With the civil case alleging that Derrick Rose and two of his friends drugged a woman, broke into her apartment, and raped her while she was unconscious set to go to trial next week, the Los Angeles Police Department has confirmed that there is also an open criminal investigation into the alleged August 2013 incident, a revelation that could mean even more legal trouble for the New York Knicks point guard.
Daniel Werly of The White Bronco shared the Sept. 22, 2016, letter from Detective Nadine Hernandez of the Special Assault Section of the LAPD’s Robbery-Homicide Division to Brandon Anand — one of the lawyers representing “Jane Doe,” the woman who filed the complaint against Rose and his fellow defendants, Ryan Allen and Randall Hampton — on Monday morning:
Mr. Anand:
This note is to clarify any misconception that the Los Angeles Police Department does not have a current and open criminal investigation pending that names the same suspects as the defendants in the current civil case being handled by your office (Case No. CV 15-7503-MWF (JCx). When filing the crime report, the victim in this case exercised her right to confidentiality as outlined in California Penal Code section 293.5. (a). Her identity will continue to remain confidential throughout the criminal investigation being handled by the Los Angeles Police Department.
The ability to offer anonymity to victims of sex crimes is an invaluable investigative aid to investigators as well as a great comfort to victims of crimes of such a sensitive nature.
Hernandez also confirmed to Deadspin’s Lindsay Adler on Monday “that an investigation is ongoing, but could not elaborate on whether or not interviews have been conducted with the relevant parties.”
This revelation comes less than a week after U.S. District Court Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald ruled that Jane Doe would not be allowed to remain anonymous at trial, amid concerns that Rose would not receive a fair trial should his accuser remain anonymous. As Sports Illustrated’s Michael McCann noted, “Doe remaining anonymous during the trial might lead jurors to mistakenly conclude that her anonymity reflects an opinion by Judge Fitzgerald about whether Rose ought to be found liable.”
As Jedd Legum of ThinkProgress notes, Rose’s attorney, Mark Baute, “had [previously] alleged that Anand was lying about an active criminal investigation in order to extort a settlement from Rose,” and argued “that the claim of an active criminal investigation was false and represented a violation of rules of professional conduct for attorneys.”
This is Rose's lawyer accusing Doe's lawyer of lying about a pending criminal case bc "he wants and needs money from a settlement."Yikes. pic.twitter.com/zJaS3Smye4
— Dan Werly (@WerlySportsLaw) September 26, 2016
DRose's legal team had slammed accuser's team for implying there is a criminal investigation. Appears there is.— Julie DiCaro (@JulieDiCaro) September 26, 2016
So everything inculpatory Rose said about consent in his deposition will be admissible if he's criminally charged.— Julie DiCaro (@JulieDiCaro) September 26, 2016
Really terrible, short-sighted lawyering on the part of Rose's attorneys to allow him to sit for a deposition.— Julie DiCaro (@JulieDiCaro) September 26, 2016
In light of the revelation of the LAPD’s criminal investigation into the incident, Doe’s attorneys filed a motion on Sunday requesting that the court reconsider its decision to strip Doe’s anonymity at trial:
Since [the court’s ruling last week], new and additional facts have come to light which necessitate that she be allowed to proceed under a pseudonym. Mainly, the criminal investigation against Defendants Rose, Hampton and Allen has progressed and Plaintiff is entitled to proceed under a pseudonym in the ongoing criminal investigation and pending prosecution. […] Of course, the protections afforded by the Criminal Court will be meaningless if Plaintiff’s name is released by this Court.
The lead detective in Rose's criminal case has volunteered to testify about the nature of the investigation and the need for anonymity.— Dan Werly (@WerlySportsLaw) September 26, 2016
Moreover, according to Doe’s attorneys, social media “posts which directed threats of serious harm against the Plaintiff have increased exponentially since immediately after the Court’s September 20, 2016 ruling:
Rose's accuser alleges that "misinformed fans" of Derrick Rose are aggressively attacking her: pic.twitter.com/lpcz5VgtE7— Dan Werly (@WerlySportsLaw) September 26, 2016
Interesting bit in Doe's motion about the Kobe Bryant case: pic.twitter.com/9ec6vkd5h3— Julie DiCaro (@JulieDiCaro) September 26, 2016
According to sports lawyer Werly, the revelation of the LAPD’s open criminal investigation could have a significant impact on how the scheduled civil trial unfolds:
Rose's attorneys had vehemently denied that a criminal investigation was pending. This will not resonate well with the judge. https://t.co/8onF5EhLk0— Dan Werly (@WerlySportsLaw) September 26, 2016
Because evidence revealed @ Rose's civil trial could be used to further the crim investigation, this gives Doe a lot of settlement leverage. https://t.co/8onF5EhLk0— Dan Werly (@WerlySportsLaw) September 26, 2016
Knicks team president Phil Jackson said last week that the team is “not concerned” about Rose’s pending case. Rose struck a similar note during the Knicks’ Monday media day session, saying he “really [hasn’t] been thinking about it,” that “I am not worried about it, I felt like I didn’t do anything wrong,” and that “I can’t think about a case I feel like I am innocent in, I feel like I didn’t do anything wrong.”
Derrick Rose, on his upcoming trial: "It's not true. I'll be proven innocent." Says today was the first he heard of the LAPD investigation.— Chris Mannix (@ChrisMannixYS) September 26, 2016
The civil trial is set to begin on Oct. 4 in Los Angeles.
No comments:
Post a Comment