Vanderbilt rape case declared a mistrial

[cronk]

this judgement seems crazy to me as it had no affect on anything that happened in court especially since he says he was not a victim of abuse...

http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newscha...Motion-In-Vanderbilt-Rape-Case-309273091.html

 

[dwiz]

Well I guess the juror didn't have to lie. Maybe he didn't see it as rape since he was in a consensual relationship.

 

[demlion]

this judgement seems crazy to me as it had no affect on anything that happened in court especially since he says he was not a victim of abuse...

http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newscha...Motion-In-Vanderbilt-Rape-Case-309273091.html

But he lied in voir dire. No brainer. Mistrial. For one thing, how do you believe he is telling the truth no matter what he says?

 

[cronk]

But he lied in voir dire. No brainer. Mistrial. For one thing, how do you believe he is telling the truth no matter what he says?

if you were in a fight as a child and someone asks if you were ever beaten up and you thought you won the fight, is it lieing even if you had to go to the hospital...I don't see this as a no brainer at all, being in what he felt was a consensual relationship did not mean sexual abuse to him

 

[demlion]

if you were in a fight as a child and someone asks if you were ever beaten up and you thought you won the fight, is it lieing even if you had to go to the hospital...I don't see this as a no brainer at all, being in what he felt was a consensual relationship did not mean sexual abuse to him

It was a criminal case. The guy was charged with statutory rape, correct? There is almost always a question in criminal cases, "Have you ever been the victim of a crime?" That is not a question you have 'feelings' about. Now, it may not be that he is charged with perjury or false swearing, but the defense is going to get a mistrial on that most every time.

BTW, suppose the 23 yo statutory rapist was on the jury and did not "feel " he had committed a crime. Could he say he had never committed a crime? What if he knew he was wrongly convicted? The answer is that he discloses it and tells the story to the judge, the defense or prosecution makes its motion to exclude him and the judge decides.

Look, if you are spending the $$ to send someone to jail for a long time, you do NOT want to have a do-over after a guilty verdict gets overturned.

 

[bjf1984]

this judgement seems crazy to me as it had no affect on anything that happened in court especially since he says he was not a victim of abuse...

http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newscha...Motion-In-Vanderbilt-Rape-Case-309273091.html

So......they redo the trial....right? Aside from the expense involved - which may be significant, but shouldn't be a huge hairy deal - what's the harm?

In the meantime, if we are going to take the "accused's" rights seriously, it is something that needs to be done.

Quite frankly, this is - IMHO - very similar to the Sandusky appeal. Most folks feel that Sandusky was/is guilty regardless of the way the trial was prosecuted.....but some things should be held dear - including the rights we would all hope we would have when we stand accused.
(In truth, in Sandusky's case there is an even stronger motivation for a re-trial......seeing as how so much of the malfeasance was due to intentional, considered actions of the prosecution - as opposed to what may be considered unintentional jury tainting).
It doesn't - or at least shouldn't - matter how "certain" EVERYONE is that the accused is in fact guilty.

 

[demlion]

So......they redo the trial....right? Aside from the expense involved - which may be significant, but shouldn't be a huge hairy deal - what's the harm?

In the meantime, if we are going to take the "accused's" rights seriously, it is something that needs to be done.

Quite frankly, this is - IMHO - very similar to the Sandusky appeal. Most folks feel that Sandusky was/is guilty regardless of the way the trial was prosecuted.....but some things should be held dear - including the rights we would all hope we would have when we stand accused.
(In truth, in Sandusky's case there is an even stronger motivation for a re-trial......seeing as how so much of the malfeasance was due to intentional, considered actions of the prosecution - as opposed to what may be considered unintentional jury tainting).
It doesn't - or at least shouldn't - matter how "certain" EVERYONE is that the accused is in fact guilty.

I guess I did not get that the trial was over and had resulted in guilty verdicts, but read the order of the judge. this was clear juror misconduct, AND he was foreman of the jury it looks like:http://media.jrn.com/documents/BateyVandenburgOrder.pdf

As I read further, it is clear that the stat rape charges are pending at this time! This kid is in a world of hurt here.

 

[michnittlion]

Open and shut case it seems to me ....... that's clear juror misconduct.

The bizarre thing, it sounds like Juror #9 (Todd Easter) made a deliberate point to become the jury foreman, and made a deliberate point to do a bunch of media interviews afterward. If not for the former, he probably could have gotten away with his brazen lying and misrepresentation.

But he got onto TV, and somebody saw him and connected the dots.

 

[michnittlion]

So......they redo the trial....right? Aside from the expense involved - which may be significant, but shouldn't be a huge hairy deal - what's the harm?

In the meantime, if we are going to take the "accused's" rights seriously, it is something that needs to be done.

Quite frankly, this is - IMHO - very similar to the Sandusky appeal. Most folks feel that Sandusky was/is guilty regardless of the way the trial was prosecuted.....but some things should be held dear - including the rights we would all hope we would have when we stand accused.
(In truth, in Sandusky's case there is an even stronger motivation for a re-trial......seeing as how so much of the malfeasance was due to intentional, considered actions of the prosecution - as opposed to what may be considered unintentional jury tainting).
It doesn't - or at least shouldn't - matter how "certain" EVERYONE is that the accused is in fact guilty.

Oh God --- stop. No it is not.

Here's one difference: In this case, the former Vanderbilt football players actually won their appeal (rightfully so).

Sandusky's current batting average on his appeals, after 35 months of trying, remains 0.0%.

 

[bjf1984]

Oh God --- stop. No it is not.

Here's one difference: In this case, the former Vanderbilt football players actually won their appeal (rightfully so). Sandusky's current batting average on his appeals remains 0.0000000000000000000000%.

Please, try to stop being a douche for just a little while.

Oh, hell, forget about it. Just be your irrelevant, obtuse self.

 

[michnittlion]

Please, try to stop being a douche for just a little while.

Oh, hell, forget about it. Just be your irrelevant, obtuse self.

I'm not being a douche ... I'm just disagreeing with you.

I gave you one way in which this trial is NOT like the Sandusky trial.

Feel free to tell me two ways that this trial IS like the Sandusky trial.

Go ........

 

[bjf1984]

I'm not being a douche ... I'm just disagreeing with you.

I gave you one way in which this trial is NOT like the Sandusky trial.

Feel free to tell me two ways that this trial IS like the Sandusky trial.

Go ........

 

[Obliviax]

this judgement seems crazy to me as it had no affect on anything that happened in court especially since he says he was not a victim of abuse...

http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newscha...Motion-In-Vanderbilt-Rape-Case-309273091.html

part of A jury of your peers means that people come in with open minds. At trials, there is a process of jury selection and voir dire. During voir dire, both sides get to question the jury to mitigate prejudice. Both sides have the opportunity to throw out candidates based on opinions, personality, background, etc.

Reading the judges comments that "voir dire" is interpreted as "speak the truth", apparently this juror lied. (or at least, did not disclose). He also ended up being the jury foreperson. Why would he do this? There's a decent chance he had him mind made up before the trial. The defendants don't get off, they will be retried.

 

[demlion]

part of A jury of your peers means that people come in with open minds. At trials, there is a process of jury selection and voir dire. During voir dire, both sides get to question the jury to mitigate prejudice. Both sides have the opportunity to throw out candidates based on opinions, personality, background, etc.

Reading the judges comments that "voir dire" is interpreted as "speak the truth", apparently this juror lied. (or at least, did not disclose). He also ended up being the jury foreperson. Why would he do this? There's a decent chance he had him mind made up before the trial. The defendants don't get off, they will be retried.

If you read the judge's order, which is only excerpted in the news story, it becomes VERY clear that he had to go. http://media.jrn.com/documents/BateyVandenburgOrder.pdf