Dang. I can't imagine what it would feel like to sit in a courtroom and hear that sentence handed down on you. This is a classic 'one bad decision can destroy your life' situation.
I'm not a lawyer, though, so I was a little confused about a sentence of "15 years to life". After consulting the law firm of Google and Google, Esq., it's apparently a life sentence but he can get out earlier on parole after serving a minimum of 15 years. And then that makes me wonder about all of the 'good behavior' stuff any more. So I wonder if 15 to life means that he really has to serve 15 years at a minimum or if he can start getting parole hearings sooner if he has good behavior. Anyone know how that works?
https://www.nfl.com/news/ex-nfl-play...-years-to-life
Ex-NFL player Dana Stubblefield sentenced to 15 years to life
Published: Oct 22, 2020 at 10:21 PM
logo_author_2020_logo_AP_png
Associated Press
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Former San Francisco 49er Dana Stubblefield was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison Thursday for raping a developmentally disabled woman who prosecutors said he lured to his home with the promise of a babysitting job.
The sentence was issued by a judge in San Jose after denying a defense motion for a new trial, the Mercury News reported. Last week, the Sixth District Court of Appeal denied a related petition filed on behalf of Stubblefield by his attorneys.
A jury in July found Stubblefield, 49, guilty of raping the woman with the threat of a gun. He was also convicted of forcible oral copulation and false imprisonment. He has been held in the Santa Clara County Main Jail since the verdict.
Stubblefield began his 11-year lineman career in the NFL with the 49ers in 1993 as the league's defensive rookie of the year. He later won the NFL Defensive Player of the Year honors in 1997 before leaving the team to play for Washington. He returned to the Bay Area to finish his career, playing with the 49ers in 2000-01 and the Raiders in 2003.
A day before the April 2015 assault, Stubblefield contacted the then 31-year-old woman on a baby-sitting website and arranged an interview, prosecutors said.
According to a report by the Morgan Hill Police Department, the interview lasted about 20 minutes. She later received a text from Stubblefield saying he wanted to pay her for her time that day, and she went back to the house.
After raping her, Stubblefield gave her $80 and let her go, according to the report. The woman immediately went to police and reported the rape. DNA evidence matched that of Stubblefield, the report said.
Defense attorneys argued that there was no rape and that the woman consented to sex.
Allen Sawyer, one of Stubblefield's trial attorneys, said the defense team was precluded from showing the jury strong evidence that would have supported the contention.
After the sentencing Thursday, Sawyer emphasized that the jury rejected two felony charges alleging that Stubblefield exploited a woman who was mentally incapable of providing consent to sex.
"We proved it, and the jury found that was not true," Sawyer said. "That false narrative corrupted this trial from start to finish."
[Reply]
Originally Posted by eDave:
If ever there's a guy who is misunderstood, it's Von Miller. I always liked him.
I'll begrudgingly admit that he's either straightened up his act or he's driven his criminal activities underground. But jeepers, he was a menace to society his first three or four years in the league. He had multiple warrants and failures to appear in court, he got caught cheating on a drug test, and then of course he was on a witness list for a mass murder due to apparently hanging out with the murderers on the day that they killed several people and set fire to the building they were in.
But he seems to have improved. I'm not aware of any recent mass murder associations connected to him.
[Reply]
Originally Posted by :
After the sentencing Thursday, Sawyer emphasized that the jury rejected two felony charges alleging that Stubblefield exploited a woman who was mentally incapable of providing consent to sex.
"We proved it, and the jury found that was not true," Sawyer said. "That false narrative corrupted this trial from start to finish."
I don't get what this dude is saying. The jury found it wasn't true. So how is it a false narrative if the jury said it wasn't true?
And the prosecutors claiming something on behalf of their client isn't corruption, you fucking moron. That's how the the judicial system works. Lawyers claim your client does a bad thing, and as a defense attorney, your job is to *gasp* DEFEND your client. That's not corruption.
Look, you can claim the jury is full of shit. That's fine. But your little assessment of the trial is entirely unclear to the reader-- the only thing we know is that you're pissed that you lost.
You're a lawyer. Learn how to communicate better.
[Reply]