Roberto Osuna’s Legal Case Is Over
On Tuesday, Astros reliever Roberto Osuna agreed to a deal to bring to a close the legal proceedings pending in Ontario for charges filed against Osuna for assault stemming from a domestic-violence incident that occurred earlier this year.
Per ESPN:
A domestic assault charge against Houston Astros closer Roberto Osuna in Toronto was withdrawn on Tuesday.
In exchange, Osuna agreed to a peace bond, which requires him to not contact the woman he is alleged to have assaulted and to continue counseling. He must comply with the conditions of the bond for one year or face criminal charges, which would carry a maximum sentence of up to four years’ imprisonment.
The bond was worth $500. At least according to one Associated Press report, the impetus behind the deal was that the complainant, Alejandra Román Cota, was unwilling to return to Canada to testify against Osuna.
Speaking in court, prosecutor Catherine Mullaly said the complainant, who lives in Mexico, had made clear she would not travel to Toronto to testify against Osuna.
“The Crown does not have a reasonable prospect of conviction on this charge absent her testimony,” Mullaly told Judge Melvyn Green.
The prosecutor also indicated that Cota wishes to continue co-parenting their three-year-old daughter with Osuna. Per the Globe and Mail:
Known formally as a Section 810 recognizance, the peace bond Osuna signed obliges him to continue counselling. He may not have contact with Román Cota without her express written consent. Mullaly also said Osuna had completed counselling both through Major League Baseball and privately with a psychotherapist in Toronto.
Osuna’s lawyer, Domenic Basile, told court that his client’s agreement to enter the peace bond was not to be construed as an admission of guilt, and that the player had insisted all along he was not guilty.
“I wish to make it clear that this is not an admission of criminal or civil liability,” Basile said. “He is content to enter into the peace bond (and) is aware of the conditions and will abide by the conditions.”
It’s worth noting that there were no findings of fact as part of the agreement or issuance of the bond, which isn’t unusual. It does, however, mean there was no adjudication of whether Osuna was legally culpable, meaning the only investigation to reach any conclusions as to the substantive merits of the case remains Major League Baseball’s investigation and subsequent suspension. It’s worth noting that Cota did cooperate with MLB’s investigation, including sitting for at least one interview.
As for Osuna, the Peace Bond is a sort of hybrid between an order of protection and what some states in the U.S. call “supervision.” Per the Canadian Department of Justice,
[a] peace bond is a protection order made by a court under section 810 of the Criminal Code. It is used where an individual (the defendant) appears likely to commit a criminal offence, but there are no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has actually been committed.
In these situations, a person can obtain a peace bond against the defendant from the Court. The Court may impose specific conditions that are designed to prevent the defendant from committing harm to the person, their spouse or common-law partner, their child, or from committing damage their property.
Where the Court accepts the application for the peace bond, the defendant must obey the conditions of the peace bond or else he or she may face criminal charges. Peace bonds can be enforced anywhere in Canada and can be in place for up to one year. If the threat persists after one year, the peace bond can be renewed by application to the Court.
Osuna and the Astros both issued statements after the hearing, as follow.
Roberto Osuna issues statement, and thanks #Astros:
“I am pleased and relieved by today’s court decision. Now I can begin to put these allegations behind me and focus on baseball. I want to thank my family, teammates and fans for believing in me. ‘’
— Bob Nightengale (@BNightengale) September 25, 2018
Astros statement on Roberto Osuna’s charges being withdrawn. pic.twitter.com/WvXf8u57AD
— Scott Mitchell (@ScottyMitchTSN) September 25, 2018
Sheryl Ring is a litigation attorney and General Counsel at Open Communities, a non-profit legal aid agency in the Chicago suburbs. You can reach her on twitter at @Ring_Sheryl. The opinions expressed here are solely the author's. This post is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.
The part of the definition that confuses me here is “there are no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has actually been committed.” Not reasonable grounds for conviction, but reasonable grounds to believe something has happened. Yet MLB found enough evidence to hand down its 2nd longest suspension. Is Cota’s testimony the only evidence difference? Is there any reason to believe that Osuna didn’t actually commit the offense he was charged with?
I would presume that it has to do with the plaintiff not testifying.
Ms. Cota is not the plaintiff..
Well no conviction or guilty plea means there is reason to believe Osuna didn’t actually commit the offense he was charged with. At least, legally speaking. Could mean Canada didn’t think their caes was good enough to convict. Could mean Cota didn’t want to pursue the matter any further. Could mean the various involved parties came to an arrangement.
None of which has anything to do with MLB’s code of conduct, and whatever burden of proof is required for a suspension. It’s also worth noting that Osuna did not appeal the suspension so …
Drawing inferences from not taking an appeal is as dangerous as inferring anything from Cota not testifying, or Osuna entering into the peace bond. It could be the case that Osuna thought an appeal would only prolong the process and might result in an unfavorable outcome, or it could be the case that Osuna didn’t appeal on account of guilt. We might never know, but we probably shouldn’t consider any of this when weighing the probability that Osuna did or didn’t do anything. The complainant may have had any number of reasons for not wanting to testify, and Osuna’s decisions to enter into the bond or not take an appeal may have been purely strategic.
This is a commonly confused point of the peace bond. Because an 810 undertaking often follows an alleged offence, it is assumed that it relates to the information supporting the charge. However, the peace bond is forward-looking – I prefer to think of it as “circumstances require the intervention of the courts to ensure the safety of the complainant.” The most common iteration of the peace bond basis is the Informant (generally the officer swearing the information) has reasonable and probable grounds to believe [the complainant] reasonably fears that [the accused] will cause personal injury to him/her…”
In my view, the language that “there are no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has actually been committed” is a public policy position
in support of the fiction that the peace bond is not a remedy to criminal charges.
This seems like a reasonable outcome under the circumstances. Canada can’t convict, so won’t try, but did secure some means of preventing the alleged attack from happening again.
Throughout this process people with basically no insight into what evidence is actually out there have been swearing that ‘whatever it was, it must have been terrible’. I expect those same people, undeterred by the lack of information, are probably viewing this outcome as a terrible miscarriage of justice, when any intellectually honest position on this issue has to start with the fact that the public has only circumstantial evidence:
– MLB suspended him, for reasons that can only be inferred
– There wasn’t enough physical evidence (ex: photos, hospital records, police records) to convict him in court absent the victim’s testimony
– The victim chose not to pursue the criminal matter
– The victim did not contest joint custody of their kid
– Osuna didn’t fight the MLB suspension
That is quite literally ALL that is known by the public, and I could effectively argue that every point above is exonerating, damning, or irrelevant.
Eventually the people who are eagerly following along with the calls that as a matter of principle those who are accused must face punishment, lest a guilty person walk free, will wake up to what type of world they’re creating.
As with all cases of any nature judged in the court of public opinion, the last person that people actually care about is the victim.
The public presuming guilt is pretty common, no? Certainly this is true in murder cases (though, admittedly, murder charges are seldom brought without a preponderance of evidence). Assault of any kind is serious, but domestic violence is even more heinous, a huge violation of trust and devastating to one of the most important social structures we have—the family. And of course it’s disappointing when the accused is a public figure, someone you’ve literally stood and cheered for, someone you consider to be on your “team” in not just a figurative but a literal sense.
You’re probably right that the public overreacted, but I don’t blame them. We’re not all lawyers, remember—and I mean no disrespect to the attorneys among us when I say that’s probably a good thing.
I’m not talking about presuming guilt, I’m talking about people being out for blood at the express expense of the victim. There are some people sitting on their comfortable couches who would happily bleed the victim if they thought it serves to punish the perpetrator.
And this is not something being brought up by lawyers; it’s something being brought up by women’s advocates arguing that the biggest victims of “zero tolerance” policies are the victims of domestic violence themselves.
The public can presume guilt all it wants, and individuals can too. We’ve got brains and we can make up our minds, though I do wish people would be more cautious about being *sure* about things.
But there is and should be a wide gap between our opinions about guilt and actualized effects on peoples’ lives – people shouldn’t be subject to, for example, losing their jobs, because we (the public) have opinions.
Now, it’s different if, say, you make the argument that the system itself isn’t inclined to adequately make findings of facts (as the argument has been made for police shootings), but even in that case the response is that the system should be fixed, not that we should throw evidentiary standards out the window.
I’d just like to add that the standard of proof in a court of law is and should be different than the standard outside of a court of law. When form an opinion about an issue, they shouldn’t do it randomly, but they also don’t need to have the level of proof needed to convict someone in court.
Just as an example, in my town there was someone accused separately by four minors of commiting pedaphiliac acts. The accusations were (rightfully) tossed for various reasons and there really was not enough evidence to convict him and the guy shouldn’t go to jail based on what was found. That being said, I think that a parent would be highly irresponsible if they hired him as a babysitter for their children.
I think we can all agree that the best thing to do is to speculate that other people have an opinion we don’t like and then use it to denigrate those hypothetical people with whom we disagree, regardless of whether they actually exist.
I am not speculating about what people have said, we’ve had months of coverage of this issue and I know very well that this is how it’s been talked about in the media.
Granted, I *am* speculating about peoples’ reaction to this story, but it’s speculation I’m comfortable making given the observed tenor of public discourse on this and related issues.
I guess I just don’t see the point of arguing with these spectres. If these people hold the beliefs you say they do (and I’m sure some do), why would they be worth our time? I suppose we have the Internet to thank for bringing us in tenuous contact with hundreds of people we wouldn’t give the time of day to in real life.
Not that I have a problem with you blowing off some steam in an Internet comments section, of course. Just feels like we all lose when we engage with these people.
You’ve made a great point. I don’t think the mob will ever change though. The ones who would never change their mind about Osuna, or his accuser are the ones who are too far gone.
The public also knows that he was arrested and it’s fair to give the police the benefit of the doubt when they made the arrest that they had good reason to do so.
Legal standards of guilt are not the same as social and/or ethical expectations of behavior.
Dude accepted without appealing a 75-game suspension that cost him $2M+, yet expects people to believe he’s innocent? LOL.
Peace Bond specifically states that there is a reasonable likelihood that the individual WILL commit another crime absent the bond.
Osuna, for all his wonderful talents, is a giant turd.
from the article “It is used where an individual (the defendant) appears likely to commit a criminal offence, but there are NO reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has actually been committed.” (My capitals)
I’m guessing that the “another” is a reading comprehension issue
It also cost him a year of service time, which will almost certainly be worth more than the $2M+.
This attitude is a major issue with people in regards to the criminal justice system. While Osuna, a millionaire who presumably had big shot lawyers giving him the best leagal advice, probably made the best decision possible under the circumstances. However a lot of poor people plead guilty for things they never did simply because their life circumstances prevent them from getting bailed out and can’t just stay in jail or have lengthy legal proceedings.
People are always quick to say that not guilty doesn’t mean innocence, but very few people can also see that accepting guilt also doesn’t always mean the person is actually guilty.
Again, not saying this was the case with Osuna, but this attitude can deeply affect the lives of those a lot less fortunate in life.
You cannot chose the path of logic with the types of people who have convicted Osuna, or his accuser either now or when they heard about it. They have an agenda, and it’s not a good one.
“an agenda”
Let me guess, you have “freethinker” in your twitter bio?
What attitude? My comment had nothing to do with the criminal justice system. It was about Osuna accepting what was essentially a $2,000,000 fine from MLB without fighting it.
I was a huge fan of this guy. Met him on the streets of Toronto and he was cool.
That said, the most charitable takeaway from this ordeal is that Osuna has astoundingly poor judgement and is a liability for any team.
I think that is a reach. He did not admit guilt, he even stated that it is very much is not an admission of guilt. Anyone who has ever had any sort of run ins with the law knows that you literally just agree to things that you didn’t do if the outcome is better for you. I once was cited for criminal mischief when I literally wasn’t at the location. I was actually at work and had physical badges/camera used to leave and exit premises that could prove where I was. I pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and paid a $500 fine. I would of had to go to trial, or do a trial by judge and miss work and pay a lawyer. The assistant DA knew I didn’t do it. Hindsight it has likely cost me more since I literally have to write a letter of explanation every time I do business with another company/state…but to think people don’t just agree ALL the time to stuff they didn’t do is way wrong.
Yeah, a Federal prosecutor, for example, comes at you with a 90%+ conviction rate, or the NFL or MLB comes at you with broadly defined discretion over suspensions. and you’re damn right a lot of people are doing math just like yours.
That doesn’t mean he didn’t do anything wrong of course, but you’re right, people plead to stuff they didn’t do all the time.
Guys, this is Canada.
Osuna did something bad, without a doubt. Accept it.
“something bad” doesn’t necessarily mean “criminal code violation with reasonable prospect of conviction”, aggrieved incels.
Kyle, please show me any Crown Attorney (remember, this is Ontario, Canada) with a published “conviction rate”.
As clearly stated in my post, those were examples of reasons why people frequently plead guilty to things they didn’t do. It was not meant to be exhaustive, or all encompassing.
carter makes a good point for people in the general public, but also says:
” I would of had to go to trial, or do a trial by judge and miss work and pay a lawyer.”
Absolutely none of this applies to Roberto Osuna, and the fact that he chose not to appeal a half season suspension for something he says he never did should absolutely make everyone suspicious.
Interesting rationale. You seem like a bit of a liability, yourself.
Criminal mischief is definitely tantamount to beating up your girlfriend.
Receiving all these impotent downvotes makes me feel like every woman who rejected you throughout your pathetic lives.
You are the one lashing out with sad insults just because people have the audacity to disagree with you.
Thank God his nightmare is over. Let’s get Addison Russell cleared next.
I’ve been visiting this site for 10+ years and I don’t recall it ever being such a welcoming bastion for aggrieved incels.
In related news, Addison Russell’s administrative leave was just extended through the end of the regular season.
I guess MLB wants a few more days to decide if he’s going to be properly suspended and miss the postseason as well
Incels… incels everywhere.
Trig
Where did you come from, and why don’t you go back there?
Seriously, dude, come on.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, David.
What kind of dumbass question is that?
*whispers* (downvotes are not an argument, aggrieved incels)
*ducks*
No, we have a great community here to discuss baseball.
Downvotes are because we don’t need idiots banned from other forums to come troll ours. At least, I assume you’re a troll, because I doubt anyone is so stupid they believe the things you’re posting.
Imagine believing that.
I’ve been here a lot longer than you, kiddo, and I am not going anywhere.
Maybe, maybe not. All I can tell you is that calling the community “incels” is abusive behavior, and I’ve reported you for it.
Congratulations. You must feel like a big man on campus.
No, Baron, you’re getting downvoted because you’re generally acting like an ass, and the majority of your posts are just mindless pejorative-slinging.
Dude, we get it, you have an opinion on the matter. Good for you, exercise your free speech. But, nobody has any obligation to take you seriously when you make one point, then spend the rest of your time here trolling and slinging insults around.
Dude, speak for yourself.
I totally believe that not a single one of these self-styled MRA activists would ever abuse a women if one deigned to cross the threshold of their incel lair!
No rape-justification vibes around here, no siree!
2018 Definition of “Trolling”: Clearly articulated points and rhetoric that just happens to go against What I Think.
Is this the self-introduction page on Baron Samedi’s blog?
I’m actually kind of enjoying the spectacle of watching someone shout about how despicable everyone around him is when that same person is literally the only person behaving badly.
Literally, take off your blinders, Kyle.
This is par for the course for him. Almost every article touching around some sort of contentious sociopolitical issue usually sees him chime in with one coherent or at least semi-coherent point, then he starts popping off with insulting everyone who engages with him. There’s usually always a “hey, your downvotes aren’t a counterargument” post, which just makes me laugh every time I see it.
Easily a majority of his comments here constitute abuse, so hopefully the moderators will take notice at some point.
Stop crying.
Axe. Body. Spray.
Thanks for this explanation, Sheryl. Always appreciate your reporting on these somewhat opaque legal processes.
There’s probably a sense that the prosecutor needed to do *something* but a peace bond for a person no longer living in (and unlikely to return to) that country seems awfully pointless.
While with Houston, he’ll be in Toronto 3-4 days per year.
The woman in question lives in Mexico.
This is exactly why MLB needs to get rid of its own investigations and let the legal process take it’s course. It’s ridiculous for MLB to conclude a person committed domestic violence ( a crime) with its its extrajudicial proceedings.
Terrible ideas like that are exactly why Internet Virgins are universally excluded from positions of power or influence.
If this comment section had an official scent it would be Axe Body Spray.
Should I have read the comments? No. Did I read the comments? Yes.
Find a local gym, buy a one day guest membership, take a shower. You’ll feel better!
I, for one, would like to thank Sheryl personally for continuing to provide unparalleled opportunities to school idiot children.
Legal case may be over, but he’s already been tarred and feathered by the court of ignorant public opinion. Absolutely the worst thing about socal media and the internet is the cult of perpetual outrage on individual issues without any knowledge of facts. Once anyone is accused of anything, not even stuff as scummy as domestic abuse, the assumption of guilt is assured. That’s a very troubling fact of society today
I don’t think the end result of this exonerates Osuna, I think it just implies that the prosecutors felt the penalty he already paid was punishment enough.
Of course, she wasn’t going to testify. She won’t get paid if he is in jail. Innocent till proven guilty unless a woman claims different, right?