Prep school grad in sex assault case asks for new trial |

Prep school grad in sex assault case asks for new trial

The Associated Press
FILE - In this Feb. 21, 2017 file photo, Owen Labrie looks at his family during a break on the first day of a hearing in Concord, N.H., whether he deserves a new trial. Labrie an elite prep school graduate convicted of using a computer to lure an underage student for sex is asking the New Hampshire Supreme Court for a new trial by arguing he had ineffective counsel. He was acquitted in 2015 of raping a 15-year-old classmate as part of a game of sexual conquest at St. Paul's School. The court is scheduled to hear arguments Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2018, that Labrie's trial lawyers were ineffective because they failed to challenge the computer charge. (Geoff Forester/The Concord Monitor via AP, Pool, File)

CONCORD, N.H. — A lawyer for a prep school graduate convicted of sexually assaulting a fellow student told the New Hampshire Supreme Court that he should get a new trial because of poor legal representation.

Owen Labrie, of Tunbridge, Vermont, was acquitted in 2015 of raping a 15-year-old classmate as part of “Senior Salute,” a game of sexual conquest, at St. Paul’s School. But he was found guilty of a felony computer charge and several misdemeanor counts of sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child.

A lawyer for Labrie argued Wednesday his trial lawyers were ineffective because they didn’t defend against the computer charge. Prosecutors contend Labrie’s lawyers did a good job, since he was found not guilty on the most serious charges.

The court already upheld Labrie’s convictions in a separate legal challenge.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.