Started By
Message
re: Vandy rape case: Juror on trial failed to disclose rape from 20 years ago
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:39 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:39 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
quote:
if true this seems like evidence of premeditation.
Nah. this was something stupid that popped into his head and he foolishly uttered in the throes of committing a crime.
Can't say that that alone proves it was premeditated.
So if I walked up behind you and hit you in the back of the head with a baseball bat yelling "take that you black motherfricker" and other niceties...they, no doubt, would dredge up anything from my past to make it seem as though I were a racist and had planned to take you out.
1
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:43 pm to KajunGator
quote:
if I walked up behind you and hit you in the back of the head with a baseball bat yelling "take that you black motherfricker" and other niceties...they, no doubt, would dredge up anything from my past to make it seem as though I were a racist and had planned to take you out.
Different type of crime, but I see what you're driving at.
Like I said, perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't premeditated and/or purely racially motivated. My point isn't trying to suss that out--it's that it'd be a difficult thing to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt based just on that phrase in that situation.
IMHO.
ETA: Also, ouch! Watch the Louisville Slugger, mayne!
This post was edited on 1/29/15 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:44 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Nah. this was something stupid that popped into his head and he foolishly uttered in the throes of committing a crime.
Can't say that that alone proves it was premeditated.
bullshite, Tbird.
Batey used a Jedi mind trick (Samuel L. style, not old white dude style) to get that white dude to cart his passed out girlfriend up to his room and then told him to make said girlfriend available for an ancient African rape ritual to exact revenge for all the heinous crimes committed against his ancestors.
All premeditated.
Personally, I blame Django.
You know I'm right.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:45 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
Personally, I blame Django.
You know I'm right.
Can't trust that dude.
His "D" is silent, after all...
Sneaky mofo
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:46 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
ETA: Also, ouch! Watch the Louisville Slugger, mayne!
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:51 pm to BrerTiger
I am not an attorney but I don't see how proving or disproving premeditation in this case has anything to do with a guilty/not guilty verdict on the charges. Now the judge might take that into account in the sentencing phase but again, I am no attorney. But since everyone agreed to leave it out of the trial, I don't see how the judge could use it as an aggravating issue at sentencing.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:52 pm to KajunGator
Posted on 1/29/15 at 2:17 pm to piggilicious
quote:
the way this thread turned is probably a prime example of why the lawyers didn't want to include this in the trial.
Bingo.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 3:06 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
But since everyone agreed to leave it out of the trial, I don't see how the judge could use it as an aggravating issue at sentencing.
Depends on the state's laws. Some states and the federal system allow for sentence enhancements or reductions based on factors not directly tied to the crime.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 3:17 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
I am not an attorney but I don't see how proving or disproving premeditation in this case has anything to do with a guilty/not guilty verdict on the charges.
To the best of my knowledge, premeditation is not an element of rape in TN. Additionally, premeditation is not an aggravating sentencing factor in TN. Selecting a person in whole or in part because of their race is a mitigating factor at sentencing.
Looking at the other factors, I would presume that TN has a different sentencing phase than the trial phase. That is, it would be possible for the 300 years statement to be out at trial for rape, but in at sentencing for an aggravating sentencing factor. In fact, I don't think TN has a separate statute that criminalizes "hate crimes"; its only considered for sentencing. If there are any TN bar members that could clarify or rebut the above, then it would be appreciated.
If so, then I presume the reason the parties agreed to keep out the statement is that the judge would be unlikely to let it in. That is, it would be far more prejudicial than probative on any element of the rape charge.
Either way, if the state did want to try for its application, I agree that it would be hard to prove the specific intent that the victim was chosen because of her race. Nevertheless, the statement does have some evidentiary value for the sentencing phase; and I don't think an investigation for other potential evidence of the specific intent would be unwarranted.
This post was edited on 1/29/15 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 1/29/15 at 4:58 pm to dukkbill
quote:
To the best of my knowledge, premeditation is not an element of rape in TN. Additionally, premeditation is not an aggravating sentencing factor in TN. Selecting a person in whole or in part because of their race is a mitigating factor at sentencing.
Premeditatin isn't a factor in rape but it can be argued that it matters in a few cases that have to do with criminal responsibility since those often hinge on knowing that a person intends to go out and commit a crime and even if they bring it back to where you're at if you sit and do nothing but the state can make the case that you knew ahead of time that the other person intended to commit a specific crime then 9 times out of 10 you'll be charged and convicted of under the criminal responsibility statue. IOW, you'll be convicted of the same crimes they are under that particular aspect of the code but there are multiple elements and you can meet any one of them.
As to targeting her b/c of race... Vandenburg is the one who went out with her -- alone. He brought her back so intoxicated (likely via roofie). According to testimony she was already intoxicated when the others arrived (I'm unclear if Vandenburg texted them to help him carry her in as he'd do later). Once inside, he directed/coached the others on what to do. He texted friends while it was happening -- complained to one friend about having trouble getting it up because of cocaine and sent them video WHILE it was happening He texted a new set of friends to help him carry her back in (dead weight is heavy).
And as a reminder (not necessarily to you) he is white as the driven snow:
quote:
Looking at the other factors, I would presume that TN has a different sentencing phase than the trial phase. That is, it would be possible for the 300 years statement to be out at trial for rape, but in at sentencing for an aggravating sentencing factor. In fact, I don't think TN has a separate statute that criminalizes "hate crimes"; its only considered for sentencing. If there are any TN bar members that could clarify or rebut the above, then it would be appreciated.
Yes. We have different phases, the jury judges guilt or innocence, in some cases the jury is also responsible for sentencing recommendations that in turn go to the judge who will pronounce sentences. I'm not certain if the judge is bound by recommendations from the jury or not or whether or not rape goes through the jury phase on sentencing.
At any rate, all aggravated factors have been met. And with some crimes the sentencing guidelines
As to the racial comment which btw has always been reported as a slur rather than a phrase (and of course, always take Clay Travis with a grain of salt), proving a hate crime would be extremely difficult. The white guy brought her home intoxicated with the intention to rape her and told the others what to do (that's on tape). In contrast, hate crimes statutes are often difficult to prove -- they have a high bar for conviction and this case would hardly be easy even if the bar was low.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 6:07 pm to Prof
quote:
@ClayTravisBGID: This is insane, and truly awful for the victim, but I'm told there is a major legal issue with one of the jurors on the Vandy rape trial.
Didn't want to make a new thread.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 6:13 pm to SwayzeCrazy
quote:
but I'm told there is a major legal issue with one of the jurors on the Vandy rape tria
LINK
Above are the juror profiles.
Thanks to Prof for the other information
Posted on 1/29/15 at 6:15 pm to BrerTiger
As much as this thread has degenerated, with the exception of a few of you (you know who you are), it's oddly comforting to see a thread where people focus on the issues rather than trolling the school. Granted, it could never happen for any school other than Vanderbilt (or maybe UK, assuming people forgot how much they hate Calipari) here on the Rant, but it'd be nice if it could.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 6:19 pm to SwayzeCrazy
quote:
@ClayTravisBGID: This is insane, and truly awful for the victim, but I'm told there is a major legal issue with one of the jurors on the Vandy rape trial.
Drip, drip, drip.
Clay is going to milk this all he can!
Posted on 1/29/15 at 6:27 pm to BrerTiger
I updated the OP with the latest news.
LINK
quote:
Defense Wants Verdict In Vanderbilt Rape Trial Thrown Out
By Chris Conte. CREATED 6:00 PM
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Defense attorneys for Brandon Vandenburg are filing a motion to have the jury verdict thrown out after learning one juror wasn't forthcoming with information that he or she was the victim of sexual violence.
NewsChannel 5 has independently verified that juror was the victim of rape nearly two decades ago but never disclosed that information during the jury selection process. Defense attorneys now plan on filing a motion to have the jury vacated.
LINK
quote:
But Davidson County District Attorney Glenn Funk feels these revelations are not enough to overturn the jury decision to convict Brandon Vandenburg and Cory Batey of raping a female student inside a Vanderbilt dorm room two years ago.
"One of the good things about a jury is we all bring our own experiences into the jury box and deliberation room and we want a jury with a variety of experiences, I do not think in this instance would cause there to be any problem with the verdict," Funk said.
This post was edited on 1/29/15 at 6:28 pm
Posted on 1/29/15 at 6:30 pm to BrerTiger
This needs a sticky.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 6:48 pm to BrerTiger
It isn't up to her to do the defense's job for them during voir dire.
That's vague. Did he specifically ask her if she was a victim of sexual violence or not?
I understand it is an obvious question, but I've seen defense attorneys miss worse...
quote:
Long said he remembers questioning this particular juror and was never informed the person was a victim of rape.
That's vague. Did he specifically ask her if she was a victim of sexual violence or not?
I understand it is an obvious question, but I've seen defense attorneys miss worse...
Posted on 1/29/15 at 6:56 pm to michaeldwde
Agreed. It isn't on the juror to answer a question that was never asked.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 6:58 pm to michaeldwde
I could be wrong, but if she wasn't asked if she had been a victim of rape or sexual assault, I don't think she necessarily had to disclose it. Not her fault if the defense attorney didn't ask. If she lied, that's another story. If they asked the vague "is there anything that would prevent you from being unbiased?" and she wasn't forthcoming, I still don't know that it's enough to set aside.
Unless she lied, I don't see how they could set aside the verdict.
Unless she lied, I don't see how they could set aside the verdict.
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News