Breaking news of the guilty verdict in the Dharun Ravi webcam spying trial reverberated swiftly across global media outlets on Friday. A strong societal message was being sent from this complex case, one that had attracted international attention from its start. This had become the landmark verdict of a new movement.
Beginning with the fateful moment of Tyler Clementi's suicide in 2010, his story and the subsequent Dharun Ravi trial all at once shined an intense spotlight on the pressing issue of bullying. More acutely, it also highlighted the growing convergence of technology and social media with this long-standing, but once virtually ignored, socio-cultural problem.
The Tyler Clementi tragedy arguably opened the door to a new anti-bulling age in the United States and around the world. Prominent political figures, pop culture icons and media personalities such as President Obama, Ellen DeGeneres, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Anderson Cooper and Oprah Winfrey, among many others, all publicly addressed the issue with fervor. This heightened consciousness about the negative impact of bullying likely influenced the minds and emotions of the jury in the Dharun Ravi trial, ultimately shaping its precedent-setting decision.
Embarking on largely uncharted legal territory, prosecutors built a novel case that has been infrequently tested in U.S. courts. They argued that not only did Dharun Ravi invade Tyler Clementi's privacy by setting up a webcam to spy on him and view his intimate sexual encounters with another man without consent, but that Ravi did so with the intent to intimidate Tyler because he was gay, constituting a hate crime.
One of the greatest obstacles for the prosecution's case was proving the legal elements of bias intimidation without much evidence that fit into traditional notions of how a hate crime is expected to look. This was a major hurdle that many analysts predicted would be impossible for the prosecution to scale.
Surprisingly, the state's prosecutors didn't seek to show that Ravi made face to face, homophobic and derogatory comments to Tyler or that he threatened Clementi directly because of his sexual orientation. Instead, they relied primarily on statements that Ravi made through conversations and text messages with friends as well as actions that he took using technology and social media without Clementi's initial knowledge, to establish his bias and intent to intimidate. It was questionable whether this unorthodox approach toward establishing Dharun Ravi's mental state would hold water with the jury.
The defense sought to discredit the prosecution's case by arguing it only had scant evidence that simply demonstrated Ravi's immaturity and lack of exposure, not any form of bias or homophobia. Ultimately, the facts and the witnesses that the prosecution presented were sufficient for the jury to convict. What made them reach this decision?
The fact that the Ravi jury was operating during an age of American society where the issue of bullying has become emblazoned in the public mind most likely played a strong role in shaping the course of its deliberations. Extrapolating how the evidence presented at trial applied to this particularly grey area of the law also demonstrates a high level of critical analysis and thinking on the part of these jurors. Ultimately, the verdict reflects an increasingly evolved interpretation of the question whether technology and social media can create a harmful nexus for the perpetration of hate crimes, a legal issue that has been rarely adjudicated in such a high-profile manner until now.
As Dharun Ravi prepares for his sentencing and his attorneys prepare for a potential appeal, the lessons from the Tyler Clementi story and this trial will continue to permeate our social discourse. This case represents a significant step forward in raising greater awareness about bullying, hate crimes and how law and policy should respond to such destructive behavior. Coupled with ever-changing forms of technology and social media, the magnitude and reach of bullying and hate crime activity can now be amplified beyond its traditional confines, causing even greater human harm in its wake. It is the hope that the Dharun Ravi verdict will truly serve as a deterrent to future harm.
MSNBC's Thomas Roberts, NBC's Mara Schiavocampo and Attorney Matt Semino Discuss the Dharun Ravi Verdict on March 16, 2012
Excerpt of a participant's opinion from the discussion: "Based on what the press reports he is realistically 5-10 years assuming they are not leaving out a crime that carries a mandatory minimum. My best back of the envelope guess is he'll get 7 years with just under 17 months before parole.
My thinking goes something like this. New Jersey actually uses a straight forward sentencing scheme. You start at the mid-range sentence, 7 years for second degree offenses, and then work up or down based on the aggravating and mitigating factors present (obviously within the limitations placed by Apprendi). In exceptional cases a judge may sentence one range lower than the normal range (3-5 years), which, because I know nothing about this case other than what is in the press, I simply couldn't tell you whether or not they are present."
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2012/03/ravi-found-guilty-on-24-of-35-charges-in-webcam-case.html
This is the MINIMUM level of debate expected in the comments section of a blog written by an eminent attorney and legal analyst.
No such "cause and effect" is sought to be implied in the first place, nor have the counts have nothing to do with it.
The 15 counts are, in various degrees: Invasion of privacy, attempted invasion of privacy, evidence tampering, witness tampering, hindering apprehension, and bias intimidation, the last being a sentence enhancing state hate crime statute.
What part of the counts or the verdicts do they have trouble understanding?
Counts: http://www.scribd.com/doc/53462572/Ravi-Indictment
Verdict Breakdown: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/ravi_webcam_trial_verdict.html
But over my 32 years of trying cases from both side, I always attempt to convince the jury to look at the big picture. The unfortunate young man who committed suicide because he was depressed or ashamed of being gay did not die at the hands of the defendant. All the other stuff like invasion of privacy, evidence tampering, witness tampering, hindering apprehension, and bias intimidation is just overcharge by the DA added to cloud the big and true picture. That is why we have juries and not hyper technical legal analysts like GCL 1 deciding cases.
EVERYTHING is based on cause and effect. Did the defendant's causes actually produce the bad effects? Because I usually succeed in convincing a jury to look at the big picture and not be bamboozled by hyper technical prosecutors and judges (and legal analysts), I have won most of my jury trials in the last few years. The proof is in the pudding and not in your hyper technical details.
On this particular point, below.
>All the other stuff like invasion of privacy, evidence tampering, witness tampering, hindering apprehension, and bias intimidation is just overcharge by the DA added to cloud the big and true picture.
Can THIS be credibly appealed, and if so, how.
I respect your 32 years of legal experience, and add, it is 32 years more than my own, but would like a credible answer to my sincere question.
Bias disclaimer of my own: I want this Ravi to go down on max on all counts, yes.
>EVERYTHING is based on cause and effect. Did the defendant's causes actually produce the bad effects?
What is the "cause" and what are the "effects" here, aside from the rigorous wording in the counts that clearly spell them out, and omit ANY and ALL reference to the suicide?
>" I have won most of my jury trials in the last few years. The proof is in the pudding"
I compliment you on your enviable success rate with juries, but since the pudding in this instance is post-verdict, presumably because Defense Attorney Steven Altman lacked your powers of persuasion and importuning, what kind of credible Appellate, post-verdict or post-conviction relief can the defendant be entitled to?
Bear in mind that Judge Berman has so far turned down Defense's demands for a mistrial and appears to show no inclination for JNOV, or for FRCP 29 motions, Acquittal judgment, or reservations, how can this pudding now squashed be restored to its former pristine fullness?
Do you anticipate credible appeals on 1st, 5th, or 14th Amendment basis? Where can counsel appeal? State or Federal? And on what, jury error - plain or harmful? And if on the validity of the statute itself in Federal, is discretionary review likely, and if taken all the way to SCOTUS, what are chances of certiorari being granted and state hate crime statute overrule?
Your experience and inputs would be appreciated here. Thanks.
I don't want anyone used for a message. I would like to see society agree that we are going to aggressively prosecute EVERYONE who secretly spies on the privacy of another. I think spying of this kind should always result in jail time.
I bet you could search through their correspondence and cherry pick some things that show they convicted Ravi based in the fact that his is a minority and they wanted to intimidate him.
Even Tyler thought that Ravi's family had to work at a Dunkin Donuts. Maybe by having numerous "dates" when he knew Ravi to be uncomfortable, he was trying to intimidate his Indian roommate.
So the jury can be charged. Tyler can be charged. And probably Tyler's parents too. And the prosecutor is surely trying to intimidate Ravi.
That is how crazy the bias laws are at this point.
On May 21st, after the Judge sentences, as he is bound to under minimum mandatory sentencing laws per the hate crime (bias intimidation) statute, you may even say the judge, the legislators, the bailiff, the prosecutors, law enforcement, the Dept. of Corrections, even the defense counsel himself should be charged of a bias intimidation crime!
Then you will say post-conviction appeals (assuming there are any) at the State Appellate Division or State Supreme Court, or record of law appeal at the Federal Courts of Appeal and/or the US Supreme Court (assuming certiorari and discretionary appeal are granted) and their respective justices, who are almost CERTAIN to turn down appeal request are ALSO guilty of a bias crime.
Then, post-conviction, the ICE, USCIS, DHS, and State Dept, who will most likely issue deportation Notice to Appear and the Secretary of State herself is guilty of bias intimidation simply because they adhere to the letter of the law.
How can such illogic be argued against?
That being said the verdict stinks on ice. This is a classic college stunt. To trace the victim's suicide effect back to the cause of "bullying" will torture the real cause and effect connection.
Depression causes suicide. Not hazing or even horrific real time porn. Let's hope the Judge does the right thing at sentencing.
Tyler Clementi had his own problems even before Dharun came into the picture.
Sure Dharun was an punk but even Clementi called his intrusion "pranks" and said Dharun was a nice guy. In fact Tyler did not want another room mate for fear that the other one might be worse.
Dharun was never verbally or physically abusive to Tyler. He was not friendly with him, but they did text each other.
Dharun is a spoilt, immature brat who was looking for popularity by his actions but the punishment here does not fit the crime. LGBT and the prosecution are looking for a scapegoat but will not find it in Dharun.
The law, the rigor and precision of the counts, the verdict, the difficulty of appealing on error or the legality of the state enhanced sentencing statute, and the mandatory minimum on the counts all appear to suggest otherwise.
Remember, Ravi was offered a no jail plea. That was a moral outrage right there. If he had done it to a straight person he would have gone to jail, like the guy who did it to my niece. The only reason he thought he could get off was because the guy was gay, and society won't protect them.
http://www.notguiltynj.com/what-is-mandatory-minimum-sentencing/
Deportation is a matter of federal law, and falls under the jurisdiction of the USCIS, ICE, DHS, and the State Dept, the last in particular for Green Card Permanent Residents as Mr Ravi is claimed to be in the media.
Even a misdemeanor by a non-citizen can be interpreted at the federal level as aggravated felony for deportation, and then there is the question of "crimes of moral turpitude" that also invite deportation.
If the judge on May 21st awards a term greater than a year on any or all of the 15 counts (as I believe he is obligated to under minimum mandatory sentencing provisions), then the federal government is legally obligated to initiate deportation proceedings.
Law, much less immigration law, does not deal with "gee, what's the right thing to do here"; it operates strictly per provisions of the legislation and statutes.
It is my sense that an ICE Notice to Appear will be served to Mr Ravi immediately post-conviction. Naturally, he is free to appeal in Immigration Court, with its attendant costs and time the effort comprehends.
http://www.usimmigrationlawyers.com/common-attorney-issues/appealing-fighting-deportation-removal.htm
http://www.hooyou.com/badacts/sub2deportation.html
The most important count, Count 8, concerns the second invasion of privacy on Sep 21st. The jury found Mr Ravi guilty on all three sub-counts in that count, as they related to Mr Clementi. Purpose, knowledge, and reasonable belief.
I would like to see how this can be appealed on jury error or plain or harmful error at the Appellate Division or the State Supreme Court, given that it is a "finding of facts" jury trial.
If the sentence enhancing bias intimidation statute itself is sought to be appealed against in the Federal Courts of Appeal or the US Supreme Court (assuming discretionary review or certiorari is granted), then Defense must consider unanimous US Supreme Court precedent with 1993 Wisconsin v Mitchell.
COUNT 8
2nd Degree Bias Intimidation
(For 3rd Degree Attempted Invasion of Privacy charge on Sept. 21)
• Invasion of Privacy, with the purpose to intimidate Tyler Clementi because of sexual orientation: GUILTY
• Invasion of Privacy, knowing that the conduct constituting invasion of privacy would cause Tyler Clementi to be intimidated because of sexual orientation: GUILTY
• Invasion of Privacy, under circumstances that caused Tyler Clementi to be intimidated, and considering the manner in which the offense was committed, Clementi reasonably believed that he was selected to be the target of the offense because of sexual orientation: GUILTY
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/ravi_webcam_trial_verdict.html”
And it makes sense, because to find him guilty beyond doubt of bias with absolutely no direct evidence, you would pretty much have to not understand bias laws.
It is pretty clear, the application of bias laws in this case was a giant fail.
_______________________________________________
What does any of what you say have to do with the realistic chances of success in an appeal or mistrial?
On the contrary, I have provided video links below in rebuttal that adequately address how jurors (not the irrelevant Alternate Juror) arrived at their verdict with an "open mind" and without "premeditation"; one interview is given to CNN's Anderson Cooper and the other to a Fox Affiliate.
I would suggest you expand your legal vocabulary to terms beyond "giant fail" if you seek to implead yourself in this discussion and make arguments that can be taken seriously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRsSLCNfEwk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7MLGwD1DB0
Bias intimidation is the mildest term that can be used.
People all over the world commit suicide for all reasons.
Only in America will the justice system find a colored man who they view as an "outsider" to take the blame for someone else's suicide... that sucks!!! That is a bias motivated jury / prosecutor and is a violation of our constitutional rights.
Mr Ravi rejected the plea - it was his choice, too, Plain and simple.
People all over the world accept pleas and don't go to jury trials, since these are fraught with risk.
Only in America, will a certain type of people whine, moan, and complain about the jury's verdict AFTER a trial when it goes against them, and accuse it of being pro-LBGT and anti-"colored man", and misguidedly seek to impart an ethnic spin on it...that sucks!
What the jury returned with is a perfectly sound verdict predicated on a dispassionate examination of evidence in all the counts and non-violative of Fundamantal Rights, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
By the way one of the jurors who convicted him for Bias Intimidation...doesn;t believe that Dharun did this because Tyler was gay!!....Check out his own video interview with ABC News...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xQny4eeFzc
What a bull**** verdict this is and a travesty of the justice system.