Just months after the public outcry and outrage over Casey Anthony's not guilty verdict, the court of public opinion has set its eye on a new villain: Dharun Ravi. While it seems clear to us, the public, that Ravi is to blame for the death of Tyler Clementi and that he is indeed guilty of a heinous form of bias intimidation, what the public sees and what the jurors see are two very different things. My fear is, just as in the Casey Anthony case, Ravi will be found not guilty because despite the overwhelming public perception of guilt, the evidence is just not there.
Since Ravi cannot be charged in the death of Clementi, to the prosecution, the next best thing is to charge him with bias intimidation. Now they are tasked with proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ravi's actions were intended to intimidate Clementi because he was gay.
Yet, the best evidence to prove that Clementi was intimidated by Ravi's alleged spying is the fact that he leapt to his death right after these incidents. However, the judge has been incredibly cautious about allowing discussion of Clementi's suicide in the courtroom. Prosecutors are barred from linking the spying allegations to his suicide and defense lawyers are barred from making the case that Clementi killed himself for reasons other than the webcam incident.
The other key to proving this crime is how the victim felt and whether he indeed was intimidated. Yet because Clementi is not here today to answer questions or be cross-examined, nearly every example of how he felt has been barred by the judge as hearsay.
When M.B., the man caught in sexual encounters with Clementi, testified about hearing people laugh through the window the night of Sept. 21, he was not permitted by the judge to describe how Clementi reacted to the laughter. He simply told the court he heard "people joking, people laughing. It seemed like the jokes were at somebody else's expense."
When jurors are presented with evidence regarding an online form Clementi filled out requesting a new room on the university's website, only the statement Clementi made requesting the room is admissible, but not the reason why. The judge has ordered the prosecution to redact the statement Clementi made accusing Ravi of spying on him because it's hearsay.
When former Rutgers dorm resident assistant Raahi Grover testified about Clementi's conversation, and subsequent e-mail, requesting a new room, hearsay evidence precluded him from divulging specific contents regarding Clementi's feelings and opinions. Although the e-mail actually stated, "I feel like my privacy has been violated and I am extremely uncomfortable sharing a room with someone who would act in such a wildly inappropriate manner," the words "such a wildly inappropriate" were never seen by jurors.
Another key to the prosecution's ability to prove bias intimidation is for witnesses to state Ravi had demonstrated hostility towards homosexuals. However, thus far, not a single state witness has stated Ravi demonstrated any such hostility. The only real evidence to support that charge came when Ravi's friend since high school, Michelle Huang, testified Monday that Ravi tweeted her "we have to keep the gays away" after inviting her to a viewing party.
The circumstances of this case, where the trial playing out in front of a jury is very different of that playing out in the media, remind me of Casey Anthony's trial. Prosecutors failed to prove to the jury that she should be found guilty of first-degree murder because the physical evidence simply was not there and the burden of proof could not be met. Although jurors admitted not guilty does not mean innocent, they were only able to convict her of the lesser charge of providing false information to police officers.
Similarly, as I watch the Ravi trial unfold, I fear prosecutors will not be able to meet the burden of proof necessary for jurors to convict Ravi of bias intimidation -- though it does seem likely that a favorable jury would convict Ravi of the lesser charge of invasion of privacy, based on the evidence presented thus far. So just a warning to those following the trial, don't be surprised if the jury returns with a not guilty verdict, as they did in the Casey Anthony case.
Follow Mari Fagel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/YourLegalLady
Casey Anthony got away with MURDER Ravi didn't kill Clamenti. I don't think it was a "anti-gay" thing. While he did film Clamenti and should be punished for that, I honestly think he thought it would be funny. At 19 this is the type of thing kids think are funny without realizing how stupid and invasive it is.
If ravi is a straight individual does not mean he has a bias, so i do think you might want to reconsider your opinion.
What bothers me is that Ravi is so immature. Both of my 20something year olds had gay friends all through high school and before. Neither of them would have engaged in this ridiculous voyerism. They are both too respectful of other people to be so crass.
I suspect Ravi got his attitudes toward gays from his parents. How sad.
That being said, I kind of understand your point. I had a college roommate who tried to force me to leave the room so that he could have sex with his girlfriend. I found it very irritating, and Ravi may have thought that Clementi was being unreasonable by having his boyfriends over. Overall, I get the idea this whole incident has its origins in roommate conflict rather than homophobia.
I think Ravi would have plead guilty to misdemeanor charges and done the required community service. However if he had plead guilty to a felony charge, he would have had to fight deportation. The prosecution did not really give him much choice with the plea which is why this went to trial.
The end result may be the same, guilty of felony, and deportation. He may even serve time.
I still hope the jury finds him guilty on bias intimidation as well. Let Mr Ravi's defense team appeal it by all means, but I would like the trial (superior) court jury to find him guilty on that count.
I would expect the heterosexual jury to let him off completely - most of the jury probably would love to have killed Clementi themselves.
I searched for an online answer to this very question some days back.
Where can the defense appeal if the verdict goes against them. I take it the NJ Supreme Court itself has an Appellate Division? And if the Appellate Court rules in the Superior (Trial) Court's favor as well, what then? Where can they appeal?
Also about the sentencing: What has been Judge Berman's sentencing history? Assuming the defendant is found guilty on some of the 15 counts, are the sentences likely to run concurrently or non-concurrently?
As I understand it, Mr Ravi needs a minimum imprisonment term of 1 year for the federal government to initiate deportation proceedings against him. Further, an offense that is a misdemeanor under state law might be an aggravated felony under federal law for the purposes of deportation. Or the federal government may seek to deport him for committing a crime of "moral turpitude".
Second, please note that Dharun Ravi did not say "keep the gays away" out of the blue. When his friend remarked that she hoped M.B. would not use Ravi's bed, he responded that he hoped so too and added "keep the gays away".
Third, Clementi may have had several issues going on, for example he had told a friend that though his father had been ok with his coming out, his mother found it unacceptable. There may have been several reasons for his decision. The contents of his suicide note are unknown.
Fourth, just to make an example of somebody in order to put a stop to cyber bullying, find the right example. Dharun Ravi has been punished enough for his crimes.
Fifth, am I the only one who sees that Clementi had systematically done various actions particularly on the last day before he committed suicide, to get Ravi punished to the maximum. And, by drowning, he wanted to ensure that Ravi went down with him too.
The public who want Dharun Ravi to be punished severely in jail want to see this immigrant with a wealthy background brought to his knees. They should understand that the whole of America is a nation of immigrants who established themselves on the blood of native American Indians and African slaves, unlike Dharun Ravi's family who would have risen up through hard work.
My guess is that Tyler had probably been contemplating suicide for a while. It's quite possible that the liaison with M.B. may have had some affect on his suicide. Maybe he was expecting it to be something it wasn't.
And, there's the issue of his mother's rejection. So much going on there. But while many believe that suicide is the action of someone who is getting back at someone, I honestly don't think he was getting back at Ravi. He knew Ravi was just a dumb jerk. You don't commit suicide over someone like that. It's usually someone who has hurt you way more deeply.
Ravi's family are NOT immigrants, they are here on visas. As for "hard work" I have met many Indians here on visas (not immigrants). They were wealthy in India and are wealthy here. They do NOT NOT come penniless like earlier immigrants. They do not see America as their home. They come to make money and leave. Ravi is a spoiled Indian prince with no regard for anyone but himself. He should be deported and rot in jail.
With this kind of poison, I fear that there may be people on the jury who hate gays, and others who hate Indian immigrants. There are certainly enough of them outside the jury.
Actually, it was reported that in one of her interactions with Dharun Ravi, Michelle Huang had remarked to him that she hoped M.B. would not use his bed. Dharun Ravi responded by saying he hoped so too, and added "we have to keep the gays away". So in this context, his response cannot be taken as bias against gays. This is not evidence to support the charge against him.
Is there any case law on this?
Go to college and stay in a dorm.