Craig’s guilty plea was not ‘knowingly and understandingly made’

September 10, 2007

As the Petraeus/Crocker hearing gets underway in the House, I thought I’d take a moment to note that Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) is still not going away quietly.

Sen. Larry Craig filed papers Monday seeking to withdraw his guilty plea in an airport sex sting, arguing that he entered the plea under stress caused by media inquiries into his sexuality. […]

In a “state of intense anxiety” following his arrest, Craig “felt compelled to grasp the lifeline offered to him by the police officer” and plead guilty in hopes the matter would not be made public, said the court papers filed in Hennepin County District Court.

The filing said Craig’s “panic” drove him to accept the plea rather than seeking the advice of an attorney. As a result, Craig’s guilty plea was not “knowingly and understandingly made,” and the evidence against him insufficient to support the plea.

In an interview, Craig’s attorney, William Martin, cited pressure from Craig’s hometown newspaper, the Idaho Statesman, which spent months investigating whether Craig engaged in homosexual encounters.

And there it is again — the “when all else fails, it’s the media’s fault” moment of desperation. The Idaho Statesman, the story goes, prompted Craig to “panic” and plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit. It didn’t make any sense two weeks ago, and it doesn’t make any sense now.

It continues to be a classic non-sequitur — a reporter started asking questions about his personal life, which necessarily compelled him to plead guilty? It’s obviously transparent and desperate.

It’s also a long-shot in court. The AP report this morning adds, “Craig’s three-page guilty plea includes acknowledgments that, ‘I understand that the court will not accept a plea of guilty from anyone who claims to be innocent,’ ‘I now make no claim that I am innocent…,’ and, ‘I did the following: Engaged in conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment … .’ Craig signed the bottom of each page.”

Meanwhile, Craig continues to have a surprising cheerleader in the Senate.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) apparently has been the subject of “privately expressed anger” from Republican leaders for speaking up for Craig when the Idaho senator was poised to go away quietly, but Specter apparently is still at it.

Sen. Arlen Specter on Sunday likened Sen. Larry Craig’s guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis airport men’s room to a motorist paying an undeserved parking ticket and reiterated his contention that the Idaho Republican should stay in the Senate and fight to overturn his conviction.

“Frequently, you get a parking ticket and the meter is broken, but you enter a guilty plea, you sign off, you pay a small check and not to fight it,” Specter told CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.”

“He thought that this matter would not be publicly disclosed, and that was very foolish,” Specter said. “Now look here, you have 27 years in the Congress, you have his reputation, you have his whole life on the line. I think he’s entitled to his day in court. Maybe he will be convicted, but I doubt it.”

Under Minnesota law, a guilty plea may be withdrawn “if there is manifest injustice, and that is defined that a plea can be withdrawn if it was not intelligently made,” Specter said. “And what Senator Craig did was by no means intelligent.”

Well, at least on this, I’m inclined to agree.

I think anyone who panics so easily that he can’t be intelligent has no business being a Senator.

  • In a “state of intense anxiety” following his arrest, Craig “felt compelled to grasp the lifeline offered to him by the police officer” and plead guilty in hopes the matter would not be made public, said the court papers filed in Hennepin County District Court.

    I hate it when things that happen in public are made public, don’t you?

  • A Republican is perfectly entitled to make excuses and receive do-overs for mistakes that they committed, which would be firing or resigning offenses if committed by anyone else.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.

  • Were the officers involved with the sting “big black men”? Or are there “big black men” working for the “Idaho Statesman”? Perhaps it would explain why Craig signed a guilty plea out of fear of the Idaho Statesman.

  • You know he didn’t plead guilty for several weeks after the arrest, so if he was in such a panic, why didn’t he consult a lawyer? This guy is looking stupider and stupider. It’s concern about guys like Craig that make parents fear to let their young children go to the bathroom in a public place, and force mothers to take their male children into the ladies room with them. I always worry about the holier than thou crowd; many of them seem to have something to hide.

  • Specter, huh. Well, I guess Craig had to have learned the codes from someone.

    Let me see if I’ve got this: Craig was afraid that the Idaho Statesman might run a story suggesting he was privately gay. To prevent this, Craig signed a public document saying he was cruising for gay sex.

    Yeah, that makes sense.

  • Ya know- I don’t know, but I bet this douchebag has voted for increased mandatory minimums for all kinds of things like minor drug offenses, etc. that poor black kids get thrown in jail for all the time. And I didn’t hear him make a peep when Jose Padilla was held for three years without charges. And I’m quite sure he voted for the PATRIOT act and the MCA.

    He’s a lawyer. He’s been in congress for almost 30 years. He has weeks to think about his plea. He signed his name in three places.

    If Craig can reverse his guilty plea, then why shouldn’t absolutely any and everyone else?

    Larry Craig: What a fucking asshole.

  • Personally, I always enjoy a good fight, either as a participant or an observer. By fight, of course, I mean legal fight.

    I think to enjoy a good legal fight you have to strip it of all preconceptions and attitudes, and then you can just see it for what it is. That’s difficult in the Craig case because it is so politically loaded. But I think it can be a test of our integrity and honesty, and also of our humanity. OK, I’m just playing around with this.

    The one thing that stands out about Craig’s statement (In a “state of intense anxiety” .. etc.) is its honesty and believability. Undoubtedly he is in no way the first person ever to experience such sentiments in such a situation. I think his statement actually tells the truth. Does it not ring true to you? For me that goes as a plus, because I’m a sucker for redemption. I think redemption is one of our most precious assets. OK, so that’s that.

    As to its legal prospects, they’re probably slender. He’s giving it his best shot, and why not? Wouldn’t you? Even if what he says is true, and it certainly seems credible, it is probably true to a greater or lesser extent with every arrest and indictment. So, that in itself if not such a strong case of extenuating circumstances, or whatever the specific let-out terminology may be. Anything to do with sex, however, touches such a deep place that these feelings of “intense anxiety” are bound to be stronger than in arrests for other types of offenses.

    Now, the ordinary person, who was not trying to cover up gross hypocrisy, probably would feel less “intense anxiety”, in which case they would be more likely to keep their wits about them and not clutch at a “lifeline offered to him by the police officer”. So, when all is said and done, it just comes back down to the hypocrisy.

    That’s the bullet they have to bite. And let’s hope it will be a salutary lesson to all those other goody-goody-GOP-two-shoes who might also be similarly vulnerable. (Pigs rarely fly)

  • Any moment now, Craig will be seeking treatment for his panic/anxiety disorder.

    This isn’t so much about proving he wasn’t cruising for sex, as it is about a chance to prove he isn’t gay – he thinks one equals the other, but he obviously hasn’t been paying attention to how all these “scandals” play out.

    He will never prove to some people’s satisfaction that he isn’t gay, and he’ll never prove it to himself either.

    The whole thing is sad and pathetic.

  • I was talking with an ex- friend of mine the other day ( a typical Mich. racist republican ) how we need morality from our leaders . Later in our conversation He went on to explain that he hates Dems. because ” all them N—–s are dems. (hence the ex-friend ), I just dont care what anyone thinks “. all this while claiming to be a christian, he then admits to me he has spent over $20,000 since May on hookers and at strip clubs while having $ 60,000 in credit card debt . These kind of people have got to be insane , constantly contardicting themselves just to prove themselve right . I really doubt that they even have the intelligence for critical thinking .

  • The filing said Craig’s “panic” drove him to accept the plea rather than seeking the advice of an attorney.

    The judge is going to hurt him, bad. And it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. He has lied about when he had a lawyer at least twice and now he’s going to get into court, take an oath to tell the truth and hopes that will make things better?

    Only in fRightieville.

  • I can’t decide what I’d do if I were the judge. Part of me would say “Fine, make a mockery out of my court and Minneapolis law enforcement. Let’s take this to trial, Senator. Now you’re facing the peeping Tom charge, too.” The other part of me says: this guy is nuts and grasping for straws. He is well-educated and well versed enough to know if you take a plea, you admit guilt. Period.

    If I were the judge, however, I would like the Senator to explain his actions a week later when he stopped by the police station. He asked, well according to the police report he “demanded,” information to give to his lawyers. (go to http://www.TheSmokingGun.com to read the report). Let’s just say he seems to have a problem with truthfulness and he’s leaving a pretty clear trail. He either lied to the police then or is lying now. Seems to me, he’ll say whatever he thinks he needs to in order to get what he wants. Character issue, anyone?

    The other irony, of course, is that the Idaho newspaper didn’t have enough confidence in its sources to publish. It was trying to be fair. Now the Senator says it was the paper’s fault he made such a poor decision! As if he’s never been hounded by a newspaper before. Why do you think we should believe this line, Senator?

  • Forgot to add:

    I get the impression Craig’s attorney thinks his client is being tried in the court of public opinion, hence his attempt to make it seem that the chronology was “Go to bathroom, get arrested, plead guilty,” rather than “Go to bathroom, get arrested, catch a flight, wait a couple of weeks, return to the airport (allegedly on an errand for his attorney) wait a bit longer and then plead guilty.

    He sure doesn’t seem to understand that the judge will ask questions. Lots of ’em.

    Maybe Craig’s next step will be to claim incompetent counsel.

  • Just a point of fact — he was arrested June 11. He signed his plea agreement Aug. 1. Seven weeks he had to make his decision.

    Because he no longer acknowledges his guilt, he can’t even try the entrapment defense. I noticed in the police report that the officer took his “position” at 12 p.m., and Craig showed up less than 15 minutes later. Now, if he and the officer were exchanging “signals” outside the bathroom, for example, he’d have a better case.

    I’m sure he is hoping to get the case re-opened with the hopes of then having it thrown out. But to be fair, since he already admitted guilt, I think it would serve the public interest to give the charges a fair hearing in a court of law.

  • I don’t think the guy should resign even if the guilty verdict stands. Big deal, he’s guilty of a minor misdemeanor. It’s only serious in the censorious eyes of “cultural conservatives.” It’s fun to watch the R’s squirm and all, but it’s hardly a firing offense from a liberal’s eye view.

  • Re: 8. On September 10th, 2007 at 2:10 pm, Haik Bedrosian said:
    “He’s a lawyer.”

    Craig is NOT an attorney. Check out his bio on Wikipedia. BA in 1969 in Political Science from the University of Idaho. Graduate studies at George Washington University but no advanced degree.

    With that clarification made, no one can doubt that Craig is not, at least an “eduated” man. But ,he obviously is afflicted with the common ailments of the closet; ignorance, panic, and stupidity.

    He will not succeed in getting his guilty Plea Agreement set aside without political connections in Minneapolis or outright paying someone off.

  • In a “state of intense anxiety” following his arrest, Craig “felt compelled to grasp the lifeline offered to him by the police officer” and plead guilty in hopes the matter would not be made public, said the court papers filed in Hennepin County District Court.

    Now, I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty confident that any and all legal proceedings — especially guilty pleas and cases in which the person is found guilty — are a matter of public record and can often be found freely and easily on the Internet.

    So … um … not sure how making such a plea deal was supposed to keep this all quiet.

    Is this guy a really a lawyer? And the people of Idaho really elected him to a job that requires him to do things like, ya know, help write laws?

    I’m with many others on this — Craig shouldn’t quit because he’s gay, or even because he’s necessarily guilty of anything all that important in the big scheme of things.

    He should quit because he’s too stupid to be part of the most important legislative body in the world.

  • I wonder who in Washington DC gave the tip to Roll Call, since the Idaho paper was not publishing the story until Roll Call broke it. The one thing the Craig story did was get Gonzales off the front page. I am always suspicious of the timing of these stories.

    • Comments are closed.