Archived post

This is an archived post. Please click here to see the latest entries.

« Freedom Budgeters Resurface | Home | Parker Gilbert: Prosecution DOA? »

Parker Gilbert: A Reasonable Doubt?

Trial Commentary: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7.

The jury’s task in Parker Gilbert’s ongoing trial on the charge of rape is to determine if he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden of proof is a high one — far higher than the preponderance of the evidence standard in the College’s newly proposed sexual assault rules. There is no hard and fast way to define reasonable doubt; think of the difference between these two thresholds of proof as the difference between getting 51% and 95% on a test. The criminal law mandates such a high standard as a filter to ensure that innocent defendants do not go to jail; the law has always asserted that it is better that one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man is incarcerated.

At trial yesterday, the prosecution continued to present witnesses who, under cross-examination by Gilbert’s attorneys, injected uncertainty into the proceeding. Most prominent was the complainant’s seemingly unbiased roommate, who had not been drinking on the evening in question, and who was studying in the next room. She testified, according to both the Valley News and The D, that she heard whispering followed by heavy breathing in the complainant’s room, and she stated that she did not hear any loud noises, crying, or expressions of pain from the adjoining space. She did hear her roommate say “don’t push me.” Notably the roommate said nothing about the uninterrupted stream of abusive language that the complainant previously stated Gilbert had uttered to her in the course of their lengthy sexual interaction.

At this point in the trial, the jury must be feeling a great deal of confusion as to the events of the night in question, if not outright disbelief regarding the complainant’s depiction of what occurred. It is well possible that the complainant is telling the truth and her roommate is lying about what she heard, but how can a jury possibly believe one person over another beyond a reasonable doubt?

And, as I mentioned yesterday, all this has taken place before the defense has put forward its own version of events.

Bornstein.jpgAddendum: The case against Parker Gilbert could end and Gilbert could be acquitted after the State has finished presenting its case, if the defense files and Judge Peter Bornstein (right) grants a motion for directed verdict on all the charges. The American Bar Association defines a directed verdict in criminal proceedings as follows:

At the conclusion of the … government’s evidence, the lawyer will announce that the … government rests. Then, when the jury leaves the courtroom, … in a criminal trial, the defendant’s lawyer can ask for a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the government has failed to prove its case.

In effect … the lawyer asks the judge to direct a verdict for the defendant. The judge will either grant or deny the motion. If it is granted, the case is over and the defendant wins. If the motion is denied, as it usually is, the defense is given the opportunity to present its evidence.

Given the range of doubt-creating evidence that the prosecution’s own witnesses have put forward, the judge could well rule that no reasonable jury could find against Gilbert. If he does so, the prosecution would have no right of appeal, just as if the jury itself had pronounced Gilbert not guilty.

Addendum: The Valley News and The D have not reported the name of the complainant, but the Valley News has chosen to name the various other witnesses, students among them, who have testified in the case. If Gilbert is acquitted, I wonder if either paper will identify the complainant.


Featured posts

  • August 14, 2013
    Breaking: Of Crips and Bloods and Memories of Ghetto Parties
    History repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce, or sometimes it just repeats itself. From the New York Times on November 30, 1998: At Dartmouth College, white students at a ”ghetto party” dressed…
  • June 25, 2013
    Dean of the College Charlotte Johnson’s War on Students Part (2/2)
    Part 1, Part 2 Today’s post again recounts the events that befell the Freshman. However, the content of the Hanover Police department report reproduced in this space yesterday is supplemented by information from my own…
  • October 18, 2009
    When Love Beckoned in 52nd Street
    We were at San Francisco’s BIX last evening, enjoying prosecco, cheese, and a bit of music. A full year of inhabitation in Northern California has unraveled to me no decent venue for proper lounging, but…
  • October 9, 2009
    D Afraid of a Little Competish
    So our colleague and Dartblog writer Joe Asch informed me that the D has rejected our cunning advertising campaign. Uh-oh. The Dartmouth is widely known as a breeding ground for instant New York Times successes,…
  • September 4, 2009
    How Regents Should Reign
    As Dartmouth alumni proceed through the legal hoops necessary to defuse a Board-packing plan—which put in unhappy desuetude an historic 1891 Agreement between alumni and the College guaranteeing a half-democratically-elected Board of Trustees—it strikes one…
  • August 29, 2009
    Election Reform Study Committee
    If you are an alum of the College on the Hill, you may have received a number of e-mails of late beseeching your input for a new arm of the College’s Alumni Control Apparatus called…

Dartblog Specials

Subscribe by Email

Enter your email address:

Help, Pecuniarily

Please note

This website reflects the personal opinions of its authors. Any e-mails received may be published along with the full name of the sender. If you wish otherwise, please say so.

All content appearing at should be presumed copyright 2004-2018 its respective bylined author unless otherwise noted or unless linked to original source.




June 2018
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30