Drinking Problems: Prosecution Moves to Preclude Expert Testimony in Vanderbilt Rape Case

October 23, 2014

With less than a week before former Vanderbilt University football players Brandon Vandenburg and Corey Batey go on trial for an alleged on-campus rape, a new motion filed by prosecutors asks to exclude an expert testimony.

Prosecutors are asking the testimony given by forensic psychologist Dr. Stefanie Stolinsky be excluded on grounds the testimony is “not based on relevant scientific methods, processes or data and is therefore purely subjective.”

According to her findings, Vandenburg was too drunk to know what was going on the night of June 23, 2013 when an unconscious female was allegedly raped inside a dorm room at Gillete Hall.

So, will the prosecution be successful?

Well, what’s the basis for the prosecution’s motion? According to the article, no blood alcohol test was performed on Vandenburg; instead, Dr. Stolinsky relied on witness statements and video surveillance, which

showed Vandenburg talked to three young men who assisted him in getting the unconscious female from the vehicle to the dorm room, needing their help to open the access and open the doors.

Stolinsky further states that video surveillance inside the building “shows Brandon stumbling and swaying down a hallway.”

Dr. Stolinsky has thus

concluded that Vandenburg was too intoxicated to know what went on that night.

“He asked for assistance from these three men only to help him. He did not act knowingly and was NOT aware that the conduct of the others would cause this result,” her written testimony states.

The prosecution has moved to preclude this testimony pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 702, which provides that

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will substantially assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

According to the prosecution, “Dr. Stolinsky’s testimony did not contain any scientific or specialized knowledge based on her knowledge as a forensic psychologist and should therefore be excluded.” This judge should decide on the motion on Friday.

So, how will the judge rule? It’s tough to say without seeing the motion, but… First, it’s not uncommon for expert witnesses to offer opinion testimony about whether a defendant was drunk (or a drunk) based upon witness statements. See, e.g., People v. Donohue, 123 A.2d 77 (N.Y.A.D. 3 1987). When you add video footage to the equation, it seems safe to conclude that Dr. Stolinsky can testify.

Second, forensic psychologists are typically allowed to testify about whether intoxication precluded the defendant from having the requisite mens rea for a crime. See, e.g., Bias v. State, 634 So.2d 1120 (Fla.App.2 1994). Therefore, I think it is likely that the prosecution’s motion will de denied.

-CM