Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) should not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to charges of disorderly conduct because he fully understood the legal process leading up to the deal, the Minnesota prosecutor who handled the case contended in legal documents filed today.
In a 41-page motion that seeks to preserve Craig’s guilty plea to misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges, prosecutor Christopher P. Renz charged that Craig was upset with the political results of his plea but has no legal grounds to overturn it.
"The real basis for the defendant’s motion – displeasure with the outcome – is not an appropriate basis for relief sought," wrote Renz, who noted that he spoke with Craig three times over a six-week period before the plea. "The court should also deny the defendant’s motion as untimely because it was sought only as a political reaction."
While the usual wheelings and dealings of courtroom argument often put me off, this case keeps me interested even though I don’t particularly care about it. I find this prosecutor’s argument very compelling. Senator Craig knew what he was doing. He had repeated contact with the court over a period of time – plenty of time to think it all through. He obviously thought that by pleading guilty, he could avoid publicity. If he got a lawyer and fought the charge, he might be acquitted, but it would hit the newspapers. So. he decided to plead guilty. He was in a double-bind from his point of view, and now he wants to change his mind. Almost everyone charged with a crime is in a similar double-bind. There’s no special circumstance here that I can see. If he weren’t a Senator/Celebrity, no one would even consider his claim noteworthy. No one pressured him to plead guilty. Apparently he was told to consult a lawyer. The only reason he wants to "unplead" is that his plan didn’t work.
On other grounds, many say that what he did was not a crime. That he did nothing wrong. That "flirting" isn’t against the law. There’s some merit to that argument, in a theoretical sense. But, to be honest, his arguments are not compelling. He wants to argue that none of what the arresting officer reports either happened or means that he was soliciting sex. He wants to say it’s his usual bathroom behavior. Then he leaves the bathroom stall without flushing the toilet? suggesting what? that he has a wide stance in toilet stalls, but not in the service of using the toilet for elimination? This is not a good use of the taxpayer’s money, having courts that have to listen to such nonsense. And, besides changing his mind about his plea, he’s now going to change his mind about resigning from the Senate? He was under so much pressure when the story came out that he resigned under duress? I have a hard time coming up with a way to be sympathetic to Senator Craig. I have an even harder time seeing him as the kind of thinker I want deciding what our government does with its laws and its money. But, beyond the legal wranglings of it all, I just don’t believe he
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.