Cornell 7 Case: Criminal Defense Attorney and Sex Crimes Prosecutor Weigh In

So we've got this case, the Cornell Seven case, and what Mark's referring to for the audience is I, before I went to homicide, I worked in the sexual assault unit, And, um, sex cases, it's a, it's a real niche in criminal law and a niche among niches, uh, would be what we would, would refer to back in the day as date rape or acquaintance rape, where you have like vague issues of consent and alcohol and people that, um, You're only going to

have to remember that case, Matt, the case back, I think around 2000 or 2001, where I think it started in the juvenile court, where California basically said that consent – really lowered the bar on consent and in terms of what it required.

But you're so right.

You were the, I used to call you the, for those who don't know, Matt and I had many of those cases.

And I used to, one of my favorite jokes is Matt would have filed criminal stalking charges on Romeo if he had been around when Juliet was there.

So,

Probably would have.

But then the problem is Mark would have talked me out of it as Mark did plenty of times when I'd come in and it's like, God damn it.

I know that Mark is going to say something on this one.

I'm going to hold firm.

And then Mark would speak reason.

And we were almost always able to work out a deal if you got people that are being reasonable.

Okay.

And that's another thing about, so these cases would actually be presented to me for many, many years where you sit down with the detective and you talk about, the potential for a criminal conviction.

And the ethical standard for filing, a lot of people don't know this, for a prosecutor is, number one, you must have subjective certainty that the person did it, and number two, you must have a reasonable belief that you can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt Under the law of whatever state you're in.

Okay So the first thing that you have to do is a prosecutor and I kind of want to walk through this Cornell thing is You must divorce any decisions from your emotions Everybody is against rape or at least anybody in a prosecutorial capacity.

Everybody is against sexual assault.

Everybody thinks that behavior like especially some of the stuff we saw in some of these text messages is abhorrent and We're all there, okay? But you have to divorce emotion and you have to coldly and methodically go through the evidence in a case like this and think, did these young men commit sexual assault? And step two, is the evidence strong enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt And if the answer to either one of those questions is no, then you cannot and should not ethically file a case like that.

By the way, just to highlight is you and I have talked about this countless times, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention it.

the prosecutor has a different ethical North Star than the defense lawyer.

And you want it that way.

Our system is predicated on that.

You want a prosecutor who, like Matt, if they don't really, truly look at the evidence and say, I can get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, I have that kind of mindset, then I'm going to walk.

the kind of public blowback be damned.

Isn't that correct? As opposed to a defense lawyer who is public blowback be damned, I'm here to zealously defend my client.

So we've got this case, the Cornell Seven case, and what Mark's referring to for the audience is I, before I went to homicide, I worked in the sexual assault unit, And, um, sex cases, it's a, it's a real niche in criminal law and a niche among niches, uh, would be what we would, would refer to back in the day as date rape or acquaintance rape, where you have like vague issues of consent and alcohol and people that, um, You're only going to

have to remember that case, Matt, the case back, I think around 2000 or 2001, where I think it started in the juvenile court, where California basically said that consent – really lowered the bar on consent and in terms of what it required.

But you're so right.

You were the, I used to call you the, for those who don't know, Matt and I had many of those cases.

And I used to, one of my favorite jokes is Matt would have filed criminal stalking charges on Romeo if he had been around when Juliet was there.

So,

Probably would have.

But then the problem is Mark would have talked me out of it as Mark did plenty of times when I'd come in and it's like, God damn it.

I know that Mark is going to say something on this one.

I'm going to hold firm.

And then Mark would speak reason.

And we were almost always able to work out a deal if you got people that are being reasonable.

Okay.

And that's another thing about, so these cases would actually be presented to me for many, many years where you sit down with the detective and you talk about, the potential for a criminal conviction.

And the ethical standard for filing, a lot of people don't know this, for a prosecutor is, number one, you must have subjective certainty that the person did it, and number two, you must have a reasonable belief that you can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt Under the law of whatever state you're in.

Okay So the first thing that you have to do is a prosecutor and I kind of want to walk through this Cornell thing is You must divorce any decisions from your emotions Everybody is against rape or at least anybody in a prosecutorial capacity.

Everybody is against sexual assault.

Everybody thinks that behavior like especially some of the stuff we saw in some of these text messages is abhorrent and We're all there, okay? But you have to divorce emotion and you have to coldly and methodically go through the evidence in a case like this and think, did these young men commit sexual assault? And step two, is the evidence strong enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt And if the answer to either one of those questions is no, then you cannot and should not ethically file a case like that.

By the way, just to highlight is you and I have talked about this countless times, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention it.

the prosecutor has a different ethical North Star than the defense lawyer.

And you want it that way.

Our system is predicated on that.

You want a prosecutor who, like Matt, if they don't really, truly look at the evidence and say, I can get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, I have that kind of mindset, then I'm going to walk.

the kind of public blowback be damned.

Isn't that correct? As opposed to a defense lawyer who is public blowback be damned, I'm here to zealously defend my client.