Mr. WEO

Your question was asked and answered in dozens of posts here a few hours ago....

He can't make that claim or any other regarding events he recalls that night, as he cannot recall any of them. ok thanks. Is there somewhere mentioned a claim by witnesses that she was telling everyone she was 18?

Can it be asserted by a defendant with no context or circumstances being stated by him?

That she told Araiza this?

How does such a defense get entered if he doesn't even claim it? She was clearly underage. He can claim he reasonably thought she was of age without stating so in court?

How does he assert the mistaken age defense? What evidence does he provide? Fake ID?

Did anyone witness Araiza carding her before he had sex with her? How will he "honestly and reasonably" claim he thought she was of age? A drunk girl hanging at a college boy party told him so?

He has no recollection of any of those conversations

I covered that....

The "mistaken identity" defense will be tough when he is on tape claiming he remembers nothing about that night. How will he support his defense? First question he will be asked is "at what point did you ask her how old she was and what did she tell you?" He can't answer credibly.

" A mistaken age is a defense, not an exception for consent. " He can claim mistaken age. But that's not consent. It's a fact, that's all.

He cannot makes the argument that she consented. Not legally possible.

lol come on...did you just wake up?

See above. A mistaken age is a defense, not an exception for consent. As a 17 year old, the law says she cannot consent. If he says "she said she was 18", that does not make her 18 and able to consent. But he can try to use it as a defense. Given the alleged violence of what happened that night (perhaps after her sexual encounter with Araiza first), it might be a heavy lift for a jury to consider she lied to him and then was unfortunate too be raped by his friends.

You are conflating a mistake of age defense with age of consent. She cannot consent in the eyes of the law in California at age 17.

Her age makes consent issue irrelevant. She is incapable of providing consent by law, given her age. He doesn't have to be charged with "gang rape". If he had sex with her, he can be charged with felony statutory rape.

Well that would certainly be even worse for his side of the story. "Had sex outside with her, then brought her into my bedroom, where 'someone' raped her".

multiple sources have said not knowing her true age is not a defense. Given the overall accusation that would be a silly argument to make: "I thought she was 18 when I had sex with her and then brought her to my buddies bedroom, where she was raped"

It meets both of those criteria for exception.

His lawyer certainly isn't denying they had sex. Plus he says he is not sure whether Araiza will or will not be charged.

this thread is filled with posters plowing through everything just to make the same errors over and over

scroll up

his lawyer is less convincing on that...

Does what matter? A detective's testimony? They wouldn't even need the tapes. But, as JoPoy points out, they can record without consent in this instance.