[jonnyss]

Wouldn't the filming of the incident be a crime, assuming it shows minors involved in sex acts? 
Wouldn't distributing the video be a further crime?
I also presume whomever did the distribution, did so without permission of those portrayed, which I'd guess is yet another crime.

Not as bad as rape, but something that might not be acceptable to Stanford.

That said, it is a shame that young people (the accused, here) can ruin their lives so easily with bad judgement.

i agree.  imo filming and distributing the video seem the actions of an accomplice rather than a "witness." kind of like calling the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery a witness. i don't think it flies.

i can see suing to prevent release of names of minors. i can't see how naming an accomplice, while suing on his behalf to prevent release of the details, can possibly help his reputation. seems like bad legal advice to me, but perhaps the attorneys here can opine.

maybe the issue is that the teenager who named ayden hector as one of 2 boys distributing the videos only heard about him second-hand from friends. thus hearsay. but why conceal the details if they clear hector? it's closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

i would guess that stanford will require exculpatory details. recall that stanford law school professor michele dauber got judge persky recalled for sentencing brock turner to "only" 6 months. unless this situation is resolved with more detail rather than less, i suspect she won't go easy on david shaw.

that's assuming stanford doesn't have the details. best case: they have the details and are satisfied he's truly only a witness.

[jonnyss]

Wouldn't the filming of the incident be a crime, assuming it shows minors involved in sex acts? 
Wouldn't distributing the video be a further crime?
I also presume whomever did the distribution, did so without permission of those portrayed, which I'd guess is yet another crime.

Not as bad as rape, but something that might not be acceptable to Stanford.

That said, it is a shame that young people (the accused, here) can ruin their lives so easily with bad judgement.

i agree.  imo filming and distributing the video seem the actions of an accomplice rather than a "witness." kind of like calling the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery a witness. i don't think it flies.

i can see suing to prevent release of names of minors. i can't see how naming an accomplice, while suing on his behalf to prevent release of the details, can possibly help his reputation. seems like bad legal advice to me, but perhaps the attorneys here can opine.

maybe the issue is that the teenager who named ayden hector as one of 2 boys distributing the videos only heard about him second-hand from friends. thus hearsay. but why conceal the details if they clear hector? it's closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

i would guess that stanford will require exculpatory details. recall that stanford law school professor michele dauber got judge persky recalled for sentencing brock turner to "only" 6 months. unless this situation is resolved with more detail rather than less, i suspect she won't go easy on david shaw.

that's assuming stanford doesn't have the details. best case: they have the details and are satisfied he's truly only a witness.