She will have her day(s) in court with the civil suit, should it get that far.  The City will probably settle before it gets to that point.

Are the lawyers arguing that rape is a benefit?  Yikes!

No, they are arguing that there was no benefit to the cops for their misconduct which under the law there would have to be in order for their conviction to legally stand. For the purposes of the sentencing and the misconduct charge the rape charge does not matter since they were acquitted of it. It should be interesting to see the judge's decision.

But the way they said it, if they had been convicted, then that would be the benefit... that one of them had sex on the job (which he's admitted to).  

________________________________

If they had been convicted of the rape then the argument their lawyers are currently making would most likely be inapplicable. Rape itself is not a benefit but having sex is. The benefit is not judged from the victim's perspective. Most rapists would consider their rapes as conferring some form of benefit on them. Just as if the officers had stolen money from her purse. It's not a benefit to the victim but it is to the officer.

I don't think either officer admitted to having sex. I think the furthest he admitted to was kissing her, which is arguably a benefit but there may be some complications of whether the benefit itself has to be unlawful. Meaning if she had consented to the kiss, can that benefit be used against him? Or does the jury's findings mean they believe the kiss was the benefit and was obtained without consent but there just wasn't rape?

There is also a problem that can be raised whether he had the intent of gaining a benefit when he committed the misconduct since the statute says "with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit" So it can be argued that even if he obtained a benefit he may not be guilty under the statute if at the time he committed the misconduct he did not intend to receive the benefit.

It's actually not as easy of an argument as the media has dumbed it down to be. It's a great appeals issue if the judge upholds the conviction. Personally, I haven't done any real research on the issue so I can't say for certain if some of these questions have been resolved by previous cases.

I hear you. It just sickens me. And the cop did admit to having sex with her, then he took it back, then he said he wore a condom. He contradicted himself a lot.

I hope she gets to give one as she has been the victim of this and considered such during all subsequent proceedings, but since the jury found these two innocent I'm not sure she should get $57m when my post office doesn't have enough staff to deliver my packages because of "budget cuts" and victims of crimes that both the state AND juries can qualify don't have any assistance throughout participation in criminal court proceedings as a victim because the sole organization which supports them - NYLAG - is understaffed due to budgets.  I just can't stand behind this lawsuit when the jury delivered a not guilty verdict and some really essential agencies need money.  Like...the post office.  And others.

The misconduct conviction relates to their unauthorized presence in HER apartment.  She's entitled to speak. I wonder if, knowing how the defense is portraying the verdict at sentencing, that the jurors have regrets they voted for acquittal on the serious charges.

I agree.... these are totally separate charges. I doubt the courts will let her talk at sentencing.   

i hate to say it but the lawyer's reasoning is sound. the jury found these guys not guilty of the charges that would - in the eyes of the court - made her a victim. why should someone who i, according to the law, didn't victimize get to weigh in on my sentence on another matter?

that said, he's a reprehensible scumbag who should burn in hell.

Yeah, they kind of have a point. The court decided that this woman wasn't a rape victim, so a 'victim's statement' doesn't make any sense. On the other hand, could she be considered a victim of the official misconduct that the cops were convicted of? The jury did find that they illegally lurked around her apartment like creepy assholes. I'd consider that sufficient victimization, but maybe that's not how the law reads. 

They were convicted of official misconduct under NY Penal Law 195.00(1) which states: "A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized." Under this law it is unlikely that she would be considered a victim.

"but because the men were acquitted of rape, their counsel argues that there was no benefit, therefore no crime.  "

Wow just wow.

Let us hope for a full two years without parole for these two subhumans.

They were convicted of official misconduct under NY Penal Law 195.00(1) which is a class A misdemeanor. A class A misdemeanor is punishable by a maximum of 1 year in prison. Unfortunately, the judge will not be able to sentence them to more than 1 year each.

its a legal system that feeds the greedy shysters.on a differant note web site rocks with great speed .give the it group a reward

These guys (their lawyers included) are down right evil. Ditto on every cent. That and a karma payback.

Why are their lawyers evil? They are doing what they are constitutionally bound to do, give their clients the best defense possible. I think the jury made the wrong decision but the outrage against the defense attorneys is ridiculous. Not to mention, that the argument they have made here about the victim impact statement is correct.

And they could have said "no, we can't take your case right now".

Why should they not have taken their case? They are criminal defense attorneys. It is their job to defend people accused of crimes.