(Five Presgroves' From Oklahoma Including Noah's Brother and Sister, Unlcle and Cousins Support This Petition)

Public Statement Regarding the Petition for Social Hosting Charges

In response to recent concerns about the petition seeking Social Hosting Charges against the hosts of the party that led to Noah's death, I wish to clarify the purpose and intent behind this legal action. The goal is not to pursue these charges as the final resolution, but rather as a strategic means to an end—a way to compel cooperation, transparency, and ultimately, to uncover the full truth of what happened to Noah.

Oklahoma’s Social Hosting law is not a mere slap on the wrist. It carries serious consequences, including a potential penalty of up to five years in prison when a death results from the offense. This is far from the hours in jail that some have suggested; it is a significant legal measure designed to hold individuals accountable for knowingly allowing underage drinking on their premises. By pursuing these charges, the aim is to encourage those involved to come forward with information that might otherwise remain hidden. This is especially critical in Noah’s case, where the truth is elusive and there may be individuals who are reluctant to speak out.
It is important to recognize that these charges are not the end of the legal process. Even if a conviction were to result from these charges, it would not trigger the double jeopardy clause, which protects against being tried for the same crime twice. In this context, the double jeopardy clause would not prevent further prosecution for more serious offenses related to Noah’s death. The Social Hosting Charges are distinct from potential charges like manslaughter or homicide, which could be pursued as the investigation continues and more evidence comes to light.

Supreme Court precedent supports this approach, allowing separate prosecutions for distinct offenses arising from the same set of facts. This ensures that we can use Social Hosting Charges as a stepping stone to uncover the truth without legally closing the door on more serious charges later on.

This petition is also about maintaining momentum and preventing complacency. Noah’s case should not be allowed to fade into a cold case, forgotten as time passes. By pressing forward with these charges, we keep the case active and ensure that those who know the truth remain under scrutiny. This sustained pressure is vital, not only for Noah’s family but for the broader community demanding justice and accountability.

The pursuit of Social Hosting Charges is a necessary step in our fight for justice. It’s not the final step, but a critical one that will help ensure that the truth is uncovered and that justice is served. Noah’s case is more than a single tragedy—it will influence how criminal investigations are conducted in Oklahoma and how the laws are applied in the future. The outcome of this case will shape the future of justice in Oklahoma communities and beyond, and it is crucial that we continue to push forward to prevent similar tragedies from befalling future generations.

I encourage everyone to continue supporting the pursuit of justice for Noah and to understand that this petition is just one part of a broader effort to find the truth and ensure accountability.

Application of Law Pursuant to Criminal Charges and Double Jeopardy

1. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932):
This case established the "Blockburger test," which determines whether two offenses are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate charges. The test asks whether each offense requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not. If they do, then separate charges are permissible, even if they stem from the same incident. This case supports the notion that Social Hosting Charges and more serious charges like manslaughter or homicide can be pursued separately. 

2. Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985):
In this case, the Court upheld the principle of "dual sovereignty," allowing for separate prosecutions by different sovereigns (e.g., state and federal) without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. While this case specifically involves dual sovereignty, it reinforces the broader principle that separate offenses, even if related, can be prosecuted without violating constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

3. United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993):
This case further clarified the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause, reiterating that if each offense requires proof of a fact that the other does not, then subsequent prosecutions are permissible. This supports the idea that pursuing Social Hosting Charges would not preclude later prosecution for more severe charges, as each would involve different elements and facts.