Did the senator really commit a lewd act?

It is an unfortunate fact of life that many innocent people plead guilty to crimes they never committed. I remember once when I was representing a client in criminal court and I overheard a defendant tell the court that he thought he was guilty. The judge gave me permission to speak to the accused alone and when he told me the facts of his case, I came to the conclusion that he was innocent. I pleaded him not guilty and then sent him to the Legal Aid office and the legal Aid lawyer agreed with my conclusion. The defendant was uneducated and nervous to boot so one can forgive him for almost pleading guilty to a crime he didn’t commit.

However, when the U.S. Senator from Idaho, Larry Craig pleaded guilty to a charge involving lewd conduct in a public washroom, the court presumed that he was an educated man and knew what he was doing when he pleaded guilty on August 8, 2007 to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge.

According to the undercover cop who was patrolling the washrooms in the Minneapolis airport, when the senator (who is a foe of gay people) entered his stall, he tapped his right foot, then tapped his toes several times, moved his foot closer to the officer's foot (who was in the next stall) then swiped his hand under the stall divider before reaching beneath the door and placing his palm facing toward the ceiling. According to the police report, these are all signals associated with illicit bathroom sex. Craig initially refused to accompany the officer, pulling out his business card identifying himself as a U.S. senator, saying, "What do you think about that?'' The cop wasn’t impressed. What did the senator think about that?

According to Craig, he merely bent over to pick up a piece of paper. If that is so, then why did he pleaded guilty for performing a lewd act?

He told no one about his June arrest, or his August plea, or how he explained to the Minneapolis police officer involved in the airport sting that signals the officer interpreted as a come-on for gay sex were actually explained by the senator's "wide stance'' in the stall and his reaching for a piece of paper on the floor.
He went public after his hometown newspaper did a story on him with respect to his charge and subsequent plea.

He recanted the guilty plea saying he agreed to a misdemeanour charge without consulting a lawyer and in hope of disposing of the case quickly. He certainly didn’t need to consult with a lawyer. If he was innocent, all he had to say was that he was pleading not guilty. I strongly suspect that Craig decided to plead guilty to the misdemeanor (minor offence) rather than risk a trial because at a trial, there would be many reporters present once it was learned that a U.S. senator was facing a trial for lewd conduct in a public washroom. What he didn’t count on was the story of his plea later leaking out to the reporters in his hometown newspaper.

I am not going to say that he was guilty as charged or that the cop was lying because only those two men know what really happened in that public washroom. Craig has admitted to a serious lapse in judgment. Was he referring to the lewd act or him pleading guilty when he was in fact innocent?

This was not the first brush Craig has had with an alleged sex scandal. The showing on the popular YouTube video was his denial on NBC News 25 years ago of any involvement in a drugs and sex ring on Capitol Hill involving young male interns.

That old adage must be a truism; ‘Where there is smoke, there is fire’. The general sentiment among Craig's fellow Idaho Republicans who talked to CNN's Dana Bash in Boise, Idaho was that Craig's explanation is not credible.

Alas, for Craig, it’s all over. Craig resigned from his role in the presidential campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney who is trying to capture the "family values" mantle in the Republican race. The governor told MSNBC that Craig had "disappointed the American people.

Republican presidential contender John McCain, an Arizona senator, said the incident was "disgraceful" and added: "When you plead guilty to a crime, you shouldn't serve." Other American politicians are swarming over the senator like flies looking for horse dung.

I don’t know what Craig’s chances will be if he runs again but I for one, if I was a citizen in Idaho, wouldn’t vote for a man who can’t make up his mind when he is in a pinch. Now there is a play on words.
____________________________________________________

NOTE: On September 1, 2007, Senator Craig announced that he was resigning from the U.S Senate which is to be effective on September 30th. He also said that he will try to get his conviction overturned. That may end up being his biggest mistake because if he gets a trial and is convicted, there will not be any doubt as to his guilt, whereas as of this present time, many actually believe that he was innocent.
His chances of getting his conviction overturned is slim at best.

A guilty plea forecloses appellate review of the factual and legal elements necessary to sustain a final judgment of guilt and a lawful sentence. By entering a plea of guilty, the accused is not simply stating that he did the indiscrete acts described in the indictment; he is admitting guilt of the crime.

United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989).