Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:07] Speaker B: And I'm Lauren,
[00:00:08] Speaker A: and welcome to another episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:11] Speaker B: And today we are kind of going to talk about the Cornell seven. But for me, it is not as much of I want to talk about it as I have some different questions from, like, the legal side of things in this, and it's things that we have kind of discussed in our office.
So I kind of want the side of, like, a criminal attorney. So I guess in all reality, we're not like, getting really in the details of this exact case, but how cases like this are dealt with. So that's kind of what we're going to discuss today.
So I guess let me start by just saying the Cornell 7 case, if you haven't heard, I think you all probably know about it, these pretty much a girl was raped by multiple men and nobody stopped it, and other people saw it and did nothing to stop it.
And then there's the issue of who was intoxicated, who was not.
I think they'd all been doing ketamine is what I've heard, and stuff like that. So kind of that side of it, as well as what people's duties are in these situations. So that's kind of what I wanted some of Lacey's thoughts on as far as from a legal person, not a right or wrong perspective, because I think we all can agree sometimes the law doesn't line up with what we find ethically right or wrong. So, I mean, I think from those perspectives, we have to look at it separately, because obviously things can be legal, but morally it looks bad, or things can be illegal, but morally it's not really bad kind of thing. So I think.
[00:01:53] Speaker A: Think
[00:01:53] Speaker B: about it. Context.
[00:01:55] Speaker A: Another interesting context I think we should touch on as well is so in this case, I did not read the filings. This is based on me talking to other attorneys as well as my friends, which are all very vastly different, even amongst attorneys. But from what I've gathered, she did have consensual sex with some of the men, but then there were invitations for others to come in, and she did not consent to those. That's my understanding of it. And so I also think there is a difference not only in law and morality, like what we think is right and wrong, what is the law? There's also a difference here in criminal and civil right. So to prove somebody guilty of a crime, it is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecutors should not bring charges forward if they don't believe they can beat that burden. Correct, but civil is a much lower burden. So she has filed A civil lawsuit, criminal charges were not filed. It is possible in some of these situations that the situation a prosecutor may not feel they can prove something guilty beyond reasonable doubt. May. Maybe there's other factors that will come into play. They don't believe they can meet their burden, but they can still file civilly and file a civil suit because that burden is much lower. The burden there is preponderance of the evidence. So I think we can also touch on that.
[00:03:16] Speaker B: Okay, so in criminal, yes, it's beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil, we have different levels of proof depending on the statute.
So some are more and I don't know every state's different. So like there's some cases where kindness more like 75, 25.
And I don't know what this one would be in this situation. But a lot of our probate cases are more than just
[00:03:42] Speaker A: a
[00:03:42] Speaker B: little more. It's, it's. There's like different levels and why the words are not coming to me right now, I don't know. But I should pull out like the sip pro book or whatever. But. So like, I don't know what burden they're meaning. But like in car wreck cases, for instance, there's even liability based on. Can you bring it based on how at fault you were like looking at, like, okay, well, even though you are only 30% at fault, you are still 30% at fault. So we're going to take those damages away.
[00:04:11] Speaker A: So
[00:04:11] Speaker B: in civil, there is a big difference in how we're going to look at things.
Most civil lawsuits are just like 51.49. But in some of that, that does look at how much money you're going to give the victim kind of thing. Like, obviously, like in a case where you think somebody was completely wrong, like a car wreck, they were drinking and driving at fault, you're going to give them more of the max money. But. And my cat just walked across the screen. She know why she's in here this morning. But like if it's an issue where one of you is drinking, but one of you was texting, you know that type stuff. So just civil is such a. Like it is not black and white like I feel criminal supposed to be. But I guess my first question in this case is how does consent work if you both are intoxicated? Because that's one of the things that has came up in this case. She's saying I couldn't consent because I was intoxicated. And he said the one of the guys. And I'm not saying whether I believe anybody or Not. I just want. From a legal perspective,
[00:05:09] Speaker A: they were both drunk. They
[00:05:11] Speaker B: are both drunk, or they're both on drugs. Both have been doing ketamine. Neither one knows what they're doing.
[00:05:16] Speaker A: Correct.
[00:05:16] Speaker B: So how does that. How would that work?
[00:05:20] Speaker A: So it's. I don't believe the law is crafted to take that into account.
So this is what I can tell you. She is making an allegation that she did not consent to having sex with one of the men. And he's also saying he was drunk. Right. So there the law states that if somebody cannot consent, you are guilty of cse, which is criminal sexual conduct in our state. This is just South Carolina law that I'm talking about. On the flip side, voluntary intoxication, for his part, is not a defense. Involuntary intoxication is a defense, but not voluntary. So if he consumed alcohol voluntarily, which is what she did too, she can bring the allegation that she did not consent, but he cannot use voluntary intoxication as a defense.
[00:06:13] Speaker B: But can he come back and say, well, she raped me.
[00:06:18] Speaker A: What cop's gonna take that report? I mean, sure, he can, but it's. It's the difference in the law and the application. Right? Sure. He can go to the police and say, I didn't consent. Actually, I know she made this report against me, but I was intoxicated. I didn't consent either.
And I do believe our law, by statute, will allow for a charge to be made. Do I think any police officer is going to bring forth that warran it? Absolutely not.
[00:06:46] Speaker B: Well, now, I have a question, though. Do you think the laws in these situations are unfair to men? Because just because you are intoxicated doesn't mean you can't.
Some people, you know, like, go for, like.
[00:06:59] Speaker A: Right.
It depends on the. The level. Right.
[00:07:04] Speaker B: Well, I guess what I'm saying is just because a man is ready to go doesn't mean he actually consents.
You get what I'm saying? Like, that doesn't mean your body can have a reaction, but that doesn't mean that you're consenting. And so I kind of feel in the law, men probably have been raped before. And it feels like sometimes, though, that's kind of overlooked because, well, their body had the reaction, like, they obviously wanted it kind of thing. You get what I'm saying?
[00:07:36] Speaker A: That's been a big topic I have seen on men that have come forward and being molested, they didn't feel that they were truly molested, even though maybe they were 12 and the woman was 20 because they got an erection. Right. We should probably put some type of caption on this episode with our terminology, especially moms listen in the car with kids.
But, you know, they. They say that they're. Well, I.
I guess I wanted it, but that what science. What I've heard doctors say is like, that is a normal reaction. It doesn't mean that you were not molested and that. It doesn't mean that this wasn't wrong. And, you know, but, I mean, I, as a mom of boys, it does worry me and it does scare me. Yes, I do believe women.
I do believe women don't come forward sometimes with assault cases when they should.
I understand the MeToo movement. I also, as a criminal defense attorney and as a mom of boys, know that boys get impaired and get too drunk too.
And I. I mean, I. I don't know what to do with it. And I guess that's sometimes what jurors are for. You know, I mean, for example, like we just talked about, if she is too impaired and he is impaired too, it is not a legal defense to the case. But you could certainly bring it up. You know, the defense attorney could certainly bring up that he was impaired, too. And then it would be up to a jury to determine those factors, but it would be essentially jury nullification, which means, listen, I know what the law says, but we really agree completely with the law and we're going to let him go. Because I don't think either one of them were in the right state of mind.
[00:09:20] Speaker B: Right. Like, I guess, like, I'm not saying in this case, because I really haven't dealt with it, but there are a lot of times in college dorms where all parties are intoxicated not knowing what they're doing. And then it's like, who decides what's wrong or right? Because in that moment, I. I guess the thing that I can see is hard, too, from a perspective of the party is in that moment, what if the girl says yes? What if she didn't say no? You know, and like. But then she comes back and says, well, I was drunk, so I couldn't consent. But you were drunk, too. Like, when is it too much? Like, obviously, if they're passed out, but, like, there is a lot of gray there.
[00:09:56] Speaker A: Yeah. And let's also talk about. So. And at some point, some of these people were putting it on Snapchat. Some of the men.
I think that goes to show they are not too intoxicated. If you are putting it on Snapchat, inviting people over, interacting with others to facilitate stuff that puts you In a criminal mindset. So that's another thing we take into account is intent. There has to be criminal intent. So I think when you have somebody who is too intoxicated as well, he's a male, you can argue to the jury there's no criminal intent here. He was out of his mind, drunk, wasted.
But I do think if for the ones that were texting and putting on Snapchat and those extra things, I think that goes to show that they were functioning. And to me, that would go towards criminal intent for those guys.
[00:10:50] Speaker B: I guess my second part in all this is, what liability do you have as a bystander? Like, bystander, you know what I'm saying? I can't get the word
[00:10:58] Speaker A: out.
[00:10:58] Speaker B: Like, if I just walk by and see this happening, am I supposed to report it? Am I not? Like, do I just.
Like, what. I mean, could I be criminally liable for, like, aiding and abetting if I just walk by and ignore it? Like, I don't.
[00:11:13] Speaker A: You have to be involved in it. I mean, if you walk by and you're like, you see it going on and then you, too, invite other people, then sure. But you don't go yourself, right? I mean, maybe, but
[00:11:28] Speaker B: if I just Your business, I'm gonna walk on by then. Nothing.
[00:11:34] Speaker A: I don't believe. I can't think of a charge that could come forward on. On that. I mean, sure, there is a moral compass, you know.
[00:11:42] Speaker B: Right.
[00:11:44] Speaker A: You know, I want to teach my kids that if they ever saw anything like that happening.
And honestly, whether they thought that the girl was consenting or not. But if it raises any concern to call me, because we'd rather figure something out than just, you know, ignore it.
But, yeah, I. I definitely think those are conversations that need to be had. And another layer to this kind of off topic, but I don't know much about ketamine. I feel like that wasn't anything big when we were in college and school, and I just. I. I know that's what killed Matthew Perry, but I don't know.
And it's used for therapy purposes, but I feel like that is something that is becoming really big and layer is understanding how ketamine affects people's mindset, and I just don't know that.
[00:12:36] Speaker B: I feel like ketamine affects everyone differently from what I've heard. But, yeah, like, it is actually a medical use, like, especially for people who have severe ptsd. Like, I do think it has its place when properly administered by, like, the proper people and, like, for proper. Like, for people who are very Depressed and suicidal.
It also works for drug addicts because, like Matthew Perry, it is what got him off of opioids and got him off the hard stuff. So I think it has its place, but it kind of makes me think of. And it's going to sound terrible, but the TV show True Blood, when they get, like, high on V, which is like vampire blood, and they're like, in a different world and all this, and, like, people go crazy and some people are just like, nothing. So I think it's going to be really hard because, for one, I feel like if you're going to do it, it needs to be properly administered by a doctor in a doctor's office. Like, there is a place here in Spartan that does ketamine, but it is nurse practitioners and doctors. And you sit there, they watch you, they keep you for a little bit, and they make sure you do correct dosage. And it is a lot of times used for people with severe depression, ptsd, chronic, chronic pain.
And it's done properly, but I think without it being done properly, I mean, I think they were just. Because, like, there's an episode on, like, the Mormon Housewives where they go have.
[00:14:00] Speaker A: Yeah,
[00:14:01] Speaker B: I think it's like gin, or somebody goes and gets ketamine.
You. You can't have a beer, but you can do ketamine. That's a little weird to me, but in that situation. So it is done recreationally and I don't think that's probably how it's intended to. To be used.
So I don't know, like, were these kids just doing, like, how people do with GLP1s, and you could just go online and say, hey, I'm depressed. And they send it to you. Like, you go on now with GLP ones. I don't think there's any big risk from that. Besides, like, I get medicine that doesn't work, but, like, you just go, once I'm overweight, and they'll send it to you. And.
And I will say GLB ones have been really steady, though. Like, people do know that, like, it helps with cravings, food, noise and, like, it helps with. With even smoking and that type stuff. But, like, I don't think ketamine has been studied for just, like, recreational use, like it has for medical purposes. And so I don't know, like, in ketamine, they may not have even known what they were doing.
Does that make it right? No, because they voluntarily took the ketamine.
[00:15:08] Speaker A: And that's important to note because I have not looked at New York law, but Sean Kent, if you don't follow him on TikTok or Instagram, go follow him. He made a post that says, because this happened in New York, I believe. And so New York law states that they do take into consideration voluntary intoxication from the alleged victim side.
So from my understanding of his post is that is why New York did not file charges is because she was voluntarily intoxicated, she consumed alcohol on her own accord, and so that is why they didn't file charges. And whether you, if that's correct, if that is New York law, whether you like it or not, that's the law. Right. We can dislike the law.
We can, if we don't like certain laws in our state, we can advocate for them to change it. But at that point, that is the law. So it's hard to be like, why didn't you press charges prosecutors when they're following the law of their state? And then she sought a remedy that is allowed under the circumstances in that state. Civilly,
[00:16:10] Speaker B: I mean, it's really hard. This case is one I haven't, I've seen everybody talk about it and I didn't really dig into it, but I do feel like there's got to be more laws in today's time that make it clear on what happens with consent, how consent is given and what happens when we do. I mean, and whether or not, I guess this is the hard part. Like, you know, if a doctor prescribes you ketamine, but then you go do something stupid, technically you weren't involuntary because it's under a prescription. And so you, you weren't, you were involuntarily because it was prescription medication you needed. But then you do something stupid. So I guess is one of those things that like, we do need to update our laws update. And I think technology has changed a lot of this stuff too. You know, we need to make sure we are following up with like, because so I did read in the Cornell case, she like texted the guys afterwards and like said she had a great time or something.
And like, how does that play into it in today's time with all our technology and Facebook or. I don't know. Like, I do think a lot's changed in the last probably 50 years in this context and we need to have our laws updated to match the real. And I don't know what the right answer is, but I do think this is discussions like our, you know, senators and representatives need to be having.
[00:17:36] Speaker A: Yeah. And a well rounded discussion too. Right. We need to bring in, in those discussions, victims of sexual assaults, you know, and we also need to bring in defense attorneys as well to figure out what is appropriate. I mean, I think we can all agree we do not want anyone to have, like be assaulted, be forced, something on their bodies. Like, that is horrible. Nobody wants that. But we do need clear laws, clear discussions when substances are involved on all parties. Like, no, it sounds like she did not consent to all. She did consent to having intercourse with some, and that's fine. She can do that. She can do what she wants to do with her own body.
But if it crossed over and there were people not involved in that, what she consented to, that is, that is wrong and that should be punished. But you're right. Like, what is, is it even possible to have a clear cut law? I don't, I don't know. It might be one of those situations where judgment comes in with prosecutors and jurors.
[00:18:45] Speaker B: And I think this is also, as parents, this is conversations we need to have with our children as they get older. Like, you know, if you do get drunk, this could happen. And while it shouldn't happen, this is a risk if you don't know what you're doing. Like, make smart decisions. And I think it's on all of us too, as parents to make sure we have those hard conversations with our kids in the future.
[00:19:13] Speaker A: I wholeheartedly agree. I think we focus so much on impairment and driving, which is very important. I'm not saying that it's not, but we also have to have these conversations as well.
And I'm great that I always was surrounded by a great friend group too. If I was consuming alcohol back in the day, I was around people I trusted and did it get in those situations. And we have to encourage our kids to be around people that are going to make smart choices too. Maybe always have a sober person to drive and just make sure everybody is safe and making the best choices. But yeah, absolutely. I definitely think there's a lot of conversations to have, especially for boy moms.
[00:19:56] Speaker B: I think boy moms, but girl moms too. I mean, like, I think so many times, like girls, whether it's right or wrong, need to know, like, hey, if you do this, it's wrong. It shouldn't happen to you. But this is a risk. Like, you need to not.
I mean, you shouldn't have to do that. But at the same point, like, the world is the world. And I think too many times we shy away from what actually needs to be said. And I also, on this topic, if you're going to have talks with your children about bodily parts, call them the right parts. I do not want to have the conversation where it's you. I think you need to call things what they are.
And
[00:20:35] Speaker A: sometimes you do when your kids make up terms. Anyway, so I've always referred to it as a penis. Matt calls it as honey. I have no. I. No, I have guesses as to why that happened.
But I try.
[00:20:49] Speaker B: I mean, I'm just like. As an adult, we can't help when our children call things weird things. But I feel like now we'll say, my children don't say breast. They say boobs or boobies. But I feel like that's just because that's what, like, you know, everybody calls it.
[00:21:02] Speaker A: That's. Everybody knows what that is. It's when you use terms where everybody doesn't know what it is. Like honey.
[00:21:08] Speaker B: Right? So that way, if you tell somebody my honey hurts, they'll be like, like, is that your bottom? Is that your foot? Like, I don't know. If somebody told me
[00:21:20] Speaker A: in the bath, I would say, I'm gonna wash your hiney. And I meant his bottom. And so, because I will be washing in that area, I think that's where the honey came from.
But, yeah, he talks about.
He calls his penises honey.
[00:21:35] Speaker B: I would think they were trying to say Tommy or something,
[00:21:38] Speaker A: right? I know it makes no sense, but, yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you, and I do try to implement that rule.
[00:21:45] Speaker B: Well, this for. Is our talk for this week. Let us know your thoughts and opinions, how you think laws can change or what we need to do to kind of make this adequate. Or what? What is there to do? What are your thoughts? Let us know.
[00:21:59] Speaker A: Yeah. All right. And we will see y' all next week. Sam,
