Stay in Touch
Get sneak previews of special offers & upcoming events delivered to your inbox.
04-16-2019 07:12 AM - edited 04-16-2019 07:13 AM
In a hint at a legal defense, two parents from Palo Alto, Gregory and Amy Colburn, who pled not guilty several weeks ago, have asked a judge to dismiss the indictments against them.
Claiming that there was no conspiracy legally, their attorney says: "While the Government's strategy of lumping together all of the parents into a single conspiracy has had the intended effect of creating widespread public outrage against all of the parents regardless of actual conduct, there is no legal basis for including the Colburns in this single conspiracy under the allegations in the indictment."
Basically, the attorney seems to say that the Colburn's had no interest in or part in a conspiracy to cheat the college entrance system.
They paid $25,000 to have their son's SAT test altered by a proctor. They also argue that lumping them together with parents who paid over $1 million is prejudicial.
I don't know if this will work.
04-16-2019 07:54 AM
@JohnnyEager Paying $25,000 to have a test score altered is still a crime and how can it not be considered trying to cheat the system? As the parent of kids who went through the agonizing SAT and college admission process I find it infuriating. I guess they are so rich & entitled they think a $25,000 bribe is not a big deal?
04-16-2019 08:02 AM
They are entitled to mount a vigorous defense, as any citizen charged with a crime would be.
I didn't say it is a reasonable, logical or sound defense. A judge could very likely reject their request.
04-16-2019 08:23 AM
It's an interesting attempt at a defense to say their clients did not conspire with other parents. For me, it doesn't hold water because the conspiracy charge is not between all the parents but the conspiracy is between, Singer and the proctors.
Interesting to see if the judge supports this line of defense as presented.
Sounds like grasping at straws.
04-16-2019 08:27 AM
People with money will go to great lengths no matter how ridiculous to get off. Hope the money isn't talking in this case. Knowing how hard many students and parents work for an education this really bothers me.
04-16-2019 08:34 AM
I don't know the LEGAL ANGLE, but as long as the tests were altered or someone was a proxy the attempt was deplorable, heartless, unkind, unfair, and deprived someone with real talent a place. As I said before there are so many parents that gamed the system one way or another that there should be a "look-see" how to fix the problem going forward.
04-16-2019 10:25 AM
The crime is not based on how much $$ was paid.
This one will be laughed right out of court, imo.
Altering the test is altering the test, no matter how much you paid to have this accomplished.
They just don't get it.. Poor victims are they.
04-16-2019 10:26 AM
This is what I have always found fascinating yet frustrating about law:
1) verbiage used
3) using the above to defend what the public would consider an "obvious" crime.
It appears that the couple claim they were not part of a conspiracy but acted alone and therefore, the government has no right to label them or bring charges against them under that definition.
In addition, they spent $25,000 and not a million plus and therefore should not be lumped in with those who spent so much more nor should they receive the same type of a sentence as those who spent so much more.
Example: you steal $150 from a store but another person steals $6000. Both stole but one is considered a felony; the other is not. Therefore, the person who did not commit a felony should not be tried or linked to the one who did.
Notice that nowhere is it mentioned WHAT the couple actually did. They are not addressing that. The attorney is addressing the CHARGE and the CLAIMS being brought forth by the government. Two different things.
04-16-2019 10:32 AM - edited 04-16-2019 10:35 AM
Fighting the specific charges is often a legal tactic.
It's not that different than a murder or violent crime case, when the defense goes after procedures, evidence collection/contamination, interrogation techniques: not was the crime actually committed.
The Government could probably just rewrite the charges somehow and refile them.
QVC is not responsible for the availability, content, security, policies, or practices of the above referenced third-party linked sites nor liable for statements, claims, opinions, or representations contained therein. QVC's Privacy Statement does not apply to these third-party web sites.
© 1995-2019 QVC, Inc. All rights reserved Trademark Notice