Victim claims that she was drugged with spiked drink and raped. Accused plea bargained to a lesser charge resulting in probation, a small fine, and not having to register as a sex offender.
Both were students at Baylor at the time. Accused transferred to UT Dallas. Victim is not attending Baylor. According to the following article, UT Dallas has banned the accused from campus.
As always, we have no idea what information was in the prosecutors file, and the nonpublic information is often what determines the response. Nevertheless, people will rush to judgment and opine on this without all the facts.
True none of us are privy to the claims or defense but as far as the uni’s actions, as long as UT Dallas bans any and all students who are judged guilty of unlawful restraint or other comparable violations that carry no jail time which would effectively prohibit attending college in person then the uni is probably safe from a lawsuit. If not or others are on campus under similar circumstances then the uni has a problem and in a potentially litigious situation in my opinion. I find it interesting that the word “banned” and “not welcome” is being used and not “expelled”.
He got 3 years delayed adjudication so I think the uni might be on some thin ice legally and they know it.
As far as I can figure out, the only result of UTD’s action is that the perp can’t attend his college graduation. He was a reportedly a second semester senior. Classes and exams have all finished for the semester. He’s done. No need to expel him. UTD could withold the degree, but the PR release doesn’t suggest it did that. UTD did say he wouldn’t be allowed to enroll in grad school, but there’s no reason to think he wanted to do so.
And to me, this case illustrates how bad the system is. While I think someone should have to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be sentenced to prison, I don’t think that should be the standard for getting kicked out of college. In this case, he voluntarily withdrew from Baylor 2 weeks after the incident, so Baylor didn’t discipline him at all. He transferred to UTD. According to UTD, it didn’t know the charges when he was admitted. (There may not have been any charges when he applied.) He doesn’t wrap up his plea bargain until he’s completed his degree.
I am NOT commenting on this particular case; I only know what’s in the newspapers. I just don’t think someone who has been accused of a sexual assault should be allowed to withdraw voluntarily and enroll in another college without having to disclose the incident.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/us/baylor-rape-allegation-letter-from-prosecutor/index.html
Here are excerpts from a letter the assistant district attorney wrote to the accuser and her parents.
I would be interested to know more about this case, just based on this letter.
Jonri that would make sense…he’s finished his work but they aren’t letting him walk through the ceremony and that would also “explain” the words the uni chose. The uni comes off as “tough” but there is no liability risk.
I do think that someone involved in a legal matter should be allowed to withdraw. Same as someone with mental health issues, medical issues, financial or any other personal problems. If a “reason” for withdrawal needs to be on the transcript then it should be universally applied. Frankly I think people should be allowed to withdraw and it should be no one else’s business why.
Wow, the excerpts from the assistant DA’s letter to the accuser are horrible, aren’t they? She says a jury won’t convict a rapist who only raped one woman, if the jury doesn’t think he looks like a rapist. I’m guessing Enrico Martinez or Jose Garcia looks like a rapist to these Texas juries, but if the defense attorney gets Whitey McPale a haircut and puts him in a suit, he gets off because it’s all Slutty McSlutterson’s fault for drinking alcohol in the first place. Honestly, read the juror comments. They’re awful.
It was interesting to me the assistant DA would put this in writing, and also interesting she didn’t meet with the accuser before the plea deal hit the news.
It is also possible there is more information the accuser is already aware of, which would harm the case if taken to trial. I don’t think the prosecutors letter is meant to be exhaustive, and her supervisor concurred, so they must have thought the case weak.
The case may be weak. I’d like to know more.
What she writes is that juries don’t convict for one rape accusation and that a juror in a similar case thought the accused didn’t look like a rapist. And that since this was the accused first sexual experience, it could argued that was the reason for genital injury.
That’s all pretty horrifying to me.
The prosecution filed a Brady evidence notice with the court on Monday that is online now. That notice is required to inform the accused that the victim provided inconsistent statements to police, civilians and medical personnel compared to the current statement. Others would have a better idea for how often a case goes forward once a Brady notice is required.
Can you link to it? I’m not finding it easily. Thank you.
It is reprinted in full in the kcentv.com article on the case from today around 4pm. I dont know how to link, sorry.
Thank you. I should be able to find it now. To link, (if you ever want to) just copy the https etc of the article and paste it in your post. I don’t even know what to call the online address of an article, but if you copy it and paste it in your post, it shows up blue and gives you the article when you click.
https://www.scribd.com/document/395544553/Brady-Evidence-Notice#from_embed
I can’t download because I’m not on Facebook 
Brady material can be inconsistent statements by an accuser/victim, but it also consists of any potentially exculpatory material and includes things like witness statements, DNA that doesn’t match the suspect, evidence that supports a defendant’s alibi and the like.
There are many reasons why a defendant is offered a plea bargain. Here, it may be that the DA thought that the complaining witness would not be convincing and/or that she could be too easily discredited on cross, that the defendant would be more convincing in his version or even that the physical evidence doesn’t support the claims made. It’s a pragmatic decision to offer a plea bargain and get some punishment versus possibly having the defendant be acquitted.
If anyone is able, could you please link to the Brady evidence document?
It seemed to me the assistant district attorney’s letter said they didn’t bring a case because:
There may be information in the Brady document about inconsistent testimony by the accuser, but that is not brought up by the assistant DA in the quoted parts of the letter I’ve seen. Perhaps it is in unpublished correspondence?
Or perhaps the prosecutor knew the accuser was already aware of the inconsistent statements and didn’t feel a need to restate them. The related news article also said that according to police, the medical evidence did not support claims of any drugged drink by the accuser.
The prosecutor gave four or five reasons and hints without injuring the victim why they were willing to settle for a plea agreement including the risk of taking it to trial.