I doubt double jeopardy would apply in the case of a mistrial as that would mean legally the first trial/verdict didn’t really happen.
All a mistrial would do is force the entire trial process to start all over again with a new jury and judge.
I really hope the verdict stands. It would be hard to redo the trial. The release of the video from the dorm hallway and the extra publicity would make it hard to come up with an unbiased jury made up of reasonably intelligent people who haven’t been exposed to the news stories.
Most importantly, I’m sure it was hard for the victim to live through the trial. Academically, it must have been hard to have to take 3 weeks off to be at the trial. It would be even harder to do it again, I’m sure. I really don’t want her to have to go through a trial again. And, once some of the witnesses get their plea deals–especially the one whose cell phone was smashed and thrown in a lake by Vandenburg–it might be harder to get them to testify again.
I doubt Batey would testify at a retrial.
And, no, a mistrial doesn’t constitute double jeopardy.
What someone is convicted of and what really happened are two different things in many cases. We know that someone was convicted of statutory rape and the foreman of the jury was the victim. From what I can figure out…there’s no news yet on whether statutory rape was the initial charge or whether the case was plead “down.” It is not uncommon for a case involving the rape of a minor to be plea bargained down so that the minor doesn’t have to testify. Unfortunately, in this case, the initial charge is relevant.
The perp did not spend 6 years in jail, at least according to news sources. He was sentenced to 1 year in prison and 60 months of probation, according to sources. http://news.yahoo.com/defense-wants-vanderbilt-rape-trial-verdict-thrown-over-224522678–abc-news-topstories.html
Todd Easter and his attorney have said that he did not misrepresent anything. http://wate.com/2015/01/30/vandy-jury-foremans-attorney-denies-he-misrepresented-himself/ I’m hoping this translates that he was a minor and had sex which would have been described as consensual if he was old enough to consent AND that the question asked whether he had been “sexually assaulted.” I can see someone who engaged in sex with an adult who did not use force answering no to such a question. His attorney’s statement implies–at least to me–that this was the case. http://www.wsmv.com/story/27989109/jurors-attorney-says-he-did-not-lie-in-selection-process
News stories are vague as to when this happened. Some stories say 15 years ago, some say almost 20. I think that matters too.I don’t know how old he is. If he had sex with an adult when he was 15 it’s sort of different than if he had it at 10. I think many people would see any sex with a 10 year old as an assault whereas many would not view sex with a willing 15 year old as such.
Again, I’ve --obviously–no idea of what really happened. But if he was a willing teenager, I think he may have honestly not seen it as a sexual assault. Lets hope that’s what the question was.
Well…I’ve NO idea how accurate the info is, but someone who claims to know the defendant says that at the times the events occurred, the perp was 23 and the jury foreman was 15. Yes, it’s statutory rape. However, if it was consensual but for the victim’s age, I don’t think lay people would view it as assault.
I hope that’s the case. Thanks for the info.
@MomofWildChild, thanks for the post about the 20/20 episode. I can’t watch it until it has been a week since it aired (due to my service provider not being on their approved list), but I will watch it as soon as I’m eligible. This is not a story I really followed and I’m very sketchy on the details.
I also am like @nrdsb4 where I believe I have to wait a week. Some of their other episodes do look worthy of a quick look.
A key thing to tell our young ladies - stay away from bad people. Do not go 1-on-1 with someone you do not know very well, and make sure your friends are either around you or have direct info on where you are and who you are with. This poor girl was way too trusting. Probably thought all Vanderbilt students were from pretty good families and circumstances - which this young man could have also been from a wealthy family and unsupervised and out of control through HS too. How a wolf can be in sheep clothing. Looks can very much be deceiving.
“A key thing to tell our young ladies - stay away from bad people.”
Well, that’s helpful!
The girl was on a date with a young man she had been dating. That’s hardly “too trusting.”
I was in shock when I read this thread and saw that the foreman of the jury did not reveal that he was a rape victim. I am not an attorney, but I have read an appellate brief concerning jury selection during a rape trial. The defense is absolutely going to appeal based on the fact that the foreman of the jury did not reveal that he was a rape victim. Whether he considers himself a rape victim isn’t going to matter. According to the law, he was a rape victim and he didn’t reveal it. One of the jurors in my trial was dismissed for cause because her son had been charged and convicted of sexual assault. The fact that her son had been charged and convicted of sexual assault was not enough to dismiss her for cause. In the appellate brief, the defense stated that it was unfair to dismiss the juror for cause because she stated that she could be fair and impartial; however, she was crying during voir dire. The appeals court recently ruled that the dismissal for cause was valid for the following reasons: the fact that she was the mother of son who was convicted of sexual assault; her statement that she didn’t want to be a juror; her crying during voir dire, and the defense asking her leading questions about whether she could be fair and impartial. Furthermore, the fact that the defense didn’t use all of their challenges during voir dire was another reason cited for denying the appeal based on this juror. Also, the fact that the twelve jurors who were selected were assumed to be fair and impartial was another reason cited.
The fact that the foreman didn’t reveal the rape precluded the defense from asking questions of him that may have led to him being dismissed for cause. I don’t know if the defense used all their challenges during voir dire.
I am not an appellate judge and for the sake of that young lady, I sincerely hope that I am completely wrong in my understanding of how this works. I personally would have found it extremely difficult to find the fortitude to go through another trial.
Momofmusician17,
I hope thinks have been working out for you. Thanks for sharing.
I don’t practice criminal law. However, my understanding is that jurors only have to answer qualification questions that they are asked. If I am a prospective juror and I’m called for the jury for a case in which a defendant killed a bank teller, I don’t have to step up and say “My mother was a bank teller and she was killed in a bank robbery.” IF ASKED if anyone in my family has been the victim of a violent crime, I cannot lie and say no.
So, the key question is WHAT WAS THE JUROR ASKED. If he was asked “Have you ever been the victim of a sex crime?” and answered no, there’s a serious problem. If the question was “Have you ever been sexually ASSAULTED?” and the juror said no, that’s a different issue. If he honestly did not view it as an assault because he voluntarily agreed at the age of 15 to have what would have been consensual sex if he were 18 and/or the accused was less than four years older than he was, I personally do not think he lied. See http://www.ageofconsent.com/tennessee.htm
Forget the gay angle for a minute because it’s irrelevant. Lets say a 15 year old girl had sex 23 times with a 23 year old guy she considered her boyfriend. She wanted to–and there’s no doubt about that. Then her parents find out and have the guy prosecuted for statutory rape. If she’s asked “Did he sexually assault you?” is she lying if she says no?
I don’t think so. In fact, I think that if she was given no definition of the term “sexually assault” you when the question was asked and answered yes, she’d be lying.
If the defense counsel thinks statutory rape is relevant, he should have asked about it. If he didn’t, it’s irrelevant…and trying to make the juror into a liar if that’s the case is despicable.
That statutory rapist is a real jerk. He sets himself us as a whistleblower when he is really trying to cause trouble for the same man that he caused trouble for years before. Another good reason why so many rape victims don’t come forward.
I get that even the most heinous of criminals deserve representation. I have no problem with an attorney deciding to represent some scummy lowlife. But they don’t have to go down in the muck with their clients.
When there’s a video showing your client committing vile crimes, don’t say he’s innocent. Just shut up.
SOSConcern- First of all, the victim wasn’t really on a “date” with Vandenburg. They were all drinking at a local bar. She had known him for several weeks and wasn’t in a “one on one” situation with him. And not only did he turn out to be a bad guy- so did a number of his friends! Your post is puzzling. I wish we could all recognize “bad guys”.
I don’t think that fellow was on campus long. She may have met him once or twice, or seen him ‘around’, and as @momofwildchild says, she wasn’t on a date - however it behooves me to why she decided to have consensual sex with him the next day - he must have had a lot of charm/charisma or made her feel very special.
To do what he did he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and she didn’t pick up signs (while she was drinking) and was trusting that the crowd was all good people with good intentions. Someone said she was drugged - so once that happened, she lost all control of the situation.
Not blaming the victim, but victims need to be careful to not be victims. You meet someone in a casual setting. Perp may have been able to navigate more careful scrutiny, but my daughters hopefully will never be in the situation this victim was in. I am totally sympathetic to the victim. You don’t know what you don’t know.
Young ladies do need to realize there are bad people out there. Some may think it would be ‘fun’ to go out with a popular ‘bad boy’ until they get hurt. It is clear she did not know he was a ‘bad boy’ nor he also had several around him.
Under-age drinking (were they underage at a local bar?) - not sure what the ages were here, but also drinking with YA and intoxication can lead to many bad judgments - not sure how much would have been done w/o drugs/alcohol by those around perp. Was she there alone or expecting to meet up with friends? Was this a popular meeting place for Vandy students?
@pizzagirl also didn’t understand my post.
Young people are very trusting, especially among their peers. How many of us would have had ‘alarm bells ringing’ in some situations that have gone bad for the young person? How many of us have been ‘fooled’ by someone who has great outward appearances?
Thank goodness for security video cameras, DNA, and all the tools that help in safety and also identifying in some cases the true criminal(s).
She had gone out with Vandenburg for a couple of weeks. They were drinking at a bar/restaurant that was popular with Vandy students and athletes. The athletes were barred from setting foot in the place (Tin Roof) shortly after this incident- not because of the incident but because a booster was buying drinks for the athletes, which is a NCAA violation. I’m sure the huge amounts of alcohol that were served was part of the decision by the Vandy administration. I said I wasn’t sure that she hadn’t been drugged, but apparently she drank so much that she could have been that unconscious even without being drugged.
This incident would never have been revealed except that the security camera footage was reviewed due to a totally separate incident involving some vandalism to a door.
The 20/20 segment has her saying that she doesn’t remember anything after drinking a blue drink. It may have just been the straw that broke the camel’s back or someone may have slipped something in it.
Batey had more than 20 drinks that night! Still, none of those guys in the videos is obviously stumbling around in the hallway.
“Young people are very trusting, especially among their peers. How many of us would have had ‘alarm bells ringing’ in some situations that have gone bad for the young person? How many of us have been ‘fooled’ by someone who has great outward appearances?”
I don’t get your point. Yes, great outward appearance doesn’t preclude someone from being a “bad guy.” But bad guys don’t necessarily have big warning signs on their foreheads. What else do you think can be done to identify them upfront? Gosh, when someone appears nice and charming and polite and courteous and flirtatious, you’re going to think they’re good guys, until they aren’t.
Vanderbilt campus investigation cleared football players of rape a year before court conviction - See more at:
I can’t access that article due to my company’s filter, but the Vanderbilt police/administration immediately turned the case over to the Metro police department. Vanderbilt didn’t clear anyone of anything. They did NOT find evidence that Vandenburg raped the victim, and, in fact, that was a big issue at trial. It isn’t correct to say (or for the article to say) that Vanderbilt “cleared” them. They were kicked off campus and off the team. Vanderbilt is not a criminal court.