Josh Giddey: A Legal Conundrum?

In November 2023, allegations surfaced that NBA rising star Josh Giddey, a 21-year-old Oklahoma City Thunder guard, had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a minor. While Giddey declined to comment on the allegations, both the NBA and law enforcement initiated investigations. Despite the serious nature of the claims, it's important to remember that an accusation does not equate to guilt, and Giddey is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

Police closed the investigation into Giddey, unable to corroborate criminal activity

In November 2023, allegations emerged on social media that NBA rising star Josh Giddey, a 21-year-old guard for the Oklahoma City Thunder, had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a minor. Giddey, who has not commented on the allegations, could have faced charges of oral copulation of a minor, statutory rape, and second-degree rape, among other potential criminal liabilities.

The Newport Beach Police Department in California opened an investigation into the claims, releasing a statement on November 29 that said the department was "actively seeking additional information related to these allegations and pursuing all leads and evidence to obtain the facts of the case." The NBA also launched its own investigation.

On January 17, 2024, the Newport Beach Police Department announced that it was closing the investigation, stating that they were unable to corroborate any criminal activity related to Mr. Giddey. The department's statement read:

> "After a thorough and exhaustive examination, we have completed our investigation into information that was circulating on social media involving Josh Giddey. Our detectives have reviewed all of the available information and were unable to corroborate any criminal activity related to Mr. Giddey."

The NBA spokesperson Michael Bass said the league is aware of the police findings and is "continuing our review" of the matter.

Giddey could have faced charges of oral copulation of a minor and/or statutory rape

In November 2023, allegations surfaced that NBA player Josh Giddey, a 21-year-old guard for the Oklahoma City Thunder, had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a minor. While Giddey himself has declined to comment on the allegations, they have sparked investigations by both the NBA and law enforcement in Newport Beach, California, where the incident allegedly occurred.

California law sets the legal age of consent at 18 years old. Oral Copulation of a Minor (PC 287), defined as any oral sex with a person under 18, is a felony offense in the state, punishable by 16 months to 3 years in prison. Given that Giddey is 21, if the allegations are substantiated and the minor in question was under 18, he could be charged under this statute.

Additionally, California law prohibits statutory rape (PC 261.5), or unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. To be convicted under this statute, the prosecution must prove that the victim was under 18 and more than three years younger than the defendant. If Giddey was indeed involved with a high school junior, as alleged, she would likely meet this criterion.

It is important to remember that, at this stage, Giddey has only been accused and has not been proven guilty. The Newport Beach Police Department's investigation found insufficient evidence to support criminal charges, and the NBA's investigation is ongoing. While Giddey's silence may be strategic to protect his legal interests, it is not an admission of guilt, and he is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

The NBA opened its own investigation into Giddey

The NBA's investigation focused on allegations that Giddey, a 21-year-old Australian basketball star, had an improper relationship with an underage girl. In November 2023, photos and videos emerged on social media, purportedly showing Giddey with the alleged minor, who was a high school junior at the time. The social media account that originally shared the images has since been deactivated, and Giddey has disabled comments on his Instagram page.

Giddey declined to comment on the allegations at a press conference, stating that he had "nothing to say" at that time. Thunder head coach Mark Daigneault confirmed that Giddey would continue to be eligible to play while the NBA investigated. "Available to play. Will play. No change in status from a basketball standpoint," Daigneault stated.

The NBA's investigation ran parallel to the Newport Beach Police Department's investigation, which ultimately found no evidence of criminal activity by Giddey. However, the NBA's review of the allegations continued even after the police investigation was closed. The league's investigation aimed to gather information and ensure a thorough examination of the situation.

The NBA's handling of the situation highlights its commitment to addressing allegations involving its players and taking appropriate actions based on the findings of its investigations.

Giddey's lawyer could argue he met the girl in a club for over-18s

The case of Josh Giddey, the NBA rising star, who was investigated for an alleged inappropriate relationship with a minor, raises several intriguing points. While Giddey was cleared of any charges by the Newport Beach Police Department, who stated they were "unable to corroborate any criminal activity", it is worth examining the potential arguments that Giddey's lawyer could have made in his defence. One key aspect is the allegation that Giddey met the girl in a club for over-18s. This could be a significant factor in his defence strategy, and here are some ways in which Giddey's lawyer could argue this point:

Firstly, the lawyer could emphasize the fact that the club had age restrictions in place, which the girl managed to bypass by lying about her age. This could be used to argue that Giddey had a reasonable belief that the girl was, in fact, over the legal age of consent. In California, the legal age of consent is 18 years old, and it is reasonable to assume that a club enforcing an 18+ age restriction would be diligently ensuring that only adults were granted entry. Therefore, Giddey's lawyer could argue that he trusted the club's vetting process and had no reason to suspect that the girl was underage.

Secondly, the defence could highlight the absence of any direct evidence or eyewitness accounts that definitively prove Giddey met the girl at the club. While there were photographs and videos of Giddey with the alleged girl, none of this material conclusively establishes the location or circumstances of their meeting. Without concrete evidence, it becomes challenging to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Giddey knowingly met and engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a minor.

Moreover, the defence could argue that Giddey took appropriate precautions by meeting the girl in a public place, such as a nightclub, rather than a private or secluded location. This could be used to demonstrate that Giddey was not deliberately seeking an illicit encounter with a minor and that he believed the girl was of legal age, given the context of their meeting.

Additionally, Giddey's lawyer could emphasize the potential impact of social media on the case. The allegations originated from a since-deleted social media post, which sparked intense speculation and scrutiny. It is important to consider the possibility of misinformation or false accusations spreading on social media platforms. The defence could argue that the allegations may have been exaggerated or misinterpreted, and the true circumstances of the encounter may differ from what was portrayed on social media.

Furthermore, the lawyer could question the credibility and motivations of the anonymous social media user who made the initial allegations. They could argue that the accuser may have had ulterior motives, personal biases, or a misunderstanding of the situation. Without a cooperative witness, it becomes challenging for the prosecution to build a strong case.

Lastly, the defence could highlight the fact that Giddey has not confessed to any wrongdoing and has maintained his silence throughout the media frenzy. This could be used to argue that Giddey's behaviour is consistent with someone who believes they have done nothing wrong and is confident in their innocence.

While the specific strategies employed by Giddey's lawyer may remain unknown, the argument that he met the girl in a club for over-18s could have formed a crucial part of his defence. It is important to remember that, despite public speculation, Giddey was not charged, and the investigation concluded without finding any criminal activity on his part.

Giddey could have faced charges for possessing illicit material involving a minor

In November 2023, allegations surfaced that NBA player Josh Giddey, a guard for the Oklahoma City Thunder, had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a minor. While Giddey declined to comment on the allegations, they sparked investigations by both the NBA and law enforcement in Newport Beach, California. The allegations against Giddey first emerged on social media, with an anonymous user claiming that a girl seen with Giddey in videos and photographs was a high school junior at the time. The social media account that shared the images has since been deactivated, and Giddey has disabled comments on his Instagram page.

While the age of consent in Oklahoma, where Giddey's team is based, is 16, California's laws differ significantly. California's age of consent is 18, and the state has strict laws regarding the possession of illicit material involving minors. If Giddey possessed illicit images or videos of the minor in question in Oklahoma, he could potentially have faced charges for possession of child pornography. These charges could have been pursued even if the minor was over the age of consent in Oklahoma, as California's laws take precedence in this case.

California Penal Code 311.11 prohibits the possession, control, or distribution of child pornography, which is defined as any visual depiction of a person under 18 years of age engaging in sexual conduct. This includes photographs, videos, and digital images. The code makes it a felony to knowingly possess, control, or distribute child pornography, with penalties of up to six years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Additionally, under California Penal Code 288.2, it is illegal to knowingly possess or control images of minors engaged in sexual conduct, even if the minor is not actually engaged in sexual conduct in the images. This offense is also a felony, punishable by up to one year in county jail or up to three years in prison, and a fine of up to $2,500.

However, it is important to note that the Newport Beach Police Department closed its investigation without filing any charges against Giddey. The department's statement read, "After a thorough and exhaustive examination, we have completed our investigation... Our detectives have reviewed all of the available information and were unable to corroborate any criminal activity related to Mr. Giddey." This suggests that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations or that Giddey's actions did not meet the legal definition of possession of illicit material involving a minor.

Frequently asked questions