“When we were acquitted I thought it would be the end to all our dealings with court,” Mostafa Noori told the Vanguard.
The jury reached that verdict in just three hours. As Omar Atebar and Mostafa Noori described for the Vanguard, jurors even cried during the verdict, telling them that if they could have voted innocent, they would have.
“Even the jurors said that if they had an opportunity to put “innocents,” they would put innocent on the bar but you can only put guilty or not guilty. So this has just gone to reasonable doubts, there was plain and simple that this did not happen and did not occur and we were on a 10-week trial for who knows why,” Mr. Atebar told the Vanguard.
One of the accused had been accepted to medical school before his arrest but that admission was rescinded when the official learned of the charges. Apparently the jurors made him promise to go back to medical school.
But what was vindication for the brothers has turned into yet another nightmare, as they are being sued by the powerful Sacramento Law firm of Dreyer, Babich, Buccolo, Callahan and Wood who is representing Ms. Corrales pro bono, and demanding a minimum settlement of $250,000 per defendant.
“I never thought we could be sued,” said Mostafa Noori. “I never thought it wouldn’t be the end because when something like this happens it can always have an impact on your life – for instance school and work.”
He continued, “Your name is always tainted. There really is no end. I realized court proceedings were not over once I found we were being sued. It still amazes me that they would [continue this].”
The Charges and the Criminal Trial
Four defendants were accused of rape, sodomy, digital penetration, kidnapping enhancements, and a separate battery causing serious bodily injury on a separate individual called to the scene by her friends to confront the defendants.
Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin, the prosecutor of the case, issued a statement after the acquittal stating, “While we respect the jury’s verdict, we believe the evidence told a different story. The victim had bleeding, rape-related injuries and the defendant Mostafa Noori had the victim’s blood on his clothing.”
She added, “The victim was very brave to come to court and relive this horrific nightmare. The victim was put on trial by the defense and she was re-traumatized. We are satisfied that the truth has been told.”
But almost from the start, there were serious problems with the case. For one thing, despite the serious nature of the allegations, the victim seemed to have no major injuries.
The allegations were originally against four individuals involved in a gang rape. The fourth individual was Aziz Rasooli, cousin to the Noori brothers, who would be acquitted during the preliminary trial after it was demonstrated by the defense that the size of the bathroom in question prevented four individuals and the victim from all being inside.
While one might think that this physical limitation might invalidate the entire case, the judge seemed to almost arbitrarily dismiss the charges against Mr. Rasooli, while allowing the others to continue to stand trial.
According to a summary written by one of the defense attorneys, David Dratman, and provided by the Noori Brothers to the Vanguard, “A store manikin was used to demonstrate the impossibility of the ‘victim’s’ story about how her clothes were removed.”
He continued, “Our clients’ father built a lifesize, to scale, flat floor model of the bathroom where the alleged sexual assault occurred, which was also used.”
Crucial to the defense case, however, was evidence that the victim was observed chatting on an instant messaging board on AOL at the time of the alleged sexual assault.
“The biggest thing was at that point, at that night and at that time she was on her AOL SMS messengers chatting away with friends,” Mr. Atebar said. “And we actually brought one of the witnesses to the court and he said, “Yes, I remember that night, specifically, she was texting me on SMS, she was telling me about the party she was at.” “
Moreover as they charged, the Davis Police Detective Jeff Beasley actually knew about this person that she was chatting with and he kept that information.
“[Detective Beasley] kept that information withheld from us, and he also withheld the laptop from us to [sic] acquiring it,” Mustafa Noori added.
Much like in the Michael Artz case, the defense charged that Detective Beasley was “absolutely unwilling and/or unable to see anything beyond the statement of the alleged victim in their [sic] effort to put our clients in prison for life.”
The problems for the prosecution mounted from there, as it became clear that the detectives and the evidence technician ignored and failed to collect critical evidence.
As Mustafa Noori put it, “[Ms. Corrales] had her hymen intact which is one of the major [flaws in their case]. She had minimal [of] any kind of injuries, no DNA, no semen, no sperms, no hair fall because she described her hair having pulled but her hair on her head, the scalp was not even harm in anyway.”
“Her clothes were not torn in anyway, they were actually just like arranged nicely,” he continued. “She had no like scratches on her, no bruises on her, and no skin under her nails, and no sign of struggles.”
Mr. Atebar added, “There were no fingerprints anywhere on door handles, on doors, on bureaus, on glasses. The glass [sic] in her bathroom was open when this alleged intercourse took place. Nobody heard her scream, nobody heard anything.”
Mustafa Noori added, “The only evidence, physical evidence, that they have was some of Brittany’s blood was on my clothes. That was it. It wasn’t, we have a proof that it wasn’t hers, it was somebody else’s.”
The District Attorney’s Office could never pinpoint a time when this happened. This was in part due to the fact that none of the defendants were at or near the scene when the rape allegedly occurred.
“We were all downstairs at this time or on the phone,” Omar Atebar said. “We have phone records, where we were making phone calls to different people.”
Lawsuit
“So at first, the first attempt was to put us away for life imprisonment, take our freedom. They weren’t successful on that,” Omar Atebar told the Vanguard. “Now, they want to cripple us and make us so that we can never be a contributing member of society for the rest of our days.”
The defendants in this case attempted to sue the victim, the DA and the Davis Police Department for wrongful prosecution, among other charges. However, due to rape shield laws the case against Ms. Corrales was thrown out and they were charged $20,000 in attorney fees.
In the meantime, the powerful law firm Dreyer, Babich, Buccolo, Callahan and Wood has filed suit against the defendants. This is a law firm that primarily represents accident victims and wrongful death cases.
They have been involved in numerous multimillion dollar injury suits, they were attorneys in the PG&E Gas explosion case, and have several of their attorneys listed among the “Super Lawyers” of 2010.
In their suit, they claim that while Ms. Corrales was lawfully on the premises of 1100 Olive Drive in Davis, the three named defendants, “acting without consent and/or legal excuse, intentionally sexually assaulted, battered, abused, violated, molested and raped or assisted in the rape of Plaintiff, causing her injuries as alleged herein.”
Moreover, “each of them, deliberately, willfully and intentionally restrained, battered, intimidated, oppressed, confined, isolated, traumatized and falsely imprisoned the Plaintiff when the Defendants confined space against her will, and forcibly held Plaintiff against her will during the assault.”
Among the causes of action include battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sexual battery.”
They are seeking damages and a protective order that would prevent them from coming within 250 feet of Ms. Corrales.
Financial Difficulties
The defendants are seeking a civil defense attorney to help in defending against these claims, but they have completely exhausted all of their resources.
As Mustafa Noori told the Vanguard, “Basically, we were left, we were crippled financially.”
Omar Atebar added, “Our financial resources are not only drained but are negative. Before this unfortunate incident to say the least, I was in about $700 in debt. Now I went over a $120,000 debt and I am married, I have a kid, I’m a student and I can barely make ends meet.”
The defendants were hammered with a one million dollar bail.
“The media made us out to be a gang of “Arabs” & “Persians”,” Mustafa Noori said. “Yolo county court deemed us a flight risk because we spoke another language and set our bail to one million dollars.”
Mr. Atebar added, “I currently still owe bail bondsman. They put up a million dollar bail over all over our heads and we have to pay that with no [sic], we don’t receive that money back.”
The defendants at one point had a bright future. Now they have their names dragged through the mud. As previously mentioned, one of them is hoping to attend medical school but had his admission to medical rescinded after the school learned of the charges, another wants to become a lawyer, and another is in graduate school.
To add to that, the law firm is demanding $250,000 each just to settle their lawsuit.
And they have reason to believe that Deputy DA Michelle Serafin is aiding the plaintiffs in the civil suit.
“We know that DA Michelle Serafin is communicating with them,” Mr. Noori said. “We know this because in February 2010 I needed my passport to travel to Haiti for two weeks in an effort to help victims of the earthquake. Michelle Serafin refuses to give us our property back, but she did give my passport back.”
Mr. Noori added, “We can be a potentially easy target, we don’t have any means to defend ourselves.”
The case is currently scheduled to go to trial at the end of the year, but to get to trial, the defendants really need an experienced civil attorney.
Mr. Atebar and Mr. Noori who spoke with the Vanguard made a plea, and as Omar Atebar put it, “If anybody is out there that are reading this and they know of anyway that can help our cause, what’s getting us in touch with our attorney, somebody who work with somebody, a group of individuals who are good contributing members of the society and will continue to be and help us continue and try to clean our names based on these unfortunate allegations that happened to us.”
“We really need everything we can get,” he added.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Note: The Vanguard has a generalized policy of not reporting the names of alleged victims of alleged crimes. However, given the fact that the defendants in this case were acquitted of their charges, the strong and overwhelming evidence of innocence, and the lack of evidence that a rape ever occurred, we do not believe the plaintiff in this civil suit is entitled to have her identity, which is a matter of public record, protected at this time.
Civil court, lower standard, preponderance of evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. Seems the victim is still seeking some sort of justice.
This is absolutely disgusting that your life can be ruined by someone who chooses to make a false claim without any clear evidence that a crime was even committed. And then after a full trial and you are found innocent, the nightmare continues. Unfortunately, people do not realize how often false claims of rape are made.
It is work done by places like the Innocence Project which has given credence to the argument that false allegations do happen a lot more than people think.
At least from the evidence presented, Mr. Toad, you might want to replace “justice” with “extortion”.
It confuses me how we can be so proud of our justice system yet never seem to respect the acquittals that it delivers. Each case and outcome warrants close examination before making any kind of generalized statement concerning it. Sexual assault cases, especially in a college town, are big money makers because they help in securing special federal government funding. Moreover, they also help to win elections. This case was not only a big public loss for the Yolo County DA but putting on this disgraceful circus was also an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars. The conviction of 4 middle eastern men for the rape of a young white college girl may have sounded beautiful on paper for the authorities involved, but much to their dismay some people are fortunate to have the support to bite back. In this case, these young men won their freedom but it came with a significant personal and financial burden to them because rape is a very powerful accusation that can destroy a man’s life. It saddens me to think of how many people may have been reduced to signing a plea bargain because they lack the means to defend against a prosecution team with almost limitless resources. I am also left wondering whether the DA or someone involved in the prosecution may have a friend or former law school buddy at Dryer, Babich that is making an effort to save some face for the DA’s office and the Davis PD. Humiliation is a powerful emotion that can often be difficult to shake off.
[quote]Civil court, lower standard, preponderance of evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. Seems the victim is still seeking some sort of justice.[/quote]
Mr. Toad: Still seeking justice would you be referring that the Jury was all idiots and were wrong or would you be referring to the DA’s Office being so incompetent that they could not confuse one juror enough to get one to vote guilty?
You might want to run this DA Reisig before you respond so you know what to say.
[i]”… they are being sued by the powerful Sacramento Law firm of Dreyer, Babich, Buccolo, Callahan and Wood who is representing Ms. Corrales pro bono, and demanding a minimum settlement of $250,000 per defendant.”[/i]
What do you mean here by “pro bono”? Are you saying that they are not charging any fees up front, but will be compensated if Corrales gets any money from this case? Or are you saying that they will take no percentage at all of any settlement money or money awarded by a civil jury?
If they win an award for her and they take no money out of that, I will be highly surprised. (The only way I could see them doing that is if Corrales is related to a partner in that firm.)
In every civilized country in the world other than in the United States, these sorts of lawsuits are avoided by two differences in law: 1) they have loser pays ([url]http://www.pointoflaw.com/loserpays/[/url]). That means that if the accused rapists fought the lawsuit in civil court and won the judgment, the accuser would have to pay all of their legal fees and other court costs; and 2) the amounts which could be awarded are severely limited, compared with those in most U.S. courts.
Because our system does not protect defendants from unwarranted or unjustified lawsuits (as this one seems to be), we get them. Tons and tons of them. Almost every company in America larger than a mom and pop shop gets sued periodically because our system actually encourages these sorts of suits. Think about it: what does Corrales have to lose by suing? If she wins or gets a settlement, she is enriched. If she loses in court, there is no penalty. For the defendants, even if the evidence is in their favor, they have some chance of losing. They might have to spend $200,000 on lawyer bills to defend themselves. So they have a strong incentive, if she will agree to a pay-off of less than $200,000, to just settle, even if they are (as they seem to be) perfectly innocent.
This abuse is even more common where the defendant has insurance coverage. The insurance company will always make a fiscal calculation, settling even the worst of cases if the lawyer bills to defend are higher than the settlement.
The sons of Ralph Nader are all living in castles all over the U.S.–John Edwards of North Carolina is a good example–because our system is so biased in favor of those who will sue.
[quote]“Acquitted of Gang Rape in Davis, Defendants Continue To Be Stalked By Yolo County’s Brand of Justice”[/quote] And just how is the County stalking the acquitted? You describe a civil case filing. This is not “Yolo County’s brand of justice”; it’s the country’s, as Rich has described. No need to point your finger at the County on this one, right?
It does seem odd that anyone would take this on the case, as you describe the facts, on a [i]pro bono[/i] basis. It would seem like a loser even as a contingency-based case. Even though the standard is lower, acquittal on 63 counts would seem to carry some weight with a civil case jury. And where would the powerful law firm think these folks without means could come up with cash for a not-less-than-$250,000 settlement? [quote]“…defendant Mostafa Noori had the victim’s blood on his clothing…”
“…It wasn’t, we have a proof that it wasn’t hers, it was somebody else’s.”[/quote] How could this not have been resolved with during the 10-week trial? Was any DNA evidence involved in the DA’s case or the defendants’? [quote]“…the victim seemed to have no major injuries….It became clear that the detectives and the evidence technician ignored and failed to collect critical evidence….the fact that none of the defendants were at or near the scene when the rape allegedly occurred….strong and overwhelming evidence of innocence, and the lack of evidence that a rape ever occurred, we do not believe the plaintiff in this civil suit is entitled to have her identity (protected)….”[/quote] David, again it seems like you might be a little preliminary on jumping to such conclusions if you so far have only defendant comments and a defense attorney’s written summary as support. I hope you’ll at least check with Mr. Weiner about some of the more incredible claims you’ve quoted. This story still has a very uneasy feel about it. Shouldn’t you have more before you decide the woman is a lying criminal herself and change your principled policy?[quote]“The defendants in this case attempted to sue the victim, the DA and the Davis Police Department for wrongful prosecution, among other charges. However, due to rape shield laws the case against Ms. Corrales was thrown out and they were charged $20,000 in attorney fees.”[/quote]Have the other DA and DPD cases been resolved? Looks like the three young men had excellent representation in the criminal trial and ignorant (but expensive) attorneys in their civil trial against the accuser. One would hope they’ll find good lawyers to defend them on the new case so they’ll get treated fairly.
JS: “And just how is the County stalking the acquitted? You describe a civil case filing. This is not “Yolo County’s brand of justice”; it’s the country’s, as Rich has described. No need to point your finger at the County on this one, right?
Well said.
JS: “It does seem odd that anyone would take this on the case, as you describe the facts, on a pro bono basis.”
I am at a complete loss as to why a big law firm would take a case like this pro bono – makes absolutely no sense to me either…
JS: “David, again it seems like you might be a little preliminary on jumping to such conclusions if you so far have only defendant comments and a defense attorney’s written summary as support. I hope you’ll at least check with Mr. Weiner about some of the more incredible claims you’ve quoted. This story still has a very uneasy feel about it. Shouldn’t you have more before you decide the woman is a lying criminal herself and change your principled policy?”
I tend to agree w you here… something just does not sit right…
dmg: “The defendants in this case attempted to sue the victim, the DA and the Davis Police Department for wrongful prosecution, among other charges. However, due to rape shield laws the case against Ms. Corrales was thrown out and they were charged $20,000 in attorney fees.”
And what has been the outcome of the civil case against the DA and the Davis Police Dept.? Why was the civil case against Ms. Corrales thrown out, and why did the defendants have to pay the alleged victim attorneys fees?
I think the point DG was trying to make in after the full power of the DA is used against you, your life is severely impacted and you would hope that would be the end or at least be left alone to get back on with your life.
For a DA to waste time and effort on all these counts and still failed to convince one juror to vote guilty, is really amazing. Most reasonable people would conclude that the DA had a crap case and no chance of getting a conviction and this just another rouge DA wasting time, money, court resources and literally ruining lives for a few grant dollars or stats.
IF our criminal justice system is be so trusted and so clear “above a reasonable doubt” and you cannot get one person that you picked to vote guilty, then that speaks volumes to what a poor case, or poor DAs or poor judges, whatever the reason, these guys “did their time”, they were arrested, spent money on bail, spent time in jail, had their names put in the mud with apparently false and misleading information and they went to court and were found NOT Guilty.
This civil thing is just another way for the DA to use his power. The DA has to be a complete idiot to think he could win a case where he could not get one guilty verdict or perhaps he was crazy like a Fox, and knew that by getting all the dirt in the paper, dragging this to trial, would all be great ammo for a civil trial later.
Before all you Reisig lovers say no way, this the exact same thing the DA did in filing 3 misdemeanor trials on the same case and could not win that either, his sole purpose was to prevent a civil trail, if he did it one way, why would he not do it the other way.
And as this has been pointed out Reisig will be able to use this waste of a trail in his stats to show how bad crime is, how many trials he did, how cases went to court. It is all about the numbers with that guy so he can use them later in a sound bite.
Lastly, DG you are blaming the county and implying the second bite of the apple is wrong now, but when the cops were found not guilty by a jury in LA during Rodney King, no one had a problem when the FEDS came in and charged the cops again in FED court, seems the same to me.
[quote]“This civil thing is just another way for the DA to use his power.”[/quote] I don’t think this is the logic David is using to get to his conclusion that the County is stalking these three, but it could be since he seems to accept Mr. Noori’s contention that DDA Serafin is somehow driving the young woman’s civil case.
I agree there’s something very distasteful and dismaying about the way this criminal case was prosecuted. But accusing the DA of planning a criminal trial to develop civil case ammo for the woman is just the type over-reaching conclusion for which some of David’s reports provide fodder. I’ll bet there’s not much criticism when the recipients of the officers’ beatings head for settlement or civil trial–it’s the American way.
What the situation here is one in which the DA failed miserably and came out looking extremely incompetent. However, if their alleged victim wins the civil case, then that will cast some doubt on the 0-63 home loss and may help to earn some respect/credibility for the DA’s office regarding the criminal case. So, as you can see, the DA has a very special interest in the outcome of this civil case and I am certain that they have played a part in convincing Brittany Corrales to go along for an encore performance. As many others have questioned: Why would any firm file this lawsuit? Again, we’re talking about 12 jurors voting NOT guilty to 63 counts! The DA failed and couldn’t even achieve 1 out 756 opportunities to convince someone on that jury that one of these young men was guilty of something–maybe just a lesser count, like a simple assault. Therefore, I conclude that this civil case stinks of conspiracy.
@JS
I think that what Mr Noori is contending concerns that the ADA tipped off Dreyer, Babich about his travel plans to Haiti when he requested the release of his passport. What impact this may have served?–I don’t know. I did just realize, however, that this case was resolved in December 2009 and Mr Noori went abroad to Haiti to help in the relieve efforts three months later in February 2010. I know that it is unreasonable to give criminals and rapists a generic description, but this profile is definitely an outlier from what I’m used to seeing.
[quote]“I am also left wondering whether the DA or someone involved in the prosecution may have a friend or former law school buddy at Dryer, Babich that is making an effort to save some face for the DA’s office and the Davis PD….I think that what Mr Noori is contending concerns that the ADA tipped off Dreyer, Babich about his travel plans to Haiti when he requested the release of his passport.”[/quote] I’m left wondering from what angry corners these half-baked, incredible conspiracy theories about the Yolo DA and others keep popping. I hope the [u]Vanguard[/u] can provide more complete reporting on the cases it chooses so that opportunities for unfounded speculation generated by its coverage will be minimized.
Not sure exactly why the law firm is taking the case pro bono, but I think they have some favors they are putting in for the Yolo County D.A.s office. There is no case here, the defendents will once again win their case because they are INNOCENT, it is just unfortunate that so much money has to be spent in the process. It is completly unfair that they are spending upwards of a hundered thousand dollars over a case that would have NEVER went to trial in another county. But because Yolo has an overzealous D.A. it had to go there.
Also i’m sure everyone is seeing $$$ signs. Its not everyday that 4 defendents with million dollar bail are bailed out, they all also had high profile defense attorneys. At minimum they must have homeowners insurance, why not sue. Brittany and the law firm have abolutely nothing to lose, even if they get 30,000, why not?? That’s 30k more than they had.
” I hope the [u]Vanguard[/u] can provide more complete reporting on the cases it chooses so that opportunities for unfounded speculation generated by its coverage will be minimized.”
I’d be curious what more you would like from this case?
One of the scarty precedents I can see here happening here– is that people might allege false rape for financial gain. As stated earlier in one of the blogs, there are no consequences for making a false claim.
If you have lawyers that are willing to take a case where the rape claims were found to be false (such as this one), because they think they can get someone to settle instead of going to court (insurance companies or whomever), then this opens up “a huge can of worms.”
Others in financial need may also use false rape claims to get some money–especially if lawyers are willing to do this pro bono.
O.K. I made a couple of typos in my last post. I hit the button too quickly. Here’s what it should have said.
One of the scary precendents I can see here happening–is that people might allege false rape for financial gain. As stated earlier by Rifkin, there are no consequences for making a false claim–suing someone.
If you have lawyers that are willing to take a case where the rape claims were found to be false (such as this one), because they think they can get a settlement by threatening a civil trial, then this opens up a “huge can of worms.”
Others in financial need may also use false rape claims to get some money–especially if lawyers are willing to do this pro bono. There is no risk and/or consequences to the person making the allegation.
[quote]A death penalty opponent who is morally opposed to the death penalty in all case would say that the state does not have the right to put anyone to death. I believe that is the ACLU’s position. It is my position. [/quote][Roger][quote]would you be referring to the DA’s Office being so incompetent that they could not confuse one juror enough to get one to vote guilty? [/quote]I’m not seeing in David’s analysis any reference to a 12-0 vote for acquittal…. an acquittal usually only speaks to a lack of 12-0 for conviction. Huge difference… Roger, do you have additional information?
My bad… first reference was an old cut & paste… please ignore…
@hpierce
To have a conviction (guilty) there must be 12-0 vote, like you mentioned, and to have an acquittal (not guilty) there must also be a 12-0 vote. Anything in between is a mistrial, which allows the DA to try the case again for any charges that did not end in a unanimous decision. This case ended with a full acquittal–not guilty (12-0) on 63 counts so the DA cannot touch these young men for these alleged crimes, but can certainly assist in the civil process. What I’ve learned from following this case is that if you are the accused, you are screwed because our laws do not protect you in any way, other than guaranteeing a “fair” trial.
The least you could have done was a wee bit more research before writing.
1. The name of the firm is Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood. A simple and quick pop over to their website would confirm the correct name and correct spelling.
2. Your headline is highly inaccurate–a private firm suing has nothing to do with Yolo County.
3. The Dreyer Babich firm is KNOWN for being ambulance chasers–to possibly imply that anyone in Yolo Co. somehow directed the attorney to the client or vice versa is simply preposterous.
4. The correct term is ‘contingent fee’ NOT ‘pro bono.’ There is a difference in the two.
You seem to have a hatred for police, law enforcement, and the criminal justice system. But these are the same people that will run towards the gunfire to save your life if the occasion arose.
Hello “hairyhand” and by the way, nice moniker. Their complaint lists the firm name with “Callaham” in it, so that’s what I’m using.
As for your second and third comments, our title implies there is some collaboration between the two, something that the defendants and their attorney both suggested to me. I took the “pro bono” phrase which is what was used by the defendants and their attorneys. Since the law firm never called me back, I have no way of knowing if they are on contingency or if they took it up as a charity case, but it was suggested it might be a separate portion of their law firm that is supporting this as charitable rather than as their norm. Hopefully that can be clarified.
“You seem to have a hatred for police, law enforcement, and the criminal justice system.”
Judicial Watch is a government watch dog organization that monitors the Yolo County legal system. I would also add that I highly doubt that Michelle Serafin will be rushing towards gunfire to save my life or anyone else’s life anytime soon and my guess is the same would apply to anyone else in that department.
From their filing:
[img]images/stories/filing.png[/img]
“our title implies there is some collaboration between the two, something that the defendants and their attorney both suggested to me. ”
David, don’t you think you ought not take what the defendants and their attorney claim at face value? consider the source – they have every reason to massage the facts in favor of themselves.
others have said it, and I think it is worth repeating. you are basing the lion’s share of this article on the claims made by the defendants and their attorney. It is just as bad as if I wrote a similar article and merely quoted reisig and the girl as my primary source of information.
there are facts that still need to come out:
1. the article mentions a party – were the defendants and the girl at the same party?
2. I saw the claim by the defendant – that the blood on his shirt is not the girls, it is “somebody elses”: then whos blood is it? why?
3. did any of the defendants have sex with the girl? in all of the statements by the defendants you quoted, they did not say one way or the other if they actually had sex with her.
Those are just three questions. There is probably a lot more to it, and I’m not going to speculate as to what that is, BECAUSE I DID NOT SEE THE TRIAL. But your readers need more than mere claims by the defense.
“David, don’t you think you ought not take what the defendants and their attorney claim at face value? consider the source – they have every reason to massage the facts in favor of themselves. “
I disagree with your insinuation here on a number of fronts. First, you act as though I have merely accepted their word without evidence. Second, my general experience with defense counsel, particularly those with whom I have built a relationships is that they are very careful with what they say to the media and if anything err in the other direction.
“there are facts that still need to come out:
1. the article mentions a party – were the defendants and the girl at the same party?
2. I saw the claim by the defendant – that the blood on his shirt is not the girls, it is “somebody elses”: then whos blood is it? why?
3. did any of the defendants have sex with the girl? in all of the statements by the defendants you quoted, they did not say one way or the other if they actually had sex with her.”
I believe all of these things came out at trial. If the girl’s hymen is attached, then she probably was not having sex, but there was some consensual contact between her and one of the parties, and ironically enough the one against whom charges were dismissed.
dmg: “I disagree with your insinuation here on a number of fronts. First, you act as though I have merely accepted their word without evidence. Second, my general experience with defense counsel, particularly those with whom I have built a relationships is that they are very careful with what they say to the media and if anything err in the other direction.”
LOL That is your problem – you have built relationships w defense attorneys. What, you don’t think defense attorneys shade evidence in a way that is favorable to their clients? How many prosecutors have you talked to in order to get their take on things?
“we pulled the story from the findings during the trial and interspersed commentary from the defendants to explain how they saw things and how this has impacted them.”
stop right there, like Elaine said, that is your problem. How do you think the defendants thought it impacted them? they were victims of a conspiracy by the police every time. OJ simpson saw it that way, even though he was guilty beyond any doubt, let alone a reasonable one. You expect a defendant to say: “sorry, yeah, I was guilty, the prosecution did the right thing?”
“What, you don’t think defense attorneys shade evidence in a way that is favorable to their clients? How many prosecutors have you talked to in order to get their take on things? “
I’d love to talk to prosecutors, unfortunately I am forced in general to read what they saw and watch what they do.
My point is that most defense attorneys are very cautious in their claims they make to reporters. And generally they have been pretty accurate as things have played out in law. Moreover, you seem to ignore and separate that I did not simply take their word on it, there was evidence to support their claim.
Musser: You are missing the point of how a news story is conducted. There are two separate issues here. One are the facts of the case. The facts reported here are what came out in court and the jury ruled on. The separate issue here is that I’m telling the defendant’s story of how this case impacted them and continues to do so. For that, I rely on their interview. No I don’t expect a defendant who has been acquitted of 21 charges of rape and for whom the jury told them they believed they were proven innocent to say, yeah I was guilty, the prosecution did the right thing. That’s why we have the jury trial and the facts that emerged.
” OJ simpson saw it that way, even though he was guilty beyond any doubt, let alone a reasonable one. “
No, OJ was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and beat the criminal case. That jury too was out for less than a day. Of course the civil jury found him guilty by a preponderance of the evidence and made a $16 million dollar judgement against him. So that is the point of the suit.
I don’t know what happened but a few things come to mind. If what I have read about the woman’s anatomy was true she was a virgin at the time of the incident. She goes to a party and something happens between the victim and these 4 guys. They trap her in a bathroom and she doesn’t like the way she is treated and files a complaint. A jury decides its not criminal so she files a civil complaint seeking damages. Now in a civil trial all you can get are monetary damages so she asks for a lot of money to inflict economic pain on these guys as a way to seek justice for herself.
Four men and a virgin hard for me to sympathize with these guys
If she is making it all up or if the men think they are the victims of her they can file a counter claim but from what you have written that is not happening.
“A jury decides its not criminal so she files a civil complaint seeking damages.”
The jury decided it didn’t happen. Their words.
“If she is making it all up or if the men think they are the victims of her they can file a counter claim but from what you have written that is not happening.”
Actually they can’t. Rape shield laws prevent them from suing an alleged victim for making up a story.
dmg: “My point is that most defense attorneys are very cautious in their claims they make to reporters. And generally they have been pretty accurate as things have played out in law. Moreover, you seem to ignore and separate that I did not simply take their word on it, there was evidence to support their claim.”
“Pretty accurate” according to the defense’s shaded view of things. I’m sure if you heard the prosecution’s side, you might have a different take on things, but they are hardly going to talk to a blog that is clearly out to vilify them.
I tend to agree w Mr. Toad. We don’t know what happened, but what we do know is one of the guys admitted to having some sort of sexual contact w this girl; and you seem to be admitting four guys were in the bathroom w this girl? Now why in the world would a virgin be in the same bathroom w four guys, and have some sort of consensual sexual contact w one of them in front of the other three? It just does not add up… something doesn’t smell right…
“I tend to agree w Mr. Toad. We don’t know what happened, but what we do know is one of the guys admitted to having some sort of sexual contact w this girl; and you seem to be admitting four guys were in the bathroom w this girl? Now why in the world would a virgin be in the same bathroom w four guys, and have some sort of consensual sexual contact w one of them in front of the other three? It just does not add up… something doesn’t smell right… “
Either the article is that badly written or you have reading comprehension problems!!! What part of a lifesize model of the bathroom was built and all the defendents didn’t fit in there! She lied, she’s a liar, she made the whole thing up. Get it through your thick skull. If something doesn’t smell right it’s probably your upper lip. What do you get out of leaving so many comments on a case you know nothing about and asking redundant questions. If you cared so much you should have went to the nine week trial. ALL the questions were answered right there in trial. The jurors said they would put innocent if they could, they came out and talked to the defendents family and even hugged them! That does not happen in a case where people get off on reasonable doubt, that happens in cases where people are innocent. 100% innocent.
Seriously Toad, what the hell? Did you even read the article at all? If you assume the evidence which was accepted by the court was correct:
– The logistics of the original claim were shown to be impossible.
– The plaintiff claimed to have been raped, but medical evidence showed her hymen intact. While something unlawful may have happened, this clearly further questions the credibility of any claims made.
– The plaintiff was sending casual text messages to friends during the time she claims the crimes took place.
– A counter-suit is impossible due to rape shield laws.
And Elaine, we live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps you should remember that. What we have here is an accusation, proven to be completely false. Maybe something horrible did happen, and for some reason she remembered it completely incorrectly in scale and detail, causing an incorrect trial. Maybe she was drunk and did something she regrets. Maybe she saw this as an opportunity for extortion. Maybe she’s crazy. Maybe it’s a blur of all these options. But people like you who assume guilt in any accusation of sex crimes regardless of evidence to the contrary are the reason falsely accused people like these defendant’s lives are ruined.
Justin Kudo, I couldn’t have said it any better. Accusation of a sex crime is a situation where the defense has the burden of disproving guilt, which is a contradiction of how our legal system operates. And when a defendant turns out to be not guilty, his name is tarnished forever and people still think that he’s a guilty predator. I support women’s rights, it has made a lot of progress and still has a long way to go, but it can often take priority over everything else in sexual assault cases–it has a tendency to cloud people’s judgment, leaving the accused out in the cold.
It is not surprising to me that either the defendants neglected to tell the reporter or the reporter failed to report, that these defendants filed a lawsuit, in Federal Court, against Ms. Corrales, a witness in the criminal case, the City of Davis, City of Davis Police Department, Detective Scott Smith, and Detective Mike Moore, for a total of $4,500,000.00. In that case the court ruled that the criminal defendants “failed to meet their burden of showing by competent and admissible evidence that there was a probablity they would prevail on any of the causes of action against” Ms. Corrales or the witness. The defendants were ordered to pay the attorneys fees incurred by Ms. Corrales and the witness, but have failed to do so.
I’m guessing the lawsuit against not only Ms. Corrales, but a simple witness, was not included in the article because it puts the defendants in a less sympathetic light.
The editorial comments about the state of the evidence in the criminal case clearly demonstrate that the author did nothing to actually investigate the state of the evidence. This case should be tried in court where all parties can present their case to an unbaised jury and not in a blog that fails to engage in responsible journalism.
If you want to report on the story, at least be complete.
[quote]“‘The media made us out to be a gang of ‘Arabs” & “Persians’…’If you Google my name you’ll find things calling me a rapist.”[/quote] [b]The Race Card![/b] So, I took the defendants up on their challenge and Googled each of their names. Maybe it’s out there somewhere, but I couldn’t come up with anything about a gang or Arabs or Persians.
David, likely you did some checking yourself before publishing this charge of media racism, so please document which media made offensive racial or gang comments about the defendants.
What did quickly pop up was information about the civil suit to which you refer, [b]Mr./Mrs. Ytfel[/b]: [quote]“It is not surprising to me that either the defendants neglected to tell the reporter or the reporter failed to report, that these defendants filed a lawsuit….”[/quote] Actually, you might have missed David’s short reference and later response comment (neither of which is close to accurate) about the suit:[quote]“…due to rape shield laws the case against (the alleged victim) was thrown out and they were charged $20,000 in attorney fees.” and “Rape shield laws prevent them from suing an alleged victim for making up a story.”[/quote] Maybe David’s reliance on the Noori brothers, Atebar and their attorneys for his research on this story kept him from accuracy and from seeing/reporting the truth. The alleged victim was awarded only $7,750 in attorney fees. The majority ($12,320) that David includes really went to yet another person they’d sued.
In spite of David’s faulting of rape shield laws, the men’s suit against the two appears to have run afoul of a law passed to correct “a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” Called the Anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16). It aims to “encourage continued participation in matters of public significance” and help assure that “participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process.” What are the sources that led you to write that the rape shield law had anything to do with the trio’s $20,000 debt (or even could have, for that matter)? Additionally, the men filed a voluntary dismissal of their own complaint against the two–so where did you come up with claim that their suit against the alleged victim “was thrown out”–for any reason, let alone “due to rape shield laws.”
On Oct. 20 last, a judge determined that the three young men “failed to meet their burden of showing by competent and admissible evidence that there was a probability they would prevail on any of the causes of action” they had filed against the woman who claimed they’d attacked her as well as one of the others they’d sued. [quote]“The problems for the brothers unfortunately did not end with acquittal.”[/quote] No, David, unfortunately they did not stop there. But the costly civil suit they filed after they were acquitted was their choice. BTW, do you know the results of the rest of the suit* (against the City of Davis, the DPD, detectives? And, did they really sue the DA, as you report? [quote]“‘We really need everything we can get,” he added.”[/quote]No doubt true. For starters, they apparently haven’t yet paid the $20,000 for attorney fees because the three debtors been ordered to appear in court in a couple weeks “and furnish information to aid in the enforcement of the money judgment entered against them.”
Assuming I’m only half-correct, it’s amazing how so much fabrication and misinformation–all aimed at generating sympathy for the acquitted trio–can be packed into a half-dozen sentences.
– – – – – – – – – –
*For false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress
[quote][u]JustSaying[/u]: “I hope the [u]Vanguard[/u] can provide more complete reporting on the cases it chooses so that opportunities for unfounded speculation generated by its coverage will be minimized.”
[u]David[/u]: “I’d be curious what more you would like from this case?”[/quote] A whole bunch! I’ll get back to you on this. But, for starters, how about responding to the comments and questions I raised Wednesday (03/02/11 – 04:13 PM) that you’ve overlooked or chosen to ignore:
1. What’s your basis for charging that these three “continue to be stalked by Yolo County’s Brand of Justice,” whatever that is? The alleged victim’s filing of a civil suit is her sin, not the County’s.
2. Was the issue of the blood on Mostafa Noori’s clothing resolved during the trial–what was the DDA’s proof that it was the alleged victim’s and what was Noori’s proof that the blood belong to someone else? This seems like a critical issue, especially since you claim that “none of the defendants were at or near the scene when the rape allegedly occurred.”
3. What’s the resolution of the suit against the County/DA and the City/Police?
4. Do you have any second thoughts about deciding to violate your principles on reporting alleged rape victims’ names, especially given the unsupported reporting you’ve provided your readers? Isn’t your reasoning that the stigma and shame of rape makes victims reluctant to report? Why should an acquittal change your practice that’s benefit is not discouraging [u]future[/u] victims?
Your revised policy: “The guys were found not guilty, so I’ll teach that girl a thing or two ’cause she’s not entitled!” Of course, you can do what you did, and do it in such an unnecessarily overt and nasty way. But just who have you benefitted with your decision not to protect her identity because you’ve decided, for reasons that the rest of us don’t get to understand, that there was no sexual assault? Will next week’s rape victim be more reluctant to report because of the angry tone of your editor’s note? Just wondering.
It should noted that while we did not report all of the details, we did mention the lawsuit that the defendants filed: “The defendants in this case attempted to sue the victim, the DA and the Davis Police Department for wrongful prosecution, among other charges. However, due to rape shield laws the case against Ms. Corrales was thrown out and they were charged $20,000 in attorney fees.”
[quote]“It should noted that while we did not report all of the details, we did mention the lawsuit that the defendants filed….”[/quote] I, for one, noted it completely. And, it appears that each and every detail you did report here is flat out wrong. Then, you follow it up with: [quote]“Actually they can’t (file a “counter claim”). Rape shield laws prevent them from suing an alleged victim for making up a story.”[/quote] Actually they [u]did[/u] file such a suit, as you just asked us to note. As usual, your report prompts personal attacks against your own blog participants, such as this thoughtful gem aimed at Elaine: [quote]“Either the article is that badly written or you have reading comprehension problems!!! What part of a lifesize model of the bathroom was built and all the defendents didn’t fit in there! She lied, she’s a liar, she made the whole thing up. [b]Get it through your thick skull. If something doesn’t smell right it’s probably your upper lip. What do you get out of leaving so many comments on a case you know nothing about and asking redundant questions.”[/b][/quote] Maybe this attack is tolerated here because Mr./Mrs d.a.iscorrupt’s first alternative (“Either the article is that badly written….”) is being acknowledged as true. It seems like there are more attacks lately being generated by all the misinformation flying around, so maybe it’s more difficult to keep up with them.
There is NO misinformation in this article, though I do think it is badly written. The defendents were AQUITTED, why are you still feeling, assuming that they are guilty??? Are you deflecting? Why can’t it be that she is lying??? WHY IS THAT NOT AN OPTION HERE?? Thankfully you guys were not on the jury, because to the jury it was an option. They saw through her thousands of lies, everything she said on the stand was invalidated by other witnesses, most of whom were her friends. There were 63 charges, if the jury felt they were guilty of any wrong doing they could have voted guilty one atleast one of the lesser charges, but they didn’t!! Just like the criminal case was won so will the civil. There is no way you can sit in the courtroom and see/hear the “victim” and think she is an honest or truthful person.
The victims in this case were the defendents so there is no reason not to state the name Brittany Corrales! She is not a victim.
4. Do you have any second thoughts about deciding to violate your principles on reporting alleged rape victims’ names, especially given the unsupported reporting you’ve provided your readers? Isn’t your reasoning that the stigma and shame of rape makes victims reluctant to report? Why should an acquittal change your practice that’s benefit is not discouraging future victims?
She is not an alleged rape victim! It didn’t happen. What about protecting the real victims the wrongly accused? Do you not have any sympathy for those wrongly accused? what kind of human being are you?
Why do the commenters on this blog who know nothing about the case, have HUGE bias feel that they know better than 12 jurors who sat through a 9 week trial and saw and heard all of the evidence????????? Please someone answer that question. The jurors voted not guilty. Just because there is a civil case by some amublance chasers does not invalidate the acquittal.
It is not surprising to me that either the defendants neglected to tell the reporter or the reporter failed to report, that these defendants filed a lawsuit, in Federal Court, against Ms. Corrales, a witness in the criminal case, the City of Davis, City of Davis Police Department, Detective Scott Smith, and Detective Mike Moore, for a total of $4,500,000.00. In that case the court ruled that the criminal defendants “failed to meet their burden of showing by competent and admissible evidence that there was a probablity they would prevail on any of the causes of action against” Ms. Corrales or the witness. The defendants were ordered to pay the attorneys fees incurred by Ms. Corrales and the witness, but have failed to do so.
Reading comprehension skills I tell you! It is clearly stated in the article. All laws protect Brittany Corrales, the liar who falsely accused the four victims.
[quote]“Reading comprehension skills I tell you! It is clearly stated in the article.”[/quote] Most of what Ytfel reported is not in the article, although he obviously missed the two sentences that were clearly written and, upon a little checking, appear to be packed with misinformation. [quote]“The defendents were AQUITTED, why are you still feeling, assuming that they are guilty??? Do you not have any sympathy for those wrongly accused? what kind of human being are you?”[/quote] My questions and concerns are about David’s reporting and about the [u]Vanguard[/u] direction and practices, and I don’t mean to suggest that the defendants don’t deserve the jury’s not-guilty finding. After all, they were there for the whole trial, as you’ve pointed out.
I understand how it could appear that I might be suggesting the defendants are guilty when I question David’s “facts,” but that’s not my aim. I’d be more supportive of his claims if he was more accurate. Or if he’d deal with his errors more forthrightly. Or if his stories didn’t attract nasty rhetoric such as you heaped on Elaine or the constant stream of unsupported invective charging corruption by the DA and other County officials.
One thing I’m sure of about the defendants in this particular case is how distasteful it is for them to be out describing the woman’s hymen and claiming it somehow proves her virginity which, in turn, proves their innocence. But, of course, that really falls back to David’s selection of sources to support his notions.
There must be more reliable sources than the defendants for these kinds of claims, as well as of the “proof” that the DDA’s blood evidence came from someone other than the accuser.[quote][u]Elaine[/u]: “But your readers need more than mere claims by the defense.”
[u]David[/u]: “You are missing the point of how a news story is conducted. There are two separate issues here. One are the facts of the case. The facts reported here are what came out in court and the jury ruled on…. we pulled the story from the findings during the trial and interspersed commentary from the defendants to explain how they saw things and how this has impacted them. You are implying that this is a story presented from the word of the defendants rather than a story presented from court findings with interviews by the defendants. There is a huge difference there and you are somehow forgetting that there was findings of fact by the jury in this case and evidence that came out during the course of trial, which we reported on, now twice.”[/quote] David would be hard pressed to point out where he’s attributed claims made in this story to courtroom action. Upon rereading the article, I can turn up only one possible instance, that of Aziz Rasooli’s situation and even that seems a little fuzzy (“[u]acquitted[/u] during the preliminary trial” versus “the judge seemed to almost arbitrarily [u]dismiss the charges[/u].)
So, maybe all the first-hand trial evidence is in the first of the two [u]Vanguard[/u] articles noted? Not a chance:[quote] “We did not sit through the trial and we only know press accounts of the case, but it has all of the familiar elemnts. According to Dain Weiner, attorney for one of the accused, the woman made up accusations after she slept with one of the defendants and did not want friends to know what had happened.”[/quote]This most certainly is not the way journalism schools teach “how a news story is conducted (orchestrated?).”
So, that’s my deal: The [u]Vanguard[/u] has stood the test of time. However, recent stories in “Judicial Watch” are jeopardizing David’s worthy efforts and the [u]Vanguard[/u]’s reputation. I’m always pleased to see unfairly prosecuted or poorly prosecuted or just plain innocent defendants be found not guilty by a jury or a judge. But, why try to stretch it into a more meaningful event than is justified?
My family (white, middle class) is also suffering from false allegations five years ago. Thank God these men did not succumb to a plea bargain. We also lost over $100,000 defending our family’s honor. It’s a daily battle to fight the bitterness that continues to plague us. But we are winning the battle.