- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Madison Brooks Rape Trial- Its been over 2 years
Posted on 2/28/25 at 7:53 am to LSUAngelHere1
Posted on 2/28/25 at 7:53 am to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
just asked what the kids at school were saying a
What were they saying about her BAC? About why she couldn't give directions to her residence? About why she wandered into a road at 3AM in front of car? About why they let a drunk, disoriented girl out in 33F temps? About when they determined she was "drunk, drunk?" Anout why they didn't call 911? Or an Uber for her?
Did they comment on any of these?
0
Posted on 2/28/25 at 8:19 am to Chad504boy
quote:
What an awful statement. Cause you are pro rapers
You think it's crazy for someone to say that they are glad there aren't people that have already made up their minds on a verdict before the trial starts on the jury? What's the point of having a trial then? Let's base all cases on the court of public opinion without seeing all of the evidence.
Posted on 2/28/25 at 8:31 am to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
spreading rumors
quote:
asked what the kids at school were saying
quote:
being trashy
These are all pretty similar.
I remember that thread and you did a lot more than that.
Posted on 2/28/25 at 8:48 am to LSBoosie
quote:
You think it's crazy for someone to say that they are glad there aren't people that have already made up their minds on a verdict before the trial starts on the jury? What's the point of having a trial then? Let's base all cases on the court of public opinion without seeing all of the evidence.
based on the defendants own statements of the events of the night, their admitted knowledge of the girls extreme intoxication and the admittance of said actions. Yes. absolutely. i'm really not taking any leaps here. I just don't have an inner desire like others to support rapers.
Posted on 2/28/25 at 9:04 am to Chad504boy
You need estrogen blockers.
Posted on 2/28/25 at 9:39 am to Chad504boy
Yeah I guess I just don't fall into the thought of "Give me all of the evidence" = "I support rapists" I think that's a stretch.
Posted on 2/28/25 at 9:54 am to LSBoosie
quote:
Yeah I guess I just don't fall into the thought of "Give me all of the evidence" = "I support rapists" I think that's a stretch.
i didn't make that declaration.
someone remarked that they were glad i was not on the jury.
Posted on 2/28/25 at 10:10 am to Chad504boy
Yeah he said he's glad you weren't on the jury because you came to a verdict before a trial then you accused him of being "pro rapers". I would not want anyone on a jury that has come to a verdict before being presented with all of the evidence in any case, it's not rape specific.
Posted on 2/28/25 at 10:19 am to LSBoosie
quote:
Yeah he said he's glad you weren't on the jury because you came to a verdict before a trial then you accused him of being "pro rapers". I would not want anyone on a jury that has come to a verdict before being presented with all of the evidence in any case, it's not rape specific.
i came to a verdict based upon evidence. i do not see any way around the totality of known evidence and statements despite you being a lawyer and wanting to dance behind the curtains of a trial. I'm all for evidence that can prove innocence. I don't see any of such here.
Posted on 2/28/25 at 10:22 am to LSBoosie
I don't think this is as cut and dry as some believe regardless of what some folks want to see happen. I believe one of the statements said that Madison was touching the minor's member when she got into the car of her own volition. I don't know how that will play into the facts. I'll be interested to find out.
Posted on 2/28/25 at 10:56 am to Chad504boy
quote:
i do not see any way around the totality of known evidence and statements despite you being a lawyer and wanting to dance behind the curtains of a trial. I'm all for evidence that can prove innocence. I don't see any of such here.
That's the whole point. You don't have all of the evidence. There will be evidence shown during the trial that you haven't seen and don't even know about right now.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 9:35 am to LSBoosie
BATON ROUGE - An appeals court has ruled that defense lawyers cannot use Madison Brooks' sexual history in their attempt to combat rape charges.
Arrest documents say Brooks, a 19-year-old LSU student, left Reggie's Bar with Casen Carver, Kaivon Washington, Desmond Carter and Everett Lee in the early morning hours of Jan. 15, 2023. The group went to a parking lot, where Washington and Carter are accused of raping Brooks in the backseat of Carver's vehicle. The men told officers that Brooks requested to go home and they took her to an address in the Pelican Lakes subdivision and dropped her off. After they left, Brooks wandered into the roadway and was hit and killed by a rideshare driver.
Washington, Carter and Carver were arrested for rape. Carver is charged with rape even though there is no evidence that he had sex with Brooks.
Attorneys for Carver and Carter argued that new evidence presented a year after Brooks was killed showed that she had consensual rough sex with another man the day before she died. They said the injuries noted during her autopsy were not from the alleged rape that occurred in the back of Carver's vehicle.
In March 2024, District Attorney Hillar Moore said the motion violates the Louisiana Code of Evidence because it discusses a victim's past sexual behavior, which the code requires to be in documents kept separate and sealed.
A year later, the First Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the DA, saying that the newly found evidence could not be used at trial.
"The evidence of M. B.' s alleged past sexual behavior is excluded at this juncture. The fundamental right to present a defense does not require the trial court to admit irrelevant evidence or evidence with such little probative value that it is substantially outweighed by other legitimate considerations," the decision said.
Moore said his office was satisfied with the decision.
"We are pleased with the court’s ruling that will prohibit the defendant from introducing overly prejudicial and irrelevant evidence at the trial.," he said in a statement.
WBRZ
Arrest documents say Brooks, a 19-year-old LSU student, left Reggie's Bar with Casen Carver, Kaivon Washington, Desmond Carter and Everett Lee in the early morning hours of Jan. 15, 2023. The group went to a parking lot, where Washington and Carter are accused of raping Brooks in the backseat of Carver's vehicle. The men told officers that Brooks requested to go home and they took her to an address in the Pelican Lakes subdivision and dropped her off. After they left, Brooks wandered into the roadway and was hit and killed by a rideshare driver.
Washington, Carter and Carver were arrested for rape. Carver is charged with rape even though there is no evidence that he had sex with Brooks.
Attorneys for Carver and Carter argued that new evidence presented a year after Brooks was killed showed that she had consensual rough sex with another man the day before she died. They said the injuries noted during her autopsy were not from the alleged rape that occurred in the back of Carver's vehicle.
In March 2024, District Attorney Hillar Moore said the motion violates the Louisiana Code of Evidence because it discusses a victim's past sexual behavior, which the code requires to be in documents kept separate and sealed.
A year later, the First Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the DA, saying that the newly found evidence could not be used at trial.
"The evidence of M. B.' s alleged past sexual behavior is excluded at this juncture. The fundamental right to present a defense does not require the trial court to admit irrelevant evidence or evidence with such little probative value that it is substantially outweighed by other legitimate considerations," the decision said.
Moore said his office was satisfied with the decision.
"We are pleased with the court’s ruling that will prohibit the defendant from introducing overly prejudicial and irrelevant evidence at the trial.," he said in a statement.
WBRZ
Posted on 3/28/25 at 9:36 am to Gris Gris
Excellent news, and the right decision.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 9:42 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Excellent news, and the right decision.
Note the use if the phrase "at this juncture."
If the DA tries to present MB as pure as the new driven snow to the jury via evidence/testimony, the evidence arguably becomes admissible as impeachment evidence.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 9:47 am to udtiger
quote:
Note the use if the phrase "at this juncture."
If the DA tries to present MB as pure as the new driven snow to the jury via evidence/testimony, the evidence arguably becomes admissible as impeachment evidence.
One of the articles mentioned that the presiding judge has not yet ruled on whether a witness can testify about her sexually caused injuries. Therefore, it was premature for the court to broadly permit this testimony.
I'm sure that once the witness is allowed, the defense will renew their fight to be able to include her history as an alternate cause for the injury.
In any case, it will prolong the trials from starting and there will still be no closure for the family.
This post was edited on 3/28/25 at 9:49 am
Posted on 3/28/25 at 10:21 am to BigBinBR
I don't think this issue is over by a long shot.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 10:22 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Excellent news, and the right decision.
How so?
Her having sex the night before seems very relevant
Posted on 3/28/25 at 11:07 am to Cosmo
Not a reply to you Cosmo.
It seems as if the defense has teetered on their approach. At first, it was the sex was consensual. Then, after the DNA, they didn't at all.
Trying to introduce MB's past only has relevance if they did. Also, that they've leaked it, would render BR an unfair site to the prosecution. No?
It seems as if the defense has teetered on their approach. At first, it was the sex was consensual. Then, after the DNA, they didn't at all.
Trying to introduce MB's past only has relevance if they did. Also, that they've leaked it, would render BR an unfair site to the prosecution. No?
Posted on 3/28/25 at 11:09 am to Cosmo
quote:
Her having sex the night before seems very relevant
It is not. Her sex life is not relevant and her injuries are not needed to prove the type of rape the defendants are charged with. The prosecution is not saying that they held her down as she was yelling please stop and the two guys raped her against her will. They raped her bc she was too intoxicated to give consent.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 11:23 am to ryanlsu
quote:
They raped her bc she was too intoxicated to give consent.
Given her BAC and them acknowledging they had sex with her, seems like a slam dunk.
Page 32 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News