TEMPLE, Texas — Former Baylor University fraternity president Jacob Anderson pleaded no contest to one count of unlawful restraint Monday, after he was charged with rape in connection with an incident at a frat party in Feb. 2016. He was sentenced to three years unadjudicated probation and will not have to register as a sex offender, the McLennan County District Attorney’s office said.
The agreement was made despite Anderson's accuser's graphic claims, and large public outcry against the plea deal.
Why didn't District Attorney Abel Reyna and prosecutor Hilary LaBorde take Anderson to court?
KCEN Channel 6 legal expert Liz Mitchell provided several reasons why.
1. Original claims by the accuser may have been disproved
"If they feel like they cannot prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, or they feel like elements of the original charge are not true, they cannot in good faith try him," Mitchell said.
If Anderson's accuser made particular claims that could not be proven, it shows a lack of credibility, Mitchell said. District Attorney Abel Reyna told media that claims that the woman was drugged couldn't be proven.
"Early in this case, law enforcement believed that the victim may have been drugged and this belief has been widely disseminated in the media; however, the evidence did not support that theory," Reyna said. "This office stands by the plea offered and believes we have achieved the best result possible with the evidence at hand.”
2. The accuser's story was inconsistent
A Brady evidence notice filed Dec. 10 said the following:
"The complaining witness in this case provided a statement attributed to her by her civil attorney and filed in the papers of this cause that includes allegations inconsistent with her prior statements to civilians, police officers, and a SANE nurse given on the night of the offense."
Mitchell said inconsistent statements make cases much harder to bring to trial.
"If you have your star witness, the victim, telling one account of the facts and then you have other people coming forward saying that she made prior statements that this could have been consensual, then those are things that are going to weaken her credibility," Mitchell said.
3. The defense gets to see all evidence brought by the prosecution.
Mitchell told Channel 6 the defense does not have to share anything with the state, but the state is required to give any evidence that could lead to the exoneration of the defendant over to the defense attorneys. This means any witness the prosecution may have originally believed to be beneficial could end up helping the defense if they give an alternate version of the facts.
4. The accuser cannot force the prosecution to go forward with the trial.
Once allegations have been made, the state decides what charges to bring against the defense, regardless of the wishes of the accuser.
Mitchell told Channel 6 the district attorney cannot go to court because the public, or the accuser, implores him to do so. Likewise, he cannot decide not to prosecute a defendant because the accuser wants the charges dropped.
5. The District Attorney cannot ethically prosecute a case if evidence suggests possible innocence.
Mitchell said the state cannot press charges if its investigation uncovers evidence a person is innocent of the charges.
"If they knew that there were statements out there that this was a consensual sexual encounter, and still put this man to trial, and went forward and tried it anyway, that would be against the law," Mitchell said.
"We see this often in these cases. It's the court of public opinion. People make an initial decision about a person's guilt based on early news coverage. As this district attorney's office continued to investigate the case, there were clearly issues with the case."
📱Make it easy to keep up-to-date with more stories like this. Download the KCENTV app now!
Have a news tip? Email news@kcentv.com, or visit our Facebook or Twitter pages.