Vacatur is a Latin word used in American law. It means “it is vacated.” A rule or order that sets aside a judgment – such as a judgement of conviction – or annuls a proceeding – is vacatur.
A commenter, Abelard, wrote:
By Abelard
If I recall, the standard for Rule 33 relief is “in the interests of justice.” The victim, Camila, has confirmed via subsequent written affidavit that she had a sexual relationship with Raniere when she was underage.
I can’t recall if she authenticates the photos in that affidavit but Lauren certainly testified that the sex occurred, that it was Cami in the pictures, that the pictures were taken in Mexico, and how old she was at the time. So there isn’t much doubt about any of that, if there was, she can be put on the stand at a retrial. The judge and the 2nd Circuit are not going to be in a hurry to do a whole new trial just to put the victim of sexual assault on the stand. Not “in the interests of justice.” At most, the child pornography charge gets dismissed, which is basically irrelevant if the sexual assault charges stay in.
Quite a few people on this blog seem to think that “interests of justice” requires a new multi-week trial for Raniere, even if the results would be exactly the same, because maybe the government did a bad thing . . . because the misconduct must be “brought to light” or the bad actors must be “held accountable.” That’s not why you have a new trial. You have a new trial because, absent the government’s misconduct, there is a reasonable possibility that the result would be different.
It may be that someone in the FBI did something wrong. The place to judge that person is at their own criminal trial, not during a redo of this one. And the remedy is to punish them, not let Raniere go.
Frank Parlato Response
MK10Art painting of Frank ParlatoMr. Abelard, your thoughtful comment is well worth a little discussion. First a few minor corrections for the record, if I may be permitted.
You wrote, the victim, Camila, has confirmed via subsequent written affidavit that she had a sexual relationship with Raniere when she was underage. Actually she did indeed make a written victim impact statement, but I do not believe this is an affidavit, that is it was not filed under oath. She also made an oral statement at Keith Raniere’s sentencing. That also was not under oath.
Further Camila is suing Raniere alleging the same conduct – her rape and abuse as a child. It will be under oath when she is deposed and, if she testifies, if it goes to trial.
Under oath or not, there is little doubt in my mind that she is telling the truth.
I do not believe Lauren testified that the underage sex occurred, or that it was Cami in the pictures. I do not believe Lauren was shown the pictures of Camila at the trial.
By the way, the Camila pictures were allegedly taken in Clifton Park, New York, and not in Mexico.
Regardless of where the pictures were taken, I agree with you, there isn’t much doubt that the rascal groomed then sexually abused this child.
However, I do not quite agree that the most Raniere’s Rule 33 will accomplish is that the child pornography predicate acts of the racketeering charges gets dismissed. Yourself and Mr. Claviger and quite a few others believe that the success of the Rule 33 is irrelevant if the other charges such as sex trafficking and other serious racketeering charges remain.
You may be right.
The big question is whether a new trial for Raniere is required if it is discovered that the government cheated.
I think you are right, Mr. Abelard, a new trial, if there is one, will result in a conviction for Raniere. However, a new trial is likely indicated.
To quote Raniere’s trial judge, Nicholas G. Garaufis, from an order he wrote in Chad Wolf v Donald Trump, “Under normal circumstances, vacatur alone is the proper remedy for unlawful agency action.”
The vacating of Raniere’s conviction and hence most likely new trial is, in my mind, the proper remedy for government cheating – if they did cheat – which is far from proven – by tampering with photos of Camila.
We do not know if they cheated. Odds are they did not. But it should be investigated.
I do agree completely that if someone or several individuals at the FBI tampered with evidence, regardless of whether it would result in vacatur or not, they should be prosecuted. If convicted, they should serve a prison sentence.
If they cheated, in my opinion, the remedy is both vacatur and to punish them.
This will not likely result in Raniere gaining freedom. He will be convicted again.
Keith Raniere before learning about the fate of his Rule 33 motion.
Keith Raniere after learning that vacatur was the result of the Rule 33 motion.
Keith Raniere after the jury brought in their verdict – after seven minutes of deliberations – for his new trial. Check out those eyes.
