Scott Bennett discussion thread

[Emily]

Some new updates on the court docket case page. The public official (?) who updates the page apparently doesn't have the best spelling.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=264240&db=Rogers

Not sure I know what all the legal terms mean, perhaps someone here with more legal knowledge can elaborate:


 05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097956    May 27 2016 8:13:36:570AM    -    $ 0.00
   DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MERGER/MOTION TO DISMISS FOR DOUBLE JEAPORDY PROHIBITION AGAINST MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    TEXT    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097958    May 27 2016 8:12:57:270AM    -    $ 0.00
   SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097960    May 27 2016 8:09:29:330AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

06-01-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7103669    Jun 2 2016 10:06:02:407AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

I have no more information than you and have no idea what the specifics of these are, but I can explain the general idea of what's happening. You've heard where someone is prosecuted for "one count of this thing and two counts of that thing." For instance, In Bennett's case, he was found guilty or rape by instrumentation and for sexual battery. In some cases, one can argue that those are two different charges for the same action (I don't know how the charges were broken down in this case, so I have no idea if that's the case here). In that case, it would be "double jeopardy" - even though it was one trial, it would be two "guilties" for one action, with two sentences for that action. So, the defendant's motion for merger/motion to dismiss for double jeopardy would likely arguing that that applies in this case and they want the two charges to be merged or one dismissed.
The sentencing memorandum and motion for new trial are very usual post-trial filings to argue for light sentencing or to have a new trial, which I suppose you could have guessed.
The final thing - apparently there was a subpoena for Bennett to produce some evidence (subpoena duces tecum) and they filed a motion to cancel that subpoena and a brief explaining why they think it should be cancelled.

[Douchepool]

Whomever is doing the record keeping in OK must have gone to public school.

[CenturyDeprived]

Some new updates on the court docket case page. The public official (?) who updates the page apparently doesn't have the best spelling.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=264240&db=Rogers

Not sure I know what all the legal terms mean, perhaps someone here with more legal knowledge can elaborate:


 05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097956    May 27 2016 8:13:36:570AM    -    $ 0.00
   DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MERGER/MOTION TO DISMISS FOR DOUBLE JEAPORDY PROHIBITION AGAINST MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    TEXT    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097958    May 27 2016 8:12:57:270AM    -    $ 0.00
   SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097960    May 27 2016 8:09:29:330AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

06-01-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7103669    Jun 2 2016 10:06:02:407AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

I have no more information than you and have no idea what the specifics of these are, but I can explain the general idea of what's happening. You've heard where someone is prosecuted for "one count of this thing and two counts of that thing." For instance, In Bennett's case, he was found guilty or rape by instrumentation and for sexual battery. In some cases, one can argue that those are two different charges for the same action (I don't know how the charges were broken down in this case, so I have no idea if that's the case here). In that case, it would be "double jeopardy" - even though it was one trial, it would be two "guilties" for one action, with two sentences for that action. So, the defendant's motion for merger/motion to dismiss for double jeopardy would likely arguing that that applies in this case and they want the two charges to be merged or one dismissed.
The sentencing memorandum and motion for new trial are very usual post-trial filings to argue for light sentencing or to have a new trial, which I suppose you could have guessed.
The final thing - apparently there was a subpoena for Bennett to produce some evidence (subpoena duces tecum) and they filed a motion to cancel that subpoena and a brief explaining why they think it should be cancelled.

Thanks Emily. I had kinda guessed some bits of that, but you helped fill in some blanks for me.

[petsoundsnola]

I found an interesting article from a 2013 interview with Scott.  I had no idea he got his start by writing commercial jingles.

http://scottholleran.com/writings/music/music-scott-bennett/

[Juice Brohnston]

A question for anyone with some legal knowledge. In the wake of the Stanford Rape that was in the media yesterday. I read something about the potential for victims of sexual assault to sue their attackers? The actual facts of this remained murky to me, something about a Federal ruling that would have to be administered via the individual State?

My question is could the victim in the Bennett case, sue him, and would his employer be potentially liable, as he was on the premises because he was working?

[HeyJude]

I'm far from an expert on all of that, but I do know that typically playing in Brian's band (or any band of that sort) on tour is not a typical "clock in, clock out" employment situation, with strict "hours" on the job, nor a singular "job site", and so on.

I'm guessing the guys in Brian's band are more like contractors essentially, paid per gig or per tour.

Anybody can sue anybody as they always say, but I would guess the *type* of employment involved here (again, they may well not be employees but rather contractors), coupled with the incident occurring well after the "contracted" job was done, would mean Brian (or the production company running the tour) wouldn't at least easily or obviously be liable.

Perhaps you could try to sue Bennett's employer if you felt the employer knew or had knowledge prior that the employee (or contractor) would be dangerous. I dunno. If someone runs a business, and they hire their buddy as a contractor to fix a plumbing issue, and they know their buddy is potentially dangerous, and then their buddy actually *does* attack someone, maybe there are some liability issues there.

Don't know how analogous any of these scenarios are, and I would hope and assume Brian and the production company and promoters had no inkling that something like that was possible. I would guess this isn't the first time some traveling musician has dome something that they could be sued civilly for, and I don't often hear of a band or artist or production company running a tour being sued for the actions of one member in the organization. Who knows, maybe there are a bunch of insurance policies that cover that sort of stuff even if there are potential liability issues. There are probably a bunch of other insurance policies in place for other possibilities, like if something from the stage falls over and crashes into the audience, etc.

[filledeplage]

A question for anyone with some legal knowledge. In the wake of the Stanford Rape that was in the media yesterday. I read something about the potential for victims of sexual assault to sue their attackers? The actual facts of this remained murky to me, something about a Federal ruling that would have to be administered via the individual State?

My question is could the victim in the Bennett case, sue him, and would his employer be potentially liable, as he was on the premises because he was working?

There is always a possibility of a civl suit for emotional distress or other kinds of damages. 

The example that most people think of is the civil suit filed against OJ Simpson for wrongful death, after he was acquitted of the criminal charges.  And they gave the families a $33 million dollar judgment.  Since OJ moved from CA to Florida, they were not able to seize the home to enforce the judgement, then the Goldman's father went after Simpson's "right to publicity" where Simpson could not make book (If I Did It) or TV deals.  There was an auction that netted $500,000 that went to the Goldman family.     

It still remains a high interest case. 

Since the file notes on the docket page, that the document is available the County Clerk's Office, it is not available online.   

[Micha]

The other day I was thinking, is it possible the woman was not knocked out by the amount of alcohol she drank but because someone put something in her drink? That would be an explanation for the total memory loss and Scott thinking he was "just" dealing with a drunk woman that may be interested in having sex, and misjudging things when the effect of that other chemical kicked in so she couldn't defend herself any more.

Which would still be appallingly cheating on his wife, anyway.

[SBGIRL]

 This morning

http://www.fox23.com/news/convicted-rapist-to-receive-sentence/342580993

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

I didn't see anything about Brian in that news story. Thank goodness!

[Emily]

I didn't see anything about Brian in that news story. Thank goodness!

+1
Hope it stays that way.

[SBGIRL]

Unfortunately since he was sentenced this morning the latest articles do mention "former keyboardist for Brian Wilson"

[Emily]

That's a shame.

[Douchepool]

Justice was served, although five years is a slap on the wrist for such a heinous act.

[Robbie Mac]

Justice was served, although five years is a slap on the wrist for such a heinous act.

Six months is a slap on the wrist.

[Robbie Mac]

https://m.facebook.com/groups/155818774481744?view=permalink&id=1110902838973328

It gets worse. The victim's family has hired Gloria Allred to pursue a civil suit.

[HeyJude]

https://m.facebook.com/groups/155818774481744?view=permalink&id=1110902838973328

It gets worse. The victim's family has hired Gloria Allred to pursue a civil suit.

And *that* would be how Brian's name might potentially be dragged back out into the media in relation to this case.

[Douchepool]

Justice was served, although five years is a slap on the wrist for such a heinous act.

Six months is a slap on the wrist.

No doubt, Mr. McCabe.

[bachelorofbullets]

The other day I was thinking, is it possible the woman was not knocked out by the amount of alcohol she drank but because someone put something in her drink? That would be an explanation for the total memory loss and Scott thinking he was "just" dealing with a drunk woman that may be interested in having sex, and misjudging things when the effect of that other chemical kicked in so she couldn't defend herself any more.

Which would still be appallingly cheating on his wife, anyway.

You don't need anything special to have a black out, you just need to drink too much too fast and you can lose your memory for hours.

[Juice Brohnston]

https://m.facebook.com/groups/155818774481744?view=permalink&id=1110902838973328

It gets worse. The victim's family has hired Gloria Allred to pursue a civil suit.

And *that* would be how Brian's name might potentially be dragged back out into the media in relation to this case.

I was wondering about this a few weeks ago. Allred tends to be drawn towards high profile cases, and Brian certainly raises the profile. Brian's official response to the incident was very terse. I imagine management realized this might have broader legal implications as time passed.

[Cool Cool Water]

I met him various times via VIP in the past via The Ladykillers. Such a silly, stupid and gross man after this event.

5 years seems nothing.

[petsoundsnola]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9ZyIAnyCD77a29rRV9NSHJOU1E/view?pref=2&pli=1

[Emily]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9ZyIAnyCD77a29rRV9NSHJOU1E/view?pref=2&pli=1

I think something really good might come out of that Stanford case after all.

[Marty Castillo]

Wow, incredible strength shown by the victim:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAHlT-_b-u0

[Emily]

Wow is right. Impressive young woman. Good for her.