Case dismissed against former BYU football player after judge denies delay of July trial

[00:00:00]Ready. The victim is unprepared to testify, and that's okay. The case is dismissed without prejudice.

[00:00:08]>> Breaking news, a Utah judge has dismissed a rape charge against former BYU football player Parker Kingston just days before the case was set to go to trial.

[00:00:17]According to the court, Fifth District Judge J. Winward made the decision after denying prosecutor's request to delay the trial.

[00:00:24]>> Now, this took a twist. I don't think a lot of people were expecting here.

[00:00:26]Prosecutors say that they needed more time to prepare the alleged victim to testify, and asked to push the trial back to September. Well, instead, you heard the judge, he dismissed the case without prejudice, which means that she can refile in the future. So, the judge noted that prosecutors had already waited about a year to even file the charges to give the alleged victim time to prepare, and questioned whether additional delays would change that. He believes dismissing the case without prejudice will allow the woman to heal without a timeline.

[00:00:56]>> Now, the judge also said they routinely consider careers in trial scheduling, and that he was not just considering Kingston's career, but his education and family.

[00:01:05]>> Well, we had some breaking news that we broke just about an hour ago on this show that charges against [music] former BYU football player, he was a wide receiver, Parker Kingston, were dropped by a judge in Southern Utah. He was accused down there, Holly, of rape.

[00:01:20]>> That is pretty serious.

[00:01:21]>> Yeah, which is very serious charge. It was filed in February of this year in in the Fifth District Court. So, the crimes alleged to have occurred in the St. George area, at least in Washington County.

[00:01:32]Was scheduled to go to trial, and the state was not ready to go. They asked for a continuance, and the judge said, "I'm not continuing this anymore." and dismissed it.

[00:01:40]>> That seems really interesting to me, because we've seen the court cases that you and I talk about on here, it's like things get delayed all the time. So, what made this different?

[00:01:51]>> Well, I mean, I think that the judge is saying, "Look, you know, at some point, you you got to put up or shut up." And that the case wasn't old by any means, filed in February. The state needed more time. The judge apparently got frustrated with the state. I'm just looking at some of the comments that he made to them about, "Hey, you know, you guys ready to go?" "Well, we need more time. Our victim needs this. The victim needs that." And the judge is like, "No, we're we're either going to trial on a date you scheduled or we're dismissing it." And they said, "Well, we can't go."

[00:02:16]So, he said, "I'm dismissing it." It it is incredibly rare for a judge to do that, especially on a case that is what?

[00:02:24]Filed in February for in June, like 4 months old?

[00:02:26]>> Yeah.

[00:02:26]>> And but um on the other hand, a an accused has a right under the Constitution to a speedy public trial. So, the judge might have felt that this might have felt that this was just a another delay.

[00:02:38]And um of course, there are several remedies the state has, not the least of which is just refile it because it's dismissed without prejudice, which means it can be refiled at any time.

[00:02:49]>> So, help me understand because I can never remember with prejudice means >> you're done.

[00:02:55]>> You're done, but but like is prejudice like is it like a legal term? It's not like used in the common way we use it in everyday language?

[00:03:04]>> no, it's it's if you if you recall, the military will say, you know, "With extreme prejudice." That's that's the same That's the same connotation.

[00:03:10]>> when I think prejudice, I think, "Well, you have a different skin color than me, so >> Yeah, it is it's it's own It's its own word. Prejudice means uh it's it's not like jeopardy, you know, we have double jeopardy. It's uh Prejudice means that the the you It just means you can't rebring it. I mean, it kind of has its own definition. I don't know why we use that word, but we do.

[00:03:33]Now, I would say this, maybe defense or criminal lawyers would disagree with me, is you can't really dismiss a criminal case with prejudice. The only way a criminal case can be dismissed forever, in my opinion, is if there's jeopardy.

[00:03:45]Double jeopardy. You know what I mean?

[00:03:47]So, I would say >> have found it went through a complete trial process or something.

[00:03:54]Right? And then you can't bring a second charge for the same crime.

[00:04:00]>> People people will disagree with me, but I I don't think a judge could dismiss a case with prejudice. They do and and we all abide by it, live with it. Anyway, then it is okay to dismiss without prejudice means the state can do it.

[00:04:11]Now, they mentioned one of the remedies could be, "Okay, we'll just refile it."

[00:04:14]It's certainly within the statute limitations because um I it's alleged to have occurred um in It doesn't say I can't find or the offense date is February of 25.

[00:04:27]>> So, it was like a year.

[00:04:28]>> Yeah, so it was filed it was a year before it was filed. Yeah, the offense is alleged to have occurred in February of 25, it was filed in February 26. But a crime like that has a 4-year statute limitations, so it's not going anywhere.

[00:04:40]But again, they can refile. One of the other things they can do and that they've sort of hinted at doing, which would be highly unusual, is appeal the dismissal.

[00:04:48]Take it to the court of appeals and say, "Hey, you had no right to dismiss this case."

[00:04:52]>> That's interesting.

[00:04:53]>> Yeah, it would seem to me that the safer course would just be to refile it. If it's no prejudice, you just have to show the why why you've got some reason to refile it. The court of appeals could say to the judge, "You had no reason to dismiss it." But that's you we give judges a lot of discretion, and so I don't know that the appeal would make sense. Who knows what the state's going to do. They're not happy and they're not going to let this go apparently. That's sort of what we're hearing right now.

[00:05:17]>> So, I'm just while we've been talking, I was able to pull up a ksl.com article.

[00:05:21]Thanks, everybody.

[00:05:23]That said that the judge said that prosecutors delayed filing the case for a year so that the victim who came forward had time to prepare and that he wasn't sure that giving them an extra 3 months if she wasn't ready to testify now, what made people think that she would be ready in a few months from now. And then he said he was a little baffled that prosecutors were not asking to dismiss the case without prejudice to allow her to heal without a timeline. That That's interesting to me, too. Do judges typically do that? It's like, we're going to let the victim heal before we take this case?

[00:05:57]>> Well, I think what he's saying is the prosecutor is saying, "We're not ready to go. Well, this victim needs more time to heal." He's like, "Well, she's had a year and >> A year and >> or a month. You want three more You want three more months for her to heal? I'm just We That's not a good That's not a good reason to continue a case for the victim to heal. If that's what happened, I'm not saying it did, but if that's what it looks like. Um >> So, what do you think happens with Parker Kingston in the meantime?

[00:06:19]>> Well, his charges are dismissed. I mean, if he's asked the question, "Have you ever been Have you been convicted of a crime?" or "Have you been charged with a crime?" The answer to the crime is no.

[00:06:26]The answer is no. He can move on with his life. Of course, without prejudice means it's hanging over his head a little bit and he's hasn't heard the the end of the story. Who knows when when the end of the story occurs. Um will it be an appeal the court of appeals re- reinstate the prosecution or will the state just reinstate it on their own?

[00:06:44]Who knows, but for him the the the I would say the nightmare, whatever it is, the fact that he's charged with a crime is now over.

[00:06:51]>> Well, he was When he was arrested, he got expelled from BYU and kicked off the football team.

[00:06:56]>> Oh, you're wondering about that.

[00:06:57]>> Well, I don't know. No, there isn't anything >> That's a better question, but although even if So, his defense, as I understand it, was that it was a consensual relationship.

[00:07:06]>> Right.

[00:07:07]>> Which could very well be a violation >> the law. Could be a violation. So, they would have had reason to kick him off the team whether it was consensual or not. It did occur down in the St. George area, although that's neither here nor there. And it did I mean, there were some conversations between the two of them, at least according to the police reports, that it was you know, that there was some level of consent. And that that would have been the defense, but the victim is saying it went further than I expected. Um Yeah.

[00:07:29]So, you know, victims And the judge makes a good point. It took you a year to file it, so you gave the victim some time. You clearly did un- >> Yeah.

[00:07:39]>> appreciate her concern.

[00:07:39]>> Yeah.

[00:07:40]>> Don't file it yet. Let's wait till we're ready. But, when a state files a case under the law, Holly, they have to be in a position where they're saying that there's a >> We think he can win.

[00:07:51]>> Right, today.

[00:07:52]>> Yeah.

[00:07:52]>> You can't file a case and say, "Well, we'll put it together in a year."

[00:07:54]knowing it's going to take a year.

[00:07:56]Because the defense can always say, "I want my speedy trial. Let's do it next month." We usually think of the defense as continuing cases and postponing them, which they normally do.

[00:08:04]The state, when you file a case, you have to be you you're what you're saying is, "We are ready to proceed with this case, and there's a substantial likelihood that we will prevail the day we file it."

[00:08:14]>> You know what's interesting is I just saw some news stories this morning about Parker Kingston working out at BYU campus facilities with the football team.

[00:08:23]Um the BYU athletics department was a little terse in their response. It said this wasn't a school-sponsored thing, and we've handled it, whatever that means. But, I saw um an article, this one was from KUTV, but Nathan Evershed, who is a current defense attorney, not connected to the Parker Kingston case, but he said this, and I you'll probably agree with this. There's two different arenas that play in this case, two courts going on. There's the court of public opinion, and there's the court of law.

[00:08:50]>> Yeah.

[00:08:50]>> And now we know the court of law says there's no case right now.

[00:08:54]>> Right. And who knows what the court of public opinion's going to be because obviously something occurred. You've also got the honor code court, or whatever you want to call it, but >> Well, he's probably not I he's not going back to BYU, but >> Probably not. Although, if he's working out with the team, he must think he's got something going on.

[00:09:08]>> I don't know. I don't know, but