Thu
Jan 22 2015
01:43 pm

If you haven't been following coverage of the first of two rape trials of former Vanderbilt football players by The Tennesseans, you need to. Especially interesting is the twitter feed by reporter Tony Gonzalez from the courtroom. It's gruesome and horrible, and you'll want to scream at the audacity of the defense attorneys, but it's important.

The trial is in it's second week. The victim was on the stand today. It's a good thing I don't live in Nashville because I would have been at that courthouse giving that defense attorney a piece of my mind before it was over. It read like a bad parody. No indication yet as to when the prosecution will rest or if the young men will testify. Only two are being tried this time around. The trials have been separated. The others will be tried later.

Topics:
Hildegard's picture

I can't find much on the

I can't find much on the defense attorney's conduct, other than his cross of the victim sounds condescending, and he acts like he doesn't believe her. He shouldn't make condescending remarks, but OTOH it's kinda his job not to believe her. He's not there to walk his client into a conviction. Sounds like he's got his work cut out for him, though.

Pam Strickland's picture

It's mostly his cross of the

It's mostly his cross of the victim. I know it's is job not to believe her, but it always amazes me the lengths that a defense attorney will go to in making a rape victim be the cause of the rape. Yes, the young woman was drunk, but that's all the more reason that the young men should not have had sexual relations with her. If she can't say no, then she can't say yes. That's basic. Getting drunk does not automatically mean that you give four football players permission to sexually violate you.

And this Long fellow, the defense attorney, saying that he doesn't know how to pronounce "neuroscience." He's a high priced criminal defense attorney who is prone to wearing bow ties, not George W. Bush. This country bumpkin act is nothing but an act. Please.

But you're right, Hilde, it does appear that he's got his work cut out for him. Those young men created quite the mess. How on earth did that get to the point in life where it was OK to behave in such a manner?

Hildegard's picture

Fletcher Long was, imo, a

Fletcher Long was, imo, a weird choice for a defense lawyer in this case. I agree that his demeanor with the alleged victim sounds condescending and patronizing, and if the jury takes it that way it could really backfire on him.

But as to your larger point about the victim being put on trial. That is a common and perhaps not unfair characterization, but it is also the unfortunate and inescapable necessity of defending a person who is accused of rape. You cannot do it by crediting the accuser. The accuser - if you are any kind of defense lawyer - is either mistaken or lying. And you can't make a case for either of those positions without turning the spotlight of accusation on her, to a significant and usually pretty damn tricky degree. If we had a system that didn't allow victims' credibility to be challenged, we'd have a system where the accused is presumed guilty. I don't want that system even in the most sordid and horrible of cases. (Important to note, there is a set of rules in place that protects victims from certain lines of inquiry, like their sexual history, reputation, etc.)

Whether or not the lawyer's line of inquiry is relevant is for the judge to decide, but if deemed relevant, it's the lawyer's job to create a reasonable doubt without pissing off the jury. (And it sounds like Long might be flubbing that up.) But just to make a point - if a victim is drunk, that's relevant because intoxication impairs memory, it impairs ordinary judgment. No, it doesn't invite sexual assault either, but it's still a fair line of inquiry. Every action she took that night, every choice she made, has to be scrutinized because the jury has to decide if what happened to her was rape, if it should result in the prolonged incarceration of these defendants. If we can't ask her about what she did, about what her state of mind was, and only about what they did, that isn't fair or constitutional.

It sounds to me like she got raped. But a sound conviction has to be based on the evidence, not public opinion. And presenting the evidence in a case like this is always going to be traumatic for a victim. Even when the lawyer isn't an asshole.

Bbeanster's picture

(link...)

Hildegard's picture

I am at a loss, among all the

I am at a loss... among all the great lawyers of Nashville....

DubV's picture

In defense of defense

Pam,

I haven't been following this, but I am curious about what, specifically, you find objectionable about what the attorneys have done at the trial.

I hope your answer is not defending people accused of an awful crime, however, my suspicion is that is what is at the root of your anger. You wouldn't have the same reaction if the defendants were, say, brave activists accused of standing up to the powers that be in the name of some noble cause, right? In that situation, you'd hope that the attorneys exploited every advantage and played every card they had to play, right?

That disgust you're feeling is a natural reaction- and one that we all share. We have to work past that initial gag reflex and remember that criminal defense attorneys fulfill a constitutional duty to provide competent representation. When the crime for which the defendants stand accused is particularly heinous, zealous advocacy may be downright infuriating to the onlookers. But, while it is easy to admire the Atticus Finches who defend the Tom Robinsons, we need to have equal admiration for the attorneys who defend the meathead rapists and the cross-burners. Representing these sorts of clients will cause many people in the attorneys' communities to despise them. In our own community, we've seen defense attorneys' (and their families') lives threatened for doing their job. Fantasizing about hurling insults at the attorneys on the courtroom step is downright low-minded. You're better than that. Instead, why not applaud them for doing a difficult, but necessary, job?

Hopefully, in the end, the adversarial system will do its job, and the truth will prevail. Like many things in our democracy, not pretty, but the best we can do.

Pam Strickland's picture

I get that the meatheads

I get that the meatheads should be defended. It's the insults that are leveled at the victims in the process that make me mad. It's being condescending to a victim, implying that it was her fault that she was raped. That is simply not right. Is it the murder victim's fault that they were murdered. The burglary victim's fault that they were burgaled? No. Drinking does not give the rapist permission to rape. That's what I'm mad about.

And, of course, I wouldn't really go hurl insults at the attorneys on the courtroom step, but I can fantasize about it because I am frustrated that men simply do not understand the truth about rape. Would they want someone to treat their daughter that way? Their sister? Is it not possible to defend the meatheads while also displaying dignity in the courtroom? Do not attorneys have professional standards?

DubV's picture

The professional standards

There are! Here is a link to the Rules of Professional Conduct: (link...). Rule 3 concerns an attorney's duties as an advocate and, specifically, Rule 3.1 and its comments are on point, as are 3.3 and 3.4. They are a short read, if you're interested.

Min's picture

There are really only two types of lawyers.

That stalwart champion of truth and justice who is representing me, and that lying, conniving son of a bitch who is representing my opponent.

Pam Strickland's picture

BTW, the prosecution has

BTW, the prosecution has rested. It was be very interesting to see what kind of case the defense has other than trying to attack the victim.

Bbeanster's picture

(link...)

Bbeanster's picture

LordaMercy: (link...) Who

LordaMercy:

(link...)

Who advised this Vandy kid to hire this guy?

R. Neal's picture

Yikes. Karma, etc.

Yikes.

Karma, etc.

Pam Strickland's picture

Bean, Thank you. My gut

Bean,

Thank you. My gut reaction to this guy has been confirmed. And, your question is very valid -- who on earth advised the kid to hire Long? As Hilde indicated, of all the lawyers in Nashville, surely he could have found someone better. . .

pgs

Pam Strickland's picture

Vandeburg did not testify in

Vandeburg did not testify in his on defense. His defense rested without presenting any witnesses.

Batey's attorney is presenting an expert witness who is testifying about how alcohol consumption impares judgment.

Hildegard's picture

I thought Long put on a DNA

I thought Long put on a DNA expert for some reason or other? Or was that Batey's?

Pam Strickland's picture

There was a DNA expert. I

There was a DNA expert. I lost track of that one.

Is it normal for the defendant to have to swear that they understand their rights when they don't take the stand? I thought they usually just had to make a statement that they understood, but apparently the judge had Vandenburg swear.

Hildegard's picture

He would have to go on the

He would have to go on the record, under oath, stating that he understands he has a right to testify and that he is giving up that right. Even when you do testify, you have to give oath and swear that you are giving up your right not to testify.

Rachel's picture

Innocence by reason of being

jbr's picture

It looks like they are

It looks like they are already negotiating sentencing.

Pam Strickland's picture

Judge is giving jury

Judge is giving jury instructions. Today is Batey's 21st birthday. He apologized to the victim when he testified, and his attorney used closing to talk about levels of culpability. Long stuck with Vandenburg didn't do anything.

And all of this is taking place as a long planned conference gets underway for all Tennessee colleges and universities talk about dealing with sexual assault on campuses.

Pam Strickland's picture

And it's the jury's to

And it's the jury's to decide.

Pam Strickland's picture

Jury back in less than three

Jury back in less than three hours.

Pam Strickland's picture

Guilty on all counts.

Guilty on all counts.

Min's picture

Justice served.

Justice served.

Elwood Aspermonte's picture

This could occur at Tennessee with some recent events

Hope it doesn't, but there have been some allegations regarding sexual assaults, cases being reviewed by the Attorney General, and matters to be presented to the Grand Jury. I wouldn't look for any derogatory comments from the University of Tennessee Athletic Department, they may have their own "cases" to work through later this year.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives