Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[Delusional Bills Optimist]

2 minutes ago, Aurelius said:

I would assume that a phone call where he was tricked into answering questions by detectives on the other line with the accuser, in a civil case, would be nowhere near admissible

even if it did happen.   I’d venture to guess that could even be illegal without the right channels having been followed.  In no way should judgement be handed down based merely on accusations though.  Lives are ruined that way.  Let it play out. 

controlled phone calls can be admissible and are typical tactics in sex abuse/assault cases.  However, I think CA is a two-party consent state when it comes to recording. Could be problematic. And illegal 

[YoloinOhio]

2 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

assuming this is a written prepared statement.... which means that verbiage was very intentional. i certainly hope so!

I think it was from his agent 

[Draconator]

2 minutes ago, Delusional Bills Optimist said:

controlled phone calls can be admissible and are typical tactics in sex abuse/assault cases.  However, I think CA is a two-party consent state when it comes to recording. Could be problematic. And illegal 

You need to stick around here for a long time! Great posts!!!

[Simon]

2 minutes ago, Delusional Bills Optimist said:

controlled phone calls can be admissible and are typical tactics in sex abuse/assault cases.  However, I think CA is a two-party consent state when it comes to recording. Could be problematic. And illegal 

 

There's been speculation that even if the call is not admissible, the resulting notes taken by the detectives may be.

[Beck Water]

3 minutes ago, Delusional Bills Optimist said:

controlled phone calls can be admissible and are typical tactics in sex abuse/assault cases.  However, I think CA is a two-party consent state when it comes to recording. Could be problematic. And illegal 

 

So question: is the evidence collected in the criminal case available to the civil proceedings?  How does this work?

 

According to the web page of this lawfirm, the pretext calls may be admissible in California:

https://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/legal-dictionary/p/pretext-calls/

 

Quote

In some states, law enforcement must obtain a court order before setting up a pretext call or are prohibited all together. In California, Penal Code Section 633 allows law enforcement officers to orchestrate and tape these calls as long as they are acting within the scope of their official duties.

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Beck Water

[Rc2catch]

Just now, Simon said:

 

There's been speculation that even if the call is not admissible, the resulting notes taken by the detectives may be.

About 27 pages of speculation, I counted 😜

[Delusional Bills Optimist]

12 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Huh?  She wrote that she told him attended "name" which is name of both a HS and a college

 

I hate that it seems like I’m trying to beat up on a potential sexual assault victim, but it I would question the weight that should be afforded to what could easily be a self-serving document created by a claimant.  If there were other indicia of reliability surrounding the journal, or other contemporaneous statements made that laugh with what’s in the journal, then, in my opinion, it becomes more relevant.

[Draconator]

Just now, Rc2catch said:

About 27 pages of speculation, I counted 😜

[EasternOHBillsFan]

This thread shouldn't be 172 pages long... Araiza isn't worth it. He's a scumbag who should have been cut today. Anyone defending him or coming with this "innocent until proven guilty" crap is probably willing to condone all sorts of crimes.

[UKBillFan]

Just now, EasternOHBillsFan said:

This thread shouldn't be 172 pages long... Araiza isn't worth it. He's a scumbag who should have been cut today. Anyone defending him or coming with this "innocent until proven guilty" crap is probably willing to condone all sorts of crimes.

So’s he guilty then? Thanks for letting us know.

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

This thread shouldn't be 172 pages long... Araiza isn't worth it. He's a scumbag who should have been cut today. Anyone defending him or coming with this "innocent until proven guilty" crap is probably willing to condone all sorts of crimes.

Luckily it isn't 172 pages long it's 173 pages long.

[YoloinOhio]

Shhhh McDermott is talking 

 

[BillsFanNC]

1 minute ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

This thread shouldn't be 172 pages long... Araiza isn't worth it. He's a scumbag who should have been cut today. Anyone defending him or coming with this "innocent until proven guilty" crap is probably willing to condone all sorts of crimes.

 

Guilty by accusation. Beautiful. 

[Simon]

1 minute ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

This thread shouldn't be 172 pages long... Araiza isn't worth it. He's a scumbag who should have been cut today. Anyone defending him or coming with this "innocent until proven guilty" crap is probably willing to condone all sorts of crimes.

 

Thanks for coming in here and insulting people and questioning the integrity of anybody who supports the US justice system and disagrees with your brilliant take.

[Roundybout]

Judging by McD’s body language, Punt God is gonna be cut in the morning. Especially that “we have work to do” question. He’s furious. 

[716er]

McD is usually in control and he is not right now

 

yikes

[YoloinOhio]

 

[The Red King]

2 minutes ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

This thread shouldn't be 172 pages long... Araiza isn't worth it. He's a scumbag who should have been cut today. Anyone defending him or coming with this "innocent until proven guilty" crap is probably willing to condone all sorts of crimes.

 

Yeah!  We don't need nothing fancy like "facts" and "evidence" muckin' up things!  My gut's like muh trick toe, ne'er wrong! 🙄

[El Guapo]

6 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

There's been speculation that even if the call is not admissible, the resulting notes taken by the detectives may be.

The party opponent admission exception to the hearsay rule may come into play, allowing the detectives and the accuser to testify about what he “admitted “ to. 

[davefan66]

29 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

Would believe this statement isn’t given without the Bills having seeing it first.