Date: October 31st, 2026 11:55 AM Author: Historical American
Rape? The two women had 20 years to corroborate identical stories. California had to remove the statute of limitations for this trial to proceed. This is a two decade old he said she said where the victims never came forward at the time and later blamed church doctrine, something the defense attorneys could not disprove in court.
The prosecution also was allowed to call a witness to testify that Danny raped her in an unrelated case that was not on trial. In 49 other states this is inadmissible hearsay. Only CA allows this.
I don't care whether he did it or not, and he probably did. What I care about is defendants being entitled to fair trials. On the first trial the jury wants deadlocked so on retrial the judge allowed EVEN MORE biased and unsubstantiated testimony into evidence to bias the jury against the defendant.
To be clear, Danny PROBABLY raped those women and deserves to be in jail. That being said probably is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The implications of California's kangaroo court system and the lack of jurisprudence and rules which would not fly in any other jurisdiction are far more concerning then whether Danny did a couple of date rapes 20 years ago.
I do not condone rape and if he did it, he should be prosecuted. But the trial was objectively unfair. They couldn't even convict him in a scenario that was even close to fair for the defendant, so they had to cheat extra hard to get it done. The judge was in the tank for the prosecution. It's absolutely nuts. No other state could have gotten this done. It would not fly anywhere else and I don't think he got a fair trial under the Constitution. I hope the Supreme Court vacates this immediately. You can't just have a legal system that steamrolls potentially innocent people without a fair trial.
Date: October 31st, 2026 2:04 PM Author: Historical American
Not in California.
Also New York, hence Weinstein's successful appeal.
Or Pennsylvania where Bill Cosby was successful on appeal because they used evidence obtained from a civil suit that was submitted to the state with express criminal immunity.
Seems like it's harder to get a fair trial than you might think.
dude what? i said lock up rapists, obviously i meant with due process because that's obviously how it's supposed to work, i had nothing to do with any of those cases or anyone getting an unfair trial lol
Date: October 31st, 2026 2:11 PM Author: Historical American
I know I just have to bring attention to the injustice derived from actual rape cases where the defendant was crucified in the court of public opinion and didn't get a fair trial. I'm very passionate about due process.
“ The prosecution also was allowed to call a witness to testify that Danny raped her in an unrelated case that was not on trial. In 49 other states this is inadmissible hearsay. Only CA allows this.”
that is not hearsay brother, notwithstanding other cogent points
Date: October 31st, 2026 2:01 PM Author: Historical American
It's inadmissible nonetheless. Cf the Weinstein case in NY which was overturned on appeal for the same reason: witnesses biasing the jury against the defendant for making claims about a separate case not on trial.
Date: October 31st, 2026 11:46 AM Author: Historical American
How can you allow testimony about the church and their rules in a case where the church is on trial? How can the defense adequately defend their client about allegations the church did or didn't do?
Date: October 31st, 2026 11:44 AM Author: Historical American
One of the most unlawful prosecutions in American history. The entire system bent the rules to screw him. No opinion on guilt or innocence here but from a purely legal perspective this is a great injustice and everyone should be YSFFM about the way the trial was conducted. They never would have secured a conviction in any other state. All 49 states auto acquit. The judge worked triple overtime to help the prosecution here. Absolutely disgusting.