Nick's fate.

 

[BlueArmedDevil]

Bingo, he's already cut off from a lot of government programs, unable to get any well paying job, and can't ever harm anyone again.

Even if he survives prison and gets a short sentence, he's done.

I can foresee him being a "revolving door" inmate through violating parole by not holding down a job, failing to report his status or even check in with his officer in a regular fashion.

Not to mention failing to comply with what ever restrictions that are placed on him as a sex offender.

Not saying he will attack a kid or anything but something stupid like being somewhere he shouldn't and acting the tard.

 

[GandT]

I'm at a loss as to what the exact statements are. If the witness is actually also testifying that also completely eliminates the confrontation issue.

I'm just not sure why the prosecution made this motion if that's the case, though. Maybe the statements are really damning.

Unfortunately, there's not really time to get the document before the trial.

Would it be possible that they could be being used to back up the witness testimony? As in, to prove that there is a 'historical' precedent to her claims and that she isn't pursuing (or being encouraged/persuaded to pursue) an unrelated personal vendetta against Nick now that his all round scuminess is public knowledge? I'm struggling to fully interpret the legal lingo, but I think I interpreted it that way.

 

[chimpburgers]

Whether or not he's going to a mental institution or prison, I'll be satisfied with how the ruling turns out. I'll be checking up on this thread periodically for the results.

 

[KatsuKitty]

I think he will get only 3-6 years. I knew someone who raped 3 children during his juvenile years,He did it again at 18 more than once to his best friends sister, who was 8 years old. He only got 3 years and got out and did it again. He only got 5 years for raping, a 10 year old special needs student on her front porch.Anyways lets hope for 8 years or more.

Can anyone, in theory, file briefs informing the prosecution that they believe Nick is too dangerous to get this little of a sentence? Like an amicus curiae brief in a Supreme Court case?

 

[TopCat]

Put it this way, I don't think Nick will be grinning when the Judge sentences him on the 19th.

 

[AnOminous]

Put it this way, I don't think Nick will be grinning when the Judge sentences him on the 19th.

I think the trial might run longer than a day. I don't think he'll be doing much smiling, though.

Would it be possible that they could be being used to back up the witness testimony? As in, to prove that there is a 'historical' precedent to her claims and that she isn't pursuing (or being encouraged/persuaded to pursue) an unrelated personal vendetta against Nick now that his all round scuminess is public knowledge? I'm struggling to fully interpret the legal lingo, but I think I interpreted it that way.

Yes. There's even a rule for that. "Prior consistent statements." Prior inconsistent statements are often put in to show someone changed their story, but you can also introduce prior consistent statements to show your story has stayed the same.

I can foresee him being a "revolving door" inmate through violating parole by not holding down a job, failing to report his status or even check in with his officer in a regular fashion.

I think this is actually highly likely considering Nick's very low level of social functioning. Unless he actually has a tard wrangler of some sort to make sure he keeps that stuff in order he will probably screw it up at some point and end up back in prison.

 

[LiveFromNS]

Monday is a national holiday (Martin Luther King Jr. Day), so it's very likely the court will be closed. Just wanted to keep you from wasting your time.

Thanks. Tuesday AM I will call.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

I think the trial might run longer than a day. I don't think he'll be doing much smiling, though.

Yeah, from what's been going on with Nick, and the evidence that's against him, I can see this lasting a fair bit. But no matter what happens, I think we can all agree that the outcome will not be good for Bate.

 

[KatsuKitty]

It bears mentioning that parole requirements are often very onerous and in some cases expressly set you up for failure. It's difficult enough for a "normal" person in Nick's position to find a job, because being a sex offender automatically shitlists you for employment even at McDonald's dur to the HR liability.

But that's just a natural consequence. If Nick even makes parole, he'll likely have requirements set that he can't meet just to get him back in the system. For example, Nick would likely have a restriction on any internet uses as part of his parole, however, PO officers know that all modern jobs require electronic application. Having these restrictions eased just to meet parole requirements often requires expensive counsel. Setting up parolees for failure may seem unfair, but in the end they do it to themselves, so nobody really cares.

To put it bluntly, Nick stepped on the wrong toes.

 

[LiveFromNS]

Unfortunately, there's not really time to get the document before the trial.

I assume it isn't available thru PACER? The order or motion notice? In one of our Canadian online DBs I have access to some decisions have the affidavits, briefs, orders available too. I have a PACER account. Worth checking?

Also, in Nova Scotia's public access to docs filed, the court index system lists every doc filed. IF, the online docket for Nick's case does same, is this a possible rubber stamp motion? Thus no affidavit or brief filed?

Many assumptions, however I am still of the opinion though that motion and resulting Order is beneficial to State. As it was a motion, the defence appears not to have argued against it. My view I guess (hope) is it means victim not required to testify and out of court statements are permitted without her having to swear to them or make them again in court.

But anything that anyone has mooted about thus far are all possible. I will ask if I can get the Order. Done similar with success in my juris and worse they can do in PA to me is say no.

 

[Clown Doll]

Setting up parolees for failure may seem unfair, but in the end they do it to themselves.

Not all prisoners are complete scum like Nick, and even if you consider it coming, it's pointless work clogging up the gears of the justice system. While Nick is in danger of reoffending if he gets out, he should have a fair chance to reintegrate to society, otherwise a lot of people's work were wasted on him for nothing.