If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Des Moines Register)   Reality TV star tells Iowa Supreme Court he's too famous to go on trial   ( desmoinesregister.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Court, Soules, Jury, Appeal, Iowa, Judge, United States, Supreme Court of the United States  
•       •       •

3460 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Feb 2018 at 12:05 PM (23 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-02-07 10:28:54 AM  
Never heard of him. Motion denied.
 
2018-02-07 10:31:57 AM  
#1. Never heard of you
#2. That's not an excuse. Talk to OJ Simpson and others who were not "too famous" to go to jail.
 
2018-02-07 11:21:54 AM  
Who?
 
2018-02-07 11:27:09 AM  
I'd like to see him hand out roses to the female jurors.  I'm sure that would go over great!
 
2018-02-07 11:36:24 AM  
I have no idea who this guy is, but he called 911, gave the victim CPR, and waited until EMT arrived, this doesn't seem like a hit and run.
 
2018-02-07 11:43:03 AM  

sirrerun: Who?


That one guy, who was in that show, that neither of us ever watched.
 
2018-02-07 11:45:20 AM  

RJReves: sirrerun: Who?

That one guy, who was in that show, that neither of us ever watched.


they guy with the head?
 
2018-02-07 12:03:38 PM  
You can't arrest him!

content.invisioncic.comView Full Size


He's the guy who met Andy Griffith
 
2018-02-07 12:12:03 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


Seriously, no flipping clue who that guy was. Barely more after TFA.
 
2018-02-07 12:14:12 PM  

houstondragon: [img.fark.net image 400x190]

Seriously, no flipping clue who that guy was. Barely more after TFA.


Hey! It's Cheddar man!!
 
2018-02-07 12:18:53 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-07 12:22:47 PM  
I like to keep it under 4 but over 1. It also helps if their names are very different. I once dated a Lindsay and a Lesley at the same time and it did not work out.
 
2018-02-07 12:24:17 PM  

nmrsnr: I have no idea who this guy is, but he called 911, gave the victim CPR, and waited until EMT arrived, this doesn't seem like a hit and run.


If you kill someone you should probably wait for the police to arrive before going home.
 
2018-02-07 12:27:04 PM  
I'd hit and run him, if you know what I mean...
 
2018-02-07 12:30:51 PM  
Reality TV star tells Iowa Supreme Court he's too famous to go on trial that his charges must be dismissed because the trial court incorrectly applied 321.263(2) of the Iowa Code.
 
2018-02-07 12:36:17 PM  
Of the facts are as stated in the article, yeah it's a completely bogus charge. Having said that, nobody knows who this douche-canoe is.
 
2018-02-07 12:42:49 PM  
Abuse of discretion by prosecutor and police.  That charge should be reserved for and used only on those who are attempting to evade justice.  That wasn't what happened - he called 911, stayed on scene to provide first aid to the victim, waited for the ambulance to arrive, and had identified himself to the 911 operator and others.  Then he left.  That's not hit and run.  If the farking cops couldn't get there to take his info before the ambulance, that's their problem.  If they want to have a teaching moment, they could give him a talking-to about how he really needed to wait for the police.  But to charge him for felony hit-and-run?  That's insane.
 
2018-02-07 12:46:54 PM  

cefm: Abuse of discretion by prosecutor and police.  That charge should be reserved for and used only on those who are attempting to evade justice.  That wasn't what happened - he called 911, stayed on scene to provide first aid to the victim, waited for the ambulance to arrive, and had identified himself to the 911 operator and others.  Then he left.  That's not hit and run.  If the farking cops couldn't get there to take his info before the ambulance, that's their problem.  If they want to have a teaching moment, they could give him a talking-to about how he really needed to wait for the police.  But to charge him for felony hit-and-run?  That's insane.


Yeah, thinking there's a lesser charge for splitting before the cops get there.  That said, the police have some very good reasons to want to talk to you right after an accident.  They'd rather not give you time to get your story straight, or give your body more time to metabolize whatever you've been drinking, smoking, popping, snorting.  There is a reason leaving the scene without talking to the cops is in the criminal code, but they need to apply the correct one, unless they are hoping this will get the famous guy off.
 
2018-02-07 12:53:36 PM  

Buttknuckle: I'd hit and run him, if you know what I mean...


Oh, I'd rear end him.
 
2018-02-07 01:22:26 PM  

shut_it_down: Reality TV star tells Iowa Supreme Court he's too famous to go on trial that his charges must be dismissed because the trial court incorrectly applied 321.263(2) of the Iowa Code.


Actually subby is right.

He requested the Iowa Supreme Court to intervene rather than arguing this claim before a trial judge because a trial would be too damaging to his reputation as a public figure.
 
2018-02-07 01:46:00 PM  

dywed88: shut_it_down: Reality TV star tells Iowa Supreme Court he's too famous to go on trial that his charges must be dismissed because the trial court incorrectly applied 321.263(2) of the Iowa Code.

Actually subby is right.

He requested the Iowa Supreme Court to intervene rather than arguing this claim before a trial judge because a trial would be too damaging to his reputation as a public figure.


No, subby suggests that the basis for his appeal is "I'm too famous to go on trial." That's wrong. The actual argument is that the prosecutors are incorrectly interpreting a law, and that Supreme Court should intervene and effectively dismiss the improper charges. The argument about his reputation being damaged by a trial is an argument as to why the Supreme Court should rule on this issue now rather than wait until after a full trial (which they usually prefer).
 
2018-02-07 01:53:40 PM  

shut_it_down: dywed88: shut_it_down: Reality TV star tells Iowa Supreme Court he's too famous to go on trial that his charges must be dismissed because the trial court incorrectly applied 321.263(2) of the Iowa Code.

Actually subby is right.

He requested the Iowa Supreme Court to intervene rather than arguing this claim before a trial judge because a trial would be too damaging to his reputation as a public figure.

No, subby suggests that the basis for his appeal is "I'm too famous to go on trial." That's wrong. The actual argument is that the prosecutors are incorrectly interpreting a law, and that Supreme Court should intervene and effectively dismiss the improper charges. The argument about his reputation being damaged by a trial is an argument as to why the Supreme Court should rule on this issue now rather than wait until after a full trial (which they usually prefer).


So what you are saying is he went to the Supreme Court and asked them to dismiss the charges because he is too famous.

That is the sole reason he provided for not following normal procedures.
 
2018-02-07 02:09:05 PM  

dywed88: shut_it_down: dywed88: shut_it_down: Reality TV star tells Iowa Supreme Court he's too famous to go on trial that his charges must be dismissed because the trial court incorrectly applied 321.263(2) of the Iowa Code.

Actually subby is right.

He requested the Iowa Supreme Court to intervene rather than arguing this claim before a trial judge because a trial would be too damaging to his reputation as a public figure.

No, subby suggests that the basis for his appeal is "I'm too famous to go on trial." That's wrong. The actual argument is that the prosecutors are incorrectly interpreting a law, and that Supreme Court should intervene and effectively dismiss the improper charges. The argument about his reputation being damaged by a trial is an argument as to why the Supreme Court should rule on this issue now rather than wait until after a full trial (which they usually prefer).

So what you are saying is he went to the Supreme Court and asked them to dismiss the charges because he is too famous.


No. He's not asking to dismiss because he's famous. He filed an interlocutory appeal because of a significant legal issue, the outcome of which will affect the whole trial and potentially even the need for one. Winning on this issue means there's no basis for criminal charges, and since he believes he will obviously win on the legal issue, he argues that allowing a baseless charge to go to trial would just damage his reputation. That's not an unreasonable position, and it's a far cry from "let me go, I'm famous."
 
2018-02-07 02:20:33 PM  

dywed88: shut_it_down: dywed88: shut_it_down: Reality TV star tells Iowa Supreme Court he's too famous to go on trial that his charges must be dismissed because the trial court incorrectly applied 321.263(2) of the Iowa Code.

Actually subby is right.

He requested the Iowa Supreme Court to intervene rather than arguing this claim before a trial judge because a trial would be too damaging to his reputation as a public figure.

No, subby suggests that the basis for his appeal is "I'm too famous to go on trial." That's wrong. The actual argument is that the prosecutors are incorrectly interpreting a law, and that Supreme Court should intervene and effectively dismiss the improper charges. The argument about his reputation being damaged by a trial is an argument as to why the Supreme Court should rule on this issue now rather than wait until after a full trial (which they usually prefer).

So what you are saying is he went to the Supreme Court and asked them to dismiss the charges because he is too famous.

That is the sole reason he provided for not following normal procedures.


His source of income is based on his public persona, what they are arguing is that going to trial for a felony could make him unhireable since it would turn public opinion against him regardless of the outcome of said trial. The court of public opinion often doesn't give a shiat if the charges are justified or not and tends to ignore the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

As it is, the fact that there are already articles about this means that the media has caught word and public opinion is already turning against him even before the trial. The headline that was submitted and the first few commenters who didn't read the article is evidence enough that this is happening.
 
2018-02-07 02:27:30 PM  

darklingscribe: His source of income is based on his public persona, what they are arguing is that going to trial for a felony could make him unhireable since it would turn public opinion against him regardless of the outcome of said trial.


If that is his reasoning, he should be required to submit proof that the general public has the slightest idea who he is,

/ goo luck with that
 
2018-02-07 02:33:43 PM  
Who?
 
2018-02-07 02:39:37 PM  
As God is my witness, I clicked the link thinking it was Trump.
 
2018-02-07 02:59:04 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-07 03:45:25 PM  

shut_it_down: dywed88: shut_it_down: dywed88: shut_it_down: Reality TV star tells Iowa Supreme Court he's too famous to go on trial that his charges must be dismissed because the trial court incorrectly applied 321.263(2) of the Iowa Code.

Actually subby is right.

He requested the Iowa Supreme Court to intervene rather than arguing this claim before a trial judge because a trial would be too damaging to his reputation as a public figure.

No, subby suggests that the basis for his appeal is "I'm too famous to go on trial." That's wrong. The actual argument is that the prosecutors are incorrectly interpreting a law, and that Supreme Court should intervene and effectively dismiss the improper charges. The argument about his reputation being damaged by a trial is an argument as to why the Supreme Court should rule on this issue now rather than wait until after a full trial (which they usually prefer).

So what you are saying is he went to the Supreme Court and asked them to dismiss the charges because he is too famous.

No. He's not asking to dismiss because he's famous. He filed an interlocutory appeal because of a significant legal issue, the outcome of which will affect the whole trial and potentially even the need for one. Winning on this issue means there's no basis for criminal charges, and since he believes he will obviously win on the legal issue, he argues that allowing a baseless charge to go to trial would just damage his reputation. That's not an unreasonable position, and it's a far cry from "let me go, I'm famous."


He went to the Supreme Court on the basis that he is famous. Otherwise his lawyer would have submitted a motion to the trial court.
 
2018-02-07 04:01:54 PM  

dywed88: shut_it_down: dywed88: shut_it_down: dywed88: shut_it_down: Reality TV star tells Iowa Supreme Court he's too famous to go on trial that his charges must be dismissed because the trial court incorrectly applied 321.263(2) of the Iowa Code.

Actually subby is right.

He requested the Iowa Supreme Court to intervene rather than arguing this claim before a trial judge because a trial would be too damaging to his reputation as a public figure.

No, subby suggests that the basis for his appeal is "I'm too famous to go on trial." That's wrong. The actual argument is that the prosecutors are incorrectly interpreting a law, and that Supreme Court should intervene and effectively dismiss the improper charges. The argument about his reputation being damaged by a trial is an argument as to why the Supreme Court should rule on this issue now rather than wait until after a full trial (which they usually prefer).

So what you are saying is he went to the Supreme Court and asked them to dismiss the charges because he is too famous.

No. He's not asking to dismiss because he's famous. He filed an interlocutory appeal because of a significant legal issue, the outcome of which will affect the whole trial and potentially even the need for one. Winning on this issue means there's no basis for criminal charges, and since he believes he will obviously win on the legal issue, he argues that allowing a baseless charge to go to trial would just damage his reputation. That's not an unreasonable position, and it's a far cry from "let me go, I'm famous."

He went to the Supreme Court on the basis that he is famous. Otherwise his lawyer would have submitted a motion to the trial court.


Still wrong. Come on, you know better than this. They did file a motion with the trial court. It's an appeal. By definition, appeals review lower court decisions. From another article, "At issue is a district judge's January decision refusing to dismiss the charges against the former "Bachelor," who was driving a truck at about 8:20 p.m. April 24, 2017, when he rear-ended Kenny Mosher, 66, of Aurora, who was on a tractor." He's going to the Supreme Court for a ruling on a statutory interpretation because he has the money to fight on this issue, and because he believes that the lower court ruled wrong.
 
2018-02-07 04:17:08 PM  
How is there a reinterpretation? It's the law:

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iacod​e​/2001/321/263.html

It's pretty cut and dry, he stayed for 5-10 minutes trying to help the guy, took off when the ambulance arrived, but not the cops. Sorry it's a hit and run.

"Hey EMT guys, we good? I'm gonna take off"

Boom! (In my John Bunnell voice) "Your going to Jail"
 
2018-02-07 04:28:40 PM  

Raktastic: How is there a reinterpretation? It's the law:

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/iacode​/2001/321/263.html

It's pretty cut and dry, he stayed for 5-10 minutes trying to help the guy, took off when the ambulance arrived, but not the cops. Sorry it's a hit and run.

"Hey EMT guys, we good? I'm gonna take off"

Boom! (In my John Bunnell voice) "Your going to Jail"


Ugh, that's horribly written.  The second section seems to not apply if everybody is still alive (which the other person still was when the defendant left; he died later).  The first section seems to say (in the world's most ridiculous run on sentence) that the driver needs to give his ID, but doesn't seem to say who he needs to give it to.

Reading that pile of crap, I would vote Not Guilty.
 
2018-02-07 04:39:43 PM  

Raktastic: It's pretty cut and dry, he stayed for 5-10 minutes trying to help the guy, took off when the ambulance arrived, but not the cops. Sorry it's a hit and run.


Well here's where I suspect the dispute is... if there's an injury but no death, you're not required to wait for the cops. You just have to leave your information, supply aid, and call for help - all of which he did. Here, the accident didn't actually become fatal until everyone was already gone from the scene and after the other driver was taken to the hospital. Now, prosecutors want to charge him under the "fatal accident" standard (which it technically eventually was) instead of the "injury accident" standard (which it was while he was there). I'd argue that he can't be charged under the "fatal accident" standard because at the time he was acting, the accident wasn't fatal.
 
2018-02-07 04:59:51 PM  

Driver: [img.fark.net image 555x557]


img.fark.netView Full Size

Oh, really?
 
2018-02-07 05:26:29 PM  

shut_it_down: Raktastic: It's pretty cut and dry, he stayed for 5-10 minutes trying to help the guy, took off when the ambulance arrived, but not the cops. Sorry it's a hit and run.

Well here's where I suspect the dispute is... if there's an injury but no death, you're not required to wait for the cops. You just have to leave your information, supply aid, and call for help - all of which he did. Here, the accident didn't actually become fatal until everyone was already gone from the scene and after the other driver was taken to the hospital. Now, prosecutors want to charge him under the "fatal accident" standard (which it technically eventually was) instead of the "injury accident" standard (which it was while he was there). I'd argue that he can't be charged under the "fatal accident" standard because at the time he was acting, the accident wasn't fatal.


You need to see this then: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/IACOD​E​/2001/321/261.html

He still couldn't leave the scene unless he gave the required information. I don't see that in the article, he gave his name to the dispatcher, but he has to give more info then just his name. Also if the person he hit was unconscious how did he give that information to him, unless he left the guy a note in his pocket with his VIN, insurance, and his Driver's ID, I don't think that happened. Sorry still real flaky in the logic there. If the dispatcher gathered all the information on the phone, sure not guilty, but why go after him then.
 
2018-02-07 06:17:58 PM  

Raktastic: shut_it_down: Raktastic: It's pretty cut and dry, he stayed for 5-10 minutes trying to help the guy, took off when the ambulance arrived, but not the cops. Sorry it's a hit and run.

Well here's where I suspect the dispute is... if there's an injury but no death, you're not required to wait for the cops. You just have to leave your information, supply aid, and call for help - all of which he did. Here, the accident didn't actually become fatal until everyone was already gone from the scene and after the other driver was taken to the hospital. Now, prosecutors want to charge him under the "fatal accident" standard (which it technically eventually was) instead of the "injury accident" standard (which it was while he was there). I'd argue that he can't be charged under the "fatal accident" standard because at the time he was acting, the accident wasn't fatal.

You need to see this then: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/IACODE​/2001/321/261.html

He still couldn't leave the scene unless he gave the required information. I don't see that in the article, he gave his name to the dispatcher, but he has to give more info then just his name. Also if the person he hit was unconscious how did he give that information to him, unless he left the guy a note in his pocket with his VIN, insurance, and his Driver's ID, I don't think that happened. Sorry still real flaky in the logic there. If the dispatcher gathered all the information on the phone, sure not guilty, but why go after him then.


Because a prosecutor thinks he can get a conviction out of the case. Also, the statute you reference really just refers back to the one we've been discussing all along. The issue is still whether you can charge someone with leaving the scene of a deadly accident if the death doesn't occur until later. (Or at least that's the issue I'm picking up on.) But in any event, all we have is a news summary of the facts, which isn't really enough to be staking out conclusive legal positions.
 
2018-02-07 06:37:30 PM  

shut_it_down: Raktastic: shut_it_down: Raktastic: It's pretty cut and dry, he stayed for 5-10 minutes trying to help the guy, took off when the ambulance arrived, but not the cops. Sorry it's a hit and run.

Well here's where I suspect the dispute is... if there's an injury but no death, you're not required to wait for the cops. You just have to leave your information, supply aid, and call for help - all of which he did. Here, the accident didn't actually become fatal until everyone was already gone from the scene and after the other driver was taken to the hospital. Now, prosecutors want to charge him under the "fatal accident" standard (which it technically eventually was) instead of the "injury accident" standard (which it was while he was there). I'd argue that he can't be charged under the "fatal accident" standard because at the time he was acting, the accident wasn't fatal.

You need to see this then: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/IACODE​/2001/321/261.html

He still couldn't leave the scene unless he gave the required information. I don't see that in the article, he gave his name to the dispatcher, but he has to give more info then just his name. Also if the person he hit was unconscious how did he give that information to him, unless he left the guy a note in his pocket with his VIN, insurance, and his Driver's ID, I don't think that happened. Sorry still real flaky in the logic there. If the dispatcher gathered all the information on the phone, sure not guilty, but why go after him then.

Because a prosecutor thinks he can get a conviction out of the case. Also, the statute you reference really just refers back to the one we've been discussing all along. The issue is still whether you can charge someone with leaving the scene of a deadly accident if the death doesn't occur until later. (Or at least that's the issue I'm picking up on.) But in any event, all we have is a news summary of the facts, which isn't really enough to be staking out conclusive legal positions.


So prosecutor grandstanding and overreaching, understood. Question is would it still go to trial if he failed section 1 and would it still be a felony?
 
2018-02-07 06:44:53 PM  
That's nothing.  Iowa Governor Terry Branstad's son Eric killed 2 people in a car accident in 1991 and got away with it.  He later went on to become head of the Trump for President campaign in Iowa.

/Possibly not relevant here
//Never forget
 
2018-02-07 07:48:22 PM  

cefm: Abuse of discretion by prosecutor and police.  That charge should be reserved for and used only on those who are attempting to evade justice.  That wasn't what happened - he called 911, stayed on scene to provide first aid to the victim, waited for the ambulance to arrive, and had identified himself to the 911 operator and others.  Then he left.  That's not hit and run.  If the farking cops couldn't get there to take his info before the ambulance, that's their problem.  If they want to have a teaching moment, they could give him a talking-to about how he really needed to wait for the police.  But to charge him for felony hit-and-run?  That's insane.


The defendant isn't a local (he's from a county to the North). The deceased was (and one of only 400). Who do the DA and police Chief answer to? The locals. I'll be surprised if their interlocutory appeal isn't granted, even though they are usually denied.
 
2018-02-07 07:55:04 PM  

Raktastic: So prosecutor grandstanding and overreaching, understood. Question is would it still go to trial if he failed section 1 and would it still be a felony?


It's not a felony either way. Leaving the scene of an injury is a serious misdemeanor, leaving the scene of a death is an aggravated misdemeanor. But to answer your question, it looks like his indictment is only one count, and that count is leaving the scene of a deadly accident. If that count gets tossed, that's it.
 
2018-02-07 08:23:38 PM  

caddisfly: cefm: Abuse of discretion by prosecutor and police.  That charge should be reserved for and used only on those who are attempting to evade justice.  That wasn't what happened - he called 911, stayed on scene to provide first aid to the victim, waited for the ambulance to arrive, and had identified himself to the 911 operator and others.  Then he left.  That's not hit and run.  If the farking cops couldn't get there to take his info before the ambulance, that's their problem.  If they want to have a teaching moment, they could give him a talking-to about how he really needed to wait for the police.  But to charge him for felony hit-and-run?  That's insane.

The defendant isn't a local (he's from a county to the North). The deceased was (and one of only 400). Who do the DA and police Chief answer to? The locals. I'll be surprised if their interlocutory appeal isn't granted, even though they are usually denied.


Though we don't have DAs here, we have County Attorneys, in the interest of correct information.

This is interesting stuff.  As a court reporter I'm not often involved in higher-profile cases like this, and I have nothing to do with this in particular, but I've worked with the firm that's defending the guy, so I keep my ear to the ground on this one.
 
2018-02-08 01:05:53 AM  

gunsmack: Driver: [img.fark.net image 555x557]

[img.fark.net image 655x368]
Oh, really?


touché
 
2018-02-08 01:27:04 AM  
Why isn't he being charged for the underlying crime involving the death of the man on the tractor?  Who is at fault for the accident?  How long did it take for police to arrive? The article didn't seem to describe the actual circumstances of the moment of the accident and doesn't provide a complete timeline to judge the reasonableness of him leaving the scene.  Since he wasn't charged for vehicular manslaughter, reckless driving, or some other offense, I presume the prosecutors don't see enough evidence for a conviction for causing the death of the other driver.  So they're trying to nail him for for this misdemeanor.
 
2018-02-08 10:42:27 AM  

shut_it_down: Raktastic: So prosecutor grandstanding and overreaching, understood. Question is would it still go to trial if he failed section 1 and would it still be a felony?

It's not a felony either way. Leaving the scene of an injury is a serious misdemeanor, leaving the scene of a death is an aggravated misdemeanor. But to answer your question, it looks like his indictment is only one count, and that count is leaving the scene of a deadly accident. If that count gets tossed, that's it.


From the article:

"Soules was charged with leaving the scene of a fatal car crash, a class D felony. If convicted, he could face as many as five years in prison."

I think the goal of the defendant is to bring it down to an aggravated misdemeanor.
 
2018-02-08 01:47:17 PM  

nmrsnr: I have no idea who this guy is, but he called 911, gave the victim CPR, and waited until EMT arrived, this doesn't seem like a hit and run.


That's what I'm thinking, unless they mean he had to wait until cops showed up.
 
2018-02-08 03:41:29 PM  

Raktastic: shut_it_down: Raktastic: So prosecutor grandstanding and overreaching, understood. Question is would it still go to trial if he failed section 1 and would it still be a felony?

It's not a felony either way. Leaving the scene of an injury is a serious misdemeanor, leaving the scene of a death is an aggravated misdemeanor. But to answer your question, it looks like his indictment is only one count, and that count is leaving the scene of a deadly accident. If that count gets tossed, that's it.

From the article:

"Soules was charged with leaving the scene of a fatal car crash, a class D felony. If convicted, he could face as many as five years in prison."

I think the goal of the defendant is to bring it down to an aggravated misdemeanor.


Weird, the code you linked said it was an aggravated misdemeanor, but if you pull up the official code it's a Class D felony. They must have upped the penalties but not updated all the websites. But anyhoo... No, the goal is to get rid of the charge altogether. The only way a charge gets reduced is if the prosecutor reduces it. If a prosecutor overcharges and a defendant challenges it, the court will just dismiss the improper charge.
 
2018-02-08 05:21:02 PM  

shut_it_down: dywed88: shut_it_down: dywed88: shut_it_down: dywed88: shut_it_down: Reality TV star tells Iowa Supreme Court he's too famous to go on trial that his charges must be dismissed because the trial court incorrectly applied 321.263(2) of the Iowa Code.

Actually subby is right.

He requested the Iowa Supreme Court to intervene rather than arguing this claim before a trial judge because a trial would be too damaging to his reputation as a public figure.

No, subby suggests that the basis for his appeal is "I'm too famous to go on trial." That's wrong. The actual argument is that the prosecutors are incorrectly interpreting a law, and that Supreme Court should intervene and effectively dismiss the improper charges. The argument about his reputation being damaged by a trial is an argument as to why the Supreme Court should rule on this issue now rather than wait until after a full trial (which they usually prefer).

So what you are saying is he went to the Supreme Court and asked them to dismiss the charges because he is too famous.

No. He's not asking to dismiss because he's famous. He filed an interlocutory appeal because of a significant legal issue, the outcome of which will affect the whole trial and potentially even the need for one. Winning on this issue means there's no basis for criminal charges, and since he believes he will obviously win on the legal issue, he argues that allowing a baseless charge to go to trial would just damage his reputation. That's not an unreasonable position, and it's a far cry from "let me go, I'm famous."

He went to the Supreme Court on the basis that he is famous. Otherwise his lawyer would have submitted a motion to the trial court.

Still wrong. Come on, you know better than this. They did file a motion with the trial court. It's an appeal. By definition, appeals review lower court decisions. From another article, "At issue is a district judge's January decision refusing to dismiss the charges against the former "Bachelor," who was driving a truck at about 8:20 p.m. April 24, 2017, when he rear-ended Kenny Mosher, 66, of Aurora, who was on a tractor." He's going to the Supreme Court for a ruling on a statutory interpretation because he has the money to fight on this issue, and because he believes that the lower court ruled wrong.


Also relevant to the appeal of the lower court's refusal to dismiss is that the Supreme Court of the state had previously already twice reversed lower court rulings on the application and use of the statute.
"The court has interpreted other portions of the same Iowa Code relating to leaving the scene of a car crash and has "twice dismissed charges improperly brought under that statute," according to court documents filed by Soules' lawyers"
Normally this kind of appeal is a bit of a waste of time and money, and the likelihood of success is slim enough that you are better off just getting on with the trial to see if you can win there, but since the state Supreme Court seems to have an issue with the way this statute is being used already, it's not a bad bet to go for it.
His motivation and means may come from the fact that he's sortakinda famous, but his argument is based on sound legal principles.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report