Turner only committed ‘sexual outercourse,’ his attorney tells appeals court

This Sept. 6, 2016, photo released by the Greene County Sheriff's Office shows former Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner at the Greene County Sheriff's Office in Xenia, Ohio, where he officially registered as a sex offender.

The attorney for a former Stanford swimmer convicted of sexual assaulting a female student in 2016 argued this morning (July 24) in an appeal of the jury’s verdict that it should be overturned because of a lack of evidence.

Brock Turner was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, sexual penetration of an intoxicated person with a foreign object and sexual penetration of an unconscious person with a foreign object in March 2016. He was sentenced to six months in jail and was released after three months for good behavior.

Attorney Eric Multhaup said of his appeal that Turner had only engaged in “sexual outercourse” that did not involve the intent to commit rape. Turner was not present in the courtroom during the appeal.

He defined “sexual outercourse” as an activity that does not involve vaginal sex and described it as “a version of safe sex.”

He said Turner was not naked and his genitals were not exposed when two students witnessed “aggressive thrusting” in January 2015 at a fraternity party near Stanford, and said the lack of evidence did not meet the standard of reasonable doubt pointing to an intent to rape.

Multhaup said the jury “filled in the blanks” to reach their decision, including “imagination” and “speculation” as to what had actually occurred. He also questioned the extent of the victim’s intoxication at the time of the assault.

Justices Frank Elia, Adrienne Grover and Wendy Clark Duffy repeatedly asked Multhaup whether he was asking them to reweigh the jury’s decision, saying he should instead be trying to prove that the evidence was insubstantial.

They also dismissed his claims that the DNA evidence on the victim’s body was never connected to Turner.

“I think what you’re arguing is that there must be direct evidence before someone can be convicted of any crime, but the law isn’t like that,” Elia said.

Responding to his claims, Deputy Attorney General Alisha Carlile said Multhaup’s argument was based in proving that his “version” of events was more credible than the prosecution’s.

She argued that multiple factors pointed to Turner’s intent to rape, including that he took the victim to a secluded location, he first digitally penetrated her, and he failed to deny that he was planning to rape the victim when the act was interrupted.

Elia asked Multhaup to consider the case as a whole, rather than “surgically remove” portions of the case and inspect them separately to construct an appeal.

The judges now have up to 90 days to respond to Multhaup’s appeal, according to the state attorney general’s office.

— By Bay City News

10 Comments

  1. Thank you for continuing to cover this case. I can’t find any other stories about this hearing today. The fact that Turner is appealing his conviction even though he got such a light sentence is amazing. The entire system is screwed up if he wins this appeal.

    • The Turner case is 50/50. They were hooking up at a party and left together, collapsed outside her dorm (not secluded seeing how people walked up on them) he claims she consented then passed out during the act. He’s not a doctor how is he supposed to know how intoxicated she is. I hope your son or brother never falls into a similar situation.

      • Rape. There is no consensual sex with an unconscious person. If you drag them behind a dumpster to hide you are going to Rape them then that is another clue it was non-consensual aka RAPE.

        The fact that Brock Turner and his family continue to contest this show how insane they are. That Father needs 20 minutes being attacked, see how he likes it. Then he can say it wasn’t a crime for him.

  2. As funny as that sounds, I’ll bet the appeals court judges who heard this case today were thinking about that very possibility, that they might be recalled if they offended Dauber and her gang. I’m sure they would never mention it out loud or put it in their written opinion, but of course they followed the news coverage and are thinking about the gun pointed at their head.

  3. The point of an appeal is to argue that the judge committed an error that prevented the defendant from getting a fair trial. How is the judge’s fault that Turner’s lawyer didn’t bring out this “outercourse” argument at trial?

    • Because it is sheer desperation made up after by psychopaths trying to not have their son held accountable for his actions.

Comments are closed.