SHOES, SEX, WHATEVER: HENTON ARREST EXPLAINED OR NOT
This is the internet, meaning that this is the place for rumor, hearsay, and spurious stories of dubious sourcing, all sponsored by possibly fraudulent products. So to combine the twin pillars of this glorious virtual universe, we promise that if you read the following explanation of Ohio State 3rd string qb Antonio Henton’s arrest for soliciting a prostitute, your penis/boobs/both, if applicable will grow to twice their normal size when you finish.
One sexual attribute-enhancing rumor, coming right up:
He was driving through that area (a few blocks south of campus) on his way to buy some shoes. While driving along, he was flagged down by a woman who approached his car and asked if he wanted to have sex. Then the uniforms came and arrested him. It should be dismissed as entrapment, and they apparently arrested 10 other people that night in that location. Henton really is a good guy…God damn man trying to keep a dude just gettin’ some shoes down. Fight the power!
What is omitted is Henton’s response to the solicitation, which seems important. We turn this over to the EDSBS legal department, since half of our readership seems to squeeze in visits in between billable hours, while the other half reads this from white-collar prison while trying to get in some consult time with the half reading this from their law offices: is this entrapment? And if so, can we say it with a Sean Connery accent while making eyes at Catherine Zeta-Jones in a catsuit?
Loading ...
1
gerry dorsey says:
“ruff….just like your mother likes it trebek!”
September 27th, 2007 at 11:33 am
2
Allahver Fist says:
I’ll take FSU cheating scandal for $1000.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:36 am
3
CabanVOL says:
Well, this would be almost completely based on his omitted response… so maybe.
But probably not
September 27th, 2007 at 11:37 am
4
Middle America says:
Entrapment is an affirmative defense. I believe, however, the burden of proof will be on the government to prove Henton had a predisposition to commit such an act. So, is a college kid predisposed to have sex with a woman when solicited? I’d say he’s screwed (no pun intended).
September 27th, 2007 at 11:42 am
5
Eric says:
It’s entrapment – because if anyone approaches your car and says “Want some sex?”, the automatic response of any 18-19 year old kid (hell, any single guy) would be “Hell to da yeah!!!”
I bet the poor little guy didn’t even get a chance to discuss price…
September 27th, 2007 at 11:42 am
6
yoyofutbawl says:
Shoes? Hookers? Art Schlichter bets you 10-1 he walks.
Right on, #2. If this were in Tallahassee, it never would’ve happened. Because he’d have no need to buy shoes.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:43 am
7
Middle America says:
This all assumes he responded affirmatively to the solicitation, of course.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:43 am
8
Mr. Flibble says:
Setting aside Henton’s actions–curiously omitted from this version of events–yeah, you could make a good case for entrapment.
The officer cannot propose the illegal act; the offender has to be the one to take the initiative (thus showing that he went into the situation with criminal intent). The sting officer could easily have just said to Henton–”Hey honey, what can I do for you?” or even the age-old “Looking for a good time?” If Henton was looking to pick up some pussy-by-the-hour, then he’d interpret and act upon the woman’s words very differently than if his motives were pure as fresh snow. Asking right off the bat if Henton wanted to fuck, on the other hand…well, that would be entrapment.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:43 am
9
anon says:
This is why I didn’t go into criminal law.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:50 am
10
Beatuofa says:
threadjack…
Just noticed the new “Orson Swindle FAQs” link on the right side — is that humor/irony that the page says “What you’re looking for cannot be found” or should there actually be something there?
/threadjack
September 27th, 2007 at 11:51 am
11
Brian says:
What D1 athlete has to go looking for paid poon. Thats just ridiculous. Duke, tOSU, those kids are gettin all the ass they can handle, im sure.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:51 am
12
PW says:
4
Wouldn’t his predisposition need to be toward paying for sex, as opposed to accepting an offer of sex for an entrapment defense not to work?
September 27th, 2007 at 11:51 am
13
Middle America says:
10.
Agreed.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:53 am
14
LSUJoshua says:
“This is the sounds a dog makes”
“Mooo”
“I’m sorry, that’s the wrong answer”
“That’s not what you mother said last night Trebek!!!!! AHAFHAFHAHAHAFHAGHAHHAFGH”
September 27th, 2007 at 11:54 am
15
Paco says:
Was she hot or are we talking Barney Fife in drag? Being Columbus, I’d bet on the latter.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:55 am
16
Southern Papa says:
The real question is, did they impound his Escalade?
September 27th, 2007 at 11:58 am
17
PW says:
Although, the fact that he intended to pay might be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. For instance, was this an area known for prostitution? And was Henton aware of this?
September 27th, 2007 at 11:59 am
18
Mr. Flibble says:
Wouldn’t his predisposition need to be toward paying for sex, as opposed to accepting an offer of sex for an entrapment defense not to work?
IANAL, but I think given the context in which all this occurred the fact there would be a surcharge for the festivities would be self-evident. Unless the dude was really naive or egotistical.
I mean, this isn’t like the UW game where a random chick sitting next to you asks you to do her, you wouldn’t expect to have to pay for that, but a solicitation on a street corner somewhere on the way to a shoe store seems a different matter.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
19
PJ from NU in SF says:
Entrapment, shmapment… How many shoe stores are open at 8:30 on a Monday night? Even Al Bundy would draw the line at missing MNF.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
20
Doug says:
#5: It’s entrapment – because if anyone approaches your car and says “Want some sex?”, the automatic response of any 18-19 year old kid (hell, any single guy) would be “Hell to da yeah!!!”
Not necessarily. I’m sure you’ve all heard the joke about the Georgia Tech student who, when asked by the prostitute if he’d like “some super sex,” asks what kind of soup it is.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
21
tOSU_radar says:
PW – That’s a very interesting section of town. 1 block east and it’s Da Hood (Compton Columbus), 1 block west and it’s a whole neighborhood of renovated Victorian Homes (Victorian Village – home to lots of gay couples with the disposable incomes to renovate said houses), 1 block south is the beginning of some pricey urban condo/lofts, and 1 block north is the South Campus Gateway (very sterile bar/retail area). So there may be some “action” there, but it’s not like it’s the red light district.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
22
OhioDawg says:
Nothing about this makes sense.
1. He’s already getting as much as he wants
2. When pulled over, he had no Grey Goose, no automatic weapons and was not on the phone with the Israeli mafia
3. tOSU qbs are snared in gambling rings, not sex stings
4. We all know this kind of thing doesn’t happen under Coach Tressel, it just doesn’t
September 27th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
23
NewAZTiger says:
I think that when she stuck her head in the window, she saw a fuck lion, and just called in the cops.
Only the Chewbacca defense can save him now.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
24
Tony says:
Under that fact pattern, it’s not entrapment. If a woman asks a guy if he wants to have sex, and the guy says yes, no crime has been committed. “Solicitation” only occurs when one person proposes to another person that they engage in illegal activity (i.e. exchange sex for money). If the narc first proposed the sex-4-money xchange, it could be entrapment. If the perp did, then it’s solicitation.
“Predisposition” does not enter into the analysis. “Intent” does. But you cannot commit a crime by intent alone. You also must act. In other words, to be guilty of solicitation you must have both the intent to solicit, and engage in conduct constituting solicitation.
Who do I bill this to?
September 27th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
25
UgasTexan says:
Israeli Mafia… +10 Cocktails.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
26
blazin says:
Citing Berry v. United States:
if he immediately declared “the bitch set me up” on video tape at the time of arrest, it may stand as a nolo contendere yet result in enhanced endearment from his constituency.
In this case, he would be fined and made starting QB next season which was his plan all along.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
27
bhors says:
If he was looking for shoes, he shoulda went to Free Shoe University. Also, the only place to buy shoes at that spot in town is at Kroger (do they sell shoes?) or at the dollar store. Unless he was headed way downtown. There are still some of my old shoes hanging on the powerlines in front of 2002 Summit from February of 2003. Size 13. He can have them if he wants.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
28
Techie says:
Actually, at GT, the pick up line was: “Baby, i’d like to parse your algorithm, if you know what I mean”
September 27th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
29
shovel pass says:
If I were to give an opinion regarding said case, whom shall I bill?
(said like Mr. Howel from Giligans Island)
September 27th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
30
WingRg says:
It just so happens that there’s a shoe store in the South Campus district (3 blocks away). Is this a plausible defense? Sure. Does it look shady even if he was set up? Absolutely. Is it as big a deal as C-bus media is making it out to be? i’m not sure (prostitution is the world’s oldest profession for a reason)
September 27th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
31
WingRg says:
Techie,
$20 isn’t even enough for a tokenizer
September 27th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
32
Brad says:
Entrapment is an affirmative defense. Whether it is available depends on the jurisdiction; where I practice, the defendant has to show (a) inducement and (b) that he wasn’t predisposed to committing the crime. There is case law that a solicitation plus an acceptance is legally sufficient to overcome the affirmative defense. Legal sufficiency is simply a statement of the minimal proof required, though — it doesn’t mean that in every case, the defense won’t or shouldn’t work. That’s for the factfinder to decide. In this case, any defense lawyer worth a damn would demand a jury trial and argue police misconduct/overreaching. I’ve seen it before, and I’ve seen it work (i.e. a dude found not guilty for almost exactly the same thing).
September 27th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
33
chris says:
We can pretty much guarantee those were the most important shoes of his life. You know, disregarding any and all magic shoes granted to him by fairy/pixie/warlock or any other entity.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
34
GamecockTony says:
This case should be settled thus:
Have a jury of his peers (12 OSU male students) take a look at said hooker. If more than half say they would have sex with her if offered, then he walks.
Done and done.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
35
R.D. Baker - Retired Blogger says:
OK Brad, law student or lawyer? Either way, you know more than me on the subject.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
36
That 5.0 Guy @ Work! says:
#23 – NewAZTiger
Wins the Thread, far and away.
(not a lawyer here)
September 27th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
37
asimperson says:
@#31:
That may the hardest I have laughed at a comment on here. Ever.
asimperson,
GT CS ‘06
September 27th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
38
Jack says:
The bottom line is: it’s entrapment so long as he did not initiate the conversation about paying for sex with the woman.
Just as if a plain clothes police officer were to approach someone and initiate a conversation in which, with no prior prompting, the officer offered drugs, the person approached is not liable for their response.
If what has been stated in the post is true, the Prosecutor doesn’t have a pot to piss in.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
39
bnb614 says:
“Six men and five women were arrested in the sting.”
That was from an article in the Columbus Dispatch; however, a local TV station says 45 people were nabbed.
What are accurate numbers anyway, really?
September 27th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
40
WingRG says:
@#37 (asimperson),
Thank you … i’ll be here all week … don’t forget to tip you wait staff.
WingRG
OSU CS’03
September 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
41
shovel pass says:
We need the advise of Chuck Schick. You know he’s clerking for me while he passes the bar.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
42
DiamondM says:
In my one and only criminal trial, I got a not guilty verdict when the facts were:
1. defendant arrested on warrants for unpaid traffic tickets, other car passengers arrested for various violations
2. pot found in defendant’s glove box
3. when asked by cop “whose pot is this”, defendant forgets “right to remain silent” thing and says “mine”
4. defendant testified he was trying to cover for cousin with legal problems, whose pot he thought it must be
5. now thinks pot not cousin’s, but was property of bitch (not what he called her on stand) with whom he was on a blind date — family is one thing, but not going to cover for that hobag
If I can get a not guilty in Texas on that evidence, then some enterprising Ohio lawyer can successfully argue the entrapment defense.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
43
Mitch Cumstein says:
#41
Do you go to Harvard?
September 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
44
DiamondM says:
And by “my” only criminal trial, I mean I was the pro bono defense lawyer, not the aforementioned defendant who claimed ownership of the marijuana. Just wanted to clarify.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
45
Brad says:
#35: I’m a criminal defense attorney in Virginia.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
46
Brian O'Blivion says:
#2, I like this from the Tallahassee Democrat article (covering up for the football team)
No football players who have competed in games this season are involved.
So what you are telling us is that there are football players involved, but would rather play down that part of the story.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
47
Baby-faced Genius says:
I think his case is weak. The facts came out that when he was accosted by “said” female and propositioned for alleged sex, his response was “Nice pants… you got room for me in them?” followed up by–
“On tha’ trunk? On tha’trunk!!!
So thats what they call it–”going to buy some shoes” eh? Yo dude, I’m going to” buy some shoes”….in a secluded wooded area by the interstate…..
September 27th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
48
shovel pass says:
#43
No, St. Copius of Northern……………..
(Mitch Cumstein…classic! )
September 28th, 2007 at 12:49 am