Marvell Scott is in trouble: rape of a 14-year-old

Of course, there's always the possibility that he is innocent. The same day the Post had a story on Scott, the front page was a story on a woman who just got sentenced to prison for falsely accusing a guy of rape and he was convicted and served four years. She did it because her friends yelled at her for abandoning them at a bar. Scott says it was a setup. Might have been.

 

Oh, he's talking about the couple of cases in which 17- and 18-year-old high school (black) kids were arrested for statutory rape of their 15-year-old (white) girlfriends.

Because, you know, the facts of each individual case don't matter.

 

Is Scott from Pittsburgh?

 

How does the DA let that slip to 20 days of community service? According to the report, there was an eyewitness that they had intercourse and the victim was 14, that's like strict liability, no consent issue, absolutely cannot do it. Its not like the jury can disregard the evidence because they like Scott and hate a 14 yr old prostitute.

 

Yinz shut up! Big Ben didn't do nuttin' wrong!

 

Unless the DA had no confidence in the witness and this was a last gasp of getting anything to stick against Scott.

From the original story posted at the top:

""This indictment is based on the testimony of a runaway from Albany," Portale said.

"She'd stolen two cars ... property from the cars to buy drugs," he added. "She cries rape, forcible gunpoint rape, and she recanted. She's admitted to all this."

Prosecutors said the teen initially did claim she was forced into Scott's bed but later withdrew that."

My guess is the case wasn't going so well for the DA and Scott hedged his bets and took the slap on the wrist. Not defending him at all, just looking at how it rolled out. At the very least it is on his record. Is he going to have to register as a sex offender?

 

I just think that since consent was relevant (not an issue), then Scott was dead to rights. All the victim needed to testify was to her age and then whether intercourse occurred which would be corroborated by the witness.

 

It sounds like the "witness" wasn't even in the same room, and the girls' credibility in court would likely be very, very low. He denies there was intercourse, and it's his word versus a runaway prostitute who has already admitted making up much of the story.

He may be guilty as hell, but they likely knew they had no shot in court. And Beef, I doubt he'll have to register -- "endangering the welfare of a child" wouldn't seem to me to be necessarily a sex crime, so I don't think sex offender registration would come with it.

 

This is from the article:


"Defendant had sexual intercourse with the 14-year-old complainant on the bed in his bedroom while the older teen stood looking out the window in the same room," Justice Ronald Zweibel had written in a June 20 decision that referred to the prosecution allegations.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/wrist_slap_for_kid_hook_tv_jerk_gQQsrq51Bzx8v1kfsuaTfO#ixzz1VK7VjpBH

Therefore he'd have to take down two witnesses, not just one. Sure they were far from two suburban kids from Westchester Cty (hello Mike Tyson) but they still should be taken at their word until shown otherwise; they deserve that much. Sad.

 

Very good point. I got caught up on the overall scope of the crime rather than what he plead out to.

 

Oops - I was going off the original Daily News story that said only the 16 year old "sent her back" to have sex with him after she balked.

Still, I would argue that it would be tough for the jury to take them at their word when the 14 year old has already admitting to making up parts of the story. And "looking out the window" probably keeps her from testifying that there was definitely intercourse.

Again, the guy could be (and very likely is) a huge douchebag, but I suspect prosecutors knew they had a dog of a case and got what they could out of it.