General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKy. teen facing charges for naming her attackers
LOUISVILLE - A 17-year-old Kentucky girl who was upset by the plea deal reached by a pair of teenagers who sexually assaulted her is now facing a contempt charge for tweeting their names in violation of a court order.
Savannah Dietrich of Louisville told The Courier-Journal she is frustrated by what she feels is a lenient deal for her attackers. After posting the names on Twitter, Dietrich wrote, "I'm not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell."
The Associated Press does not normally report the names of sexual assault victims, but Dietrich and her parents say they do not want to shield her identity and want her case to be public.
The boys' attorneys have asked a judge to hold Dietrich in contempt for violating the confidentiality of a juvenile hearing and the judge's order not to speak about it.
Read more: http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/news-northern-kentucky/Ky-teen-facing-charges-for-naming-her-attackers/-/13608792/15642314/-/112bwylz/-/index.html#ixzz21Skdvx7e
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)But I don't even have the proper words.
justanidea
(291 posts)What authority does the judge have to block her from talking about this???
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The boys' attorneys have asked for a contempt ruling.
Juvenile cases, in general, need no "gag order", since details of juvenile cases are not generally public record, and some states have standing laws against the disclosure of juvenile court proceedings.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"The boys' attorneys have asked a judge to hold Dietrich in contempt"
In other words, she is not facing "charges" for jack shit. The attorneys for the attackers have asked for a contempt ruling which, even if granted, could result in not a whole lot in any practical sense.
johnwb
(8 posts)Ok if the boys were underage and the reason for the plea bargain was there was no credible evidence. Let's say for arguments sake the plea was providing alcohol to minors not sexual assault. What right does she have to slander underage boys? Think about what happened at Duke. We do not have any much less all the facts. In certain states it is illegal to give the names of minors in a court proceeding.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...no credible evidence? Try again.
Mosby
(16,395 posts)From the article:
The boys must have had really good, connected lawyers.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)TeamPooka
(24,279 posts)you are just making up a rationalization here
this court process is done and the boys will be sentenced.
WTF is your point?
I was giving several reasons for such an order. In my state it is illegal to disclose the name of a minor in a juvenile court setting. I do not agree with the ruling in this case just being DA. If an adult discloses a minor's name in my state about JV court they can be charged victim or not.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Instead these assholes attack the victim!
get the red out
(13,468 posts)I agree absolutely, shamed and shunned and treated publicly like the shit they are.
siligut
(12,272 posts)Disgusting assholes, they aren't learning anything from this.
Dr. Strange
(25,927 posts)Thanks to their lawyer's request, these boys' names are popping up all over the internet.