Oregonian taking a lot of heat from readers for this one. What do you think?

Who said these deals happen all the time? The Sports Illustrated writer or the expert?

 

From the story (I apologize for quoting a lot)

"Throughout the judicial process, two words stuck in Heimlich's mind: five years. After that, he was sure, "This'll be like it never happened," he says. "It'll all be done... . So for those five years, or mainly the first two or three where I was in Washington and had to do more stuff on probation, it was, I just need to follow every rule to a T, and then when the five years come I'll be fine. I was not doing anything to go out of my way to talk to somebody or confront anybody. It was, just, What do I need to do? Tell me, I'll do it, and we'll be good."


Among experts on juvenile sex offenders, the disconnect between the two Lukes is not surprising. "Either the kid didn't do it or he did it and he's in some form of denial: Neither one is unusual," said Carolyn Frazier, a juvenile defense lawyer and assistant professor at Northwestern's School of Law. "To be innocent and plead guilty to something is not unusual." She then quoted a line from a national columnist's February condemnation of Heimlich and OSU: If you were absolutely innocent—as Heimlich contended—how many of you would plead guilty to felony child molestation simply to avoid trial? Thought so.

Frazier sighed. "That's another instance where, if you're a practitioner in this world, you're ripping your hair out," she said. "I'm, like, Dude, this happens all the time."

What happened next with Heimlich, though, was hardly common. Eight days after his plea he began classes at Puyallup High, transferring from out of district to play for its powerhouse program. Later, Vikings baseball coach Marc Wiese would say that he never knew of Heimlich's conviction or registered sex offender status. Luke assumed the school district and principal had been notified, but he wasn't required to personally disclose his status to teammates, teachers and coaches. So he didn't. The plan was to keep quiet, keep abiding by the agreement and keep counting down the days."

 

I have no doubt that the innocent plead guilty in order to avoid trial in these matters. But I suspect that of those who do, very few have access to excellent legal counsel.
Did Heimlich pass two polygraphs? I have seen references to that on this thread, but I don't really want to read the story a second time to confirm or deny.

 

He did, according to the Portland Tribune story, except that the questions did not include any about what happened with his niece. And the results of polygraph tests generally are not admissible in court. So, it means nothing.

 

For anyone who hasn't read the SI piece, please, take 30 minutes and read it.

 

Perhaps one of the board lawyers can correct me on this matter, but I suspect this is incorrect.

Maybe an excellent lawyer can make up a lot of ground for you. Maybe an excellent lawyer gets you a deal that you serve five years on that list and put it behind you at age 20, no time to serve for touching a kid. As if everything would be solved by a valiant fight in family court (and as if a win would make the accusation that much less damning).

 

According to the story, the questions were not specific to his niece, but definitely asked if he had inappropriately touched anyone, at any time.

 

From the story:

Minnich was prohibited from asking any question directly related to Luke's niece.

From the report:

"It was the opinion of Mr. Minnich that Luke was truthful when he answered 'no' to the following questions: 'Not to include (the niece), have you engaged in sexual conduct with any member of your family?' And, 'Not to include (the niece), have you engaged in sexual contact with anyone else more than two years younger than you?'"

 

From the Portland Tribune piece:
"This provider is in no position to make a judgment on the subject of Luke's guilt or innocence. He pled guilty in court and was sentenced for that crime. He was given several opportunities throughout his treatment to admit to the crime, but he did not do so. He did, on multiple occasions, show tremendous guilt and responsibility for the impact this has had on his family. He expressed how, even though he knows he shouldn't feel responsible, he cannot help but feel responsible for how his parents and siblings are being affected."

If he's not guilty of anything, why would he feel guilt and responsibility rather than rage at being unjustly accused?

 

Because emotions, particularly guilt, are weird. Especially at that age. I'd be surprised if he didn't feel a lot of anger too.

 

Guess nobody was watching this kid yesterday. Lasted 2 1/3 innings, allowed six runs, hit three batters. I'd say the extra eyes, media scrutiny and the pressure of the situation got to him. Doubt that would happen if he were innocent.