Raul Ramirez to be sentenced to three years in prison for case with similarities to Stanford sexual assault case for which Brock Turner will serve only six months 
 
 The embattled judge in the Stanford sexual assault trial is presiding over a similar case in which a Latino man is facing a much harsher sentence than Brock Turner, raising questions about how the former student may have benefited from his privileged background. 
 
 Raul Ramirez, a 32-year-old immigrant from El Salvador who admitted to sexually assaulting his female roommate in a case that has similarities with the Stanford case, will be sentenced to three years in state prison under a deal overseen by judge Aaron Persky, according to records obtained by the Guardian. 
 
 The three-year-prison sentence, part of a plea agreement signed in March, provides a sharp contrast to the outcome for Turner, a white 20-year-old former Stanford swimmer who Persky sentenced to probation and six months in county jail after he was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. 
 
 
 
 Ex-Stanford swimmer gets six months in jail and probation for sexual assault Read more 
 
 The parallel cases, which include similar felony charges of sexual assault, could lend weight to what critics of Persky allege are biases in his courtroom. Others, however, argue that Persky’s actions were reasonable and that the divergence in punishments stems from broader disparities in the criminal justice system. 
 
 “What’s happened with Mr Ramirez is standard,” said Alexander Cross, a defense attorney who briefly represented Ramirez when his family could afford a private lawyer. “The anomaly is the Stanford case.” 
 
 ‘He wanted to say sorry’ 
 
 The details of the Stanford sexual assault conviction have become well known since the case received global attention. On 18 January 2015, two passersby on campus spotted Turner “thrusting” on top of a motionless woman lying on the ground outside of a fraternity house by a dumpster. 
 
 Turner, from Dayton, Ohio, admitted to fingering her, but claimed it was consensual. A jury disagreed and convicted him of assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. 
 
 Instead of sentencing him to the minimum of two years in state prison prescribed by law, Persky made an exception for Turner, determining that his case was “unusual” and that prison would have a “severe impact” on him. After the victim’s impact statement went viral, the judge’s controversial sentencing decision, which will result in Turner spending three months in jail, received international scorn. 
 
 Critics slammed the judge for being sympathetic to Turner and concluding that there was “less moral culpability” because he was intoxicated at the time. Persky is now facing a recall campaign led by a Stanford law professor, and lawmakers have called for an investigation. 
 
 Court documents show that although the allegations in Ramirez’s case mirror the Stanford assault in several ways, the defendant had a very different experience at multiple stages of the court process. 
 
 Ramirez was arrested at his home in Santa Clara County in November 2014 after his roommate called 911 to say that he had sexually assaulted her, according to police reports. 
 
 Stanford sexual assault case: victim impact statement in full Read more 
 
 Ramirez gave the woman a “love letter” and later entered her bedroom and fingered her for about five to 10 minutes against her will, according to a police report, and stopped only when she started crying. 
 
 When police arrived, he admitted to the assault. “Ramirez knew what he did was wrong and he wanted to say sorry,” one officer wrote. 
 
 Ramirez, who has used a Spanish interpreter in court, had his bail set at $200,000 – significantly higher than the $150,000 bail set for Turner. 
 
 Ramirez could not be reached for comment, and multiple attorneys who have represented him declined to connect him to the Guardian. 
 
 ‘A question of lifestyle’ 
 
 Judge Persky handled the hearings and negotiations in the Ramirez case, according to Santa Clara county prosecutors. Terry Lynn Harman, assistant district attorney, said that the judge agreed with the prosecutors’ position throughout the process – that Ramirez should receive a state prison sentence. 
 
 According to records of the plea deal that Persky oversaw, Ramirez agreed to plead guilty to a felony of sexual penetration by force. Under the terms of the deal, he will spend three years in state prison, the minimum punishment for the offense. 
 
 Persky is expected to formalize the three-year sentence at a later date, Harman said. 
 
 The prosecution had no objections to Persky’s handling of the case, she added. In the Turner case, the Santa Clara district attorney slammed Persky’s sentencing decision. 
 
 Ramirez, like Turner, has no criminal record of convictions for serious or violent felonies, according to court records. 
 
 Because Ramirez ultimately pleaded guilty to a felony offense that does not have an option for probation or a lighter sentence, Persky was limited in the sentence he could approve for the specific conviction. 
 
 But critics say that Persky, a former Stanford athlete himself, bent over backwards to make an exception in the Turner case, and that if he wanted to give Ramirez the same favorable treatment, the judge could have utilized his discretion and recommended a less harsh prosecution. 
 
 Specifically, Persky could have approved or helped negotiate a bargain in which Ramirez only pleaded guilty to the lesser of two charges he was facing – assault with intent to commit rape. If the more serious charge was dropped – as was the case with Turner, who had two rape charges dropped – Ramirez could have potentially avoided prison. 
 
 Michele Landis Dauber, the Stanford professor leading the recall, said the Ramirez case was further evidence that the judge should be removed. “This just shows that our concern about Judge Persky’s ability to be unbiased is justified. We continue to think that he abused his discretion in giving an unduly lenient sentence to Turner,” he said. 
 
 Ramirez’s three-year deal “shows that Turner got consideration not available to other defendants who aren’t as privileged”, added Dauber, who is also a family friend of the Stanford victim. 
 
 Persky is barred from commenting on pending cases. 
 
 While the Ramirez case and the Stanford assault have clear differences in race and class – Cross said Ramirez is “very poor” – the two stories also diverge in the defendants’ responses. 
 
 Turner has continued to blame his assault on a “party culture” of “drinking”, claiming that the woman consented, even though police and others confirmed that she was unconscious. Ramirez pleaded guilty and, according to police accounts, apologized. 
 
 In court, Persky said Turner should not be faulted for refusing to admit to the assault: “I’m not convinced that his lack of complete acquiescence to the verdict should count against him.” 
 
 Cross said that when privileged defendants can pay a private attorney and articulate the ways in which a prison sentence would have a severe impact – destroying a promising athletic career, for example – they fare better than average working class people. “It’s really a question of lifestyle.” 
 
 Persky had dozens of letters from Turner’s friends and family attesting to his character and outlining what it would mean to be separated from him if he went to prison. 
 
 Cross said that in a case like Ramirez’s, “society is not exactly suffering a loss. At least, that’s not how it’s looked upon”. 
 
 Experts also note that it’s not surprising a low-income defendant of color would face a worse outcome than a white man in comparable cases. 
 
 “Whether due to implicit bias or other factors, race still plays a role in sentencing outcomes,” said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice reform group. 
 
 Research has repeatedly shown that black and Latino people sentenced in state and federal courts are much more likely to face incarceration than white offenders in similar circumstances – and they receive longer sentences. 
 
 Persky’s defenders 
 
 In the wake of the intense backlash against Persky, public defenders and other criminal justice reform advocates have come to his defense, arguing that judges must have discretion to issue lenient sentences when appropriate. 
 
 An Associated Press review of 20 criminal cases for which Persky has issued sentences also concluded that there didn’t appear to be any racial biases in his decisions. 
 
 Gary Goodman, a supervising attorney for the Santa Clara County public defender’s office, who has spoken up in favor of Persky, was one of several lawyers who represented Ramirez. 
 
 He pointed out that the distinct outcomes in the two cases stems from the way that California law treats sexual assault of a conscious person as a more serious offense than attacking an unconscious victim. 
 
 Goodman also said that Persky played a passive role in Ramirez’s plea negotiations. 
 
 Cross, too, said that although he believes that the system favors wealthier, privileged defendants, he did not fault Persky. 
 
 “I’ve found him to be one of the fairest judges.” ||||| Stanford law professor leads campaign against judge who gave six months to the former Stanford swimmer who sexually assaulted an unconscious woman 
 
 The victim of a sexual assault by a former Stanford University swimmer said on Monday she was “overwhelmed and speechless” at the deluge of support for her as the judge who gave her attacker a light sentence faced a recall campaign. 
 
 Brock Allen Turner, 20, who was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman on campus, was sentenced to six months in county jail and probation – a punishment that is significantly less severe than the minimum prison time of two years prescribed by state law for his felony offenses. 
 
 The light sentencing, along with comments from Turner’s father, who said his son is paying a “steep price” for “20 minutes of action”, have sparked global consternation. 
 
 Brock Turner. Photograph: Santa Clara County sheriff's department 
 
 In a brief phone interview with the Guardian on Monday, the victim, whose emotional testimony has since gone viral, said the positive responses to her statement have been moving. “I’m worried that my heart is going to grow too big for my chest,” she said. “I’ve just been overwhelmed and speechless.” 
 
 The Guardian can also reveal that the judge who gave the former Stanford athlete the light sentence will now face a recall campaign led by a law professor at the elite university who argues the jurist took extraordinary measures to allow the student to avoid prison. 
 
 
 
 Further scrutiny on the judge’s remarks at sentencing appear to suggest he concluded the defendant had “less moral culpability” because he was drunk, and that a light sentence would be an “antidote” to the anxiety he had suffered from intense media attention on the case. 
 
 Michele Landis Dauber, a Stanford law professor who has been outspoken about sexual assault policies on campus, said she is launching the recall campaign against Aaron Persky, Santa Clara County superior court judge. 
 
 Persky, a Stanford alumnus, was captain of the lacrosse team when he was an undergraduate. 
 
 “He has made women at Stanford and across California less safe,” said Dauber, who attended the sentencing hearing and is also a family friend of the 23-year-old victim. “The judge bent over backwards in order to make an exception … and the message to women and students is ‘you’re on your own,’ and the message to potential perpetrators is, ‘I’ve got your back.’” 
 
 Turner, who is from Dayton, Ohio, was arrested on the Palo Alto campus on 18 January 2015 after two graduate students found him lying on top of the unconscious victim behind a dumpster outside of a fraternity party. 
 
 The woman, who was not a Stanford student, was partially clothed, had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit, and did not remember the assault when she awoke hours later. 
 
 The witnesses, who intervened and held Turner until police arrived, said they saw him “thrusting” on top of the motionless woman, and a jury ultimately convicted him of assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman and sexually penetrating an intoxicated and unconscious person with a foreign object. 
 
 There is less moral culpability attached to the defendant who is … intoxicated Judge Aaron Persky 
 
 The case attracted interest across the country, in part because campus sexual assaults rarely lead to criminal prosecutions and convictions. It comes at a time when advocates have increasingly spoken out about the epidemic of sexual violence and harassment on US college campuses – including a string of sexual assault cases at nearby University of California, Berkeley. 
 
 Turner could have faced a maximum of 14 years in state prison, and in order to allow the defendant to avoid prison time altogether, the judge had to determine that this was an “unusual case where the interests of justice would best be served” by a lenient sentence. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Brock Turner (right) makes his way into the Santa Clara superior courthouse in Palo Alto, California on 2 June. Photograph: Dan Honda/AP 
 
 After the victim delivered a detailed account about how the assault and ensuing trial traumatized her and her family, the judge issued the light county jail punishment and justified making an exception with a speech that onlookers said was unusually sympathetic to the defendant. 
 
 “Obviously, the prison sentence would have a severe impact on him,” Persky said in court. “The defendant is youthful and has no significant record of prior criminal offenses.” 
 
 The judge also implied that because the swimmer was intoxicated at the time of the attack, he should be treated differently than a sober defendant. 
 
 “There is less moral culpability attached to the defendant who is … intoxicated,” the judge said. 
 
 Persky also noted that news coverage of the case had significantly impacted Turner, saying: “The media attention that has been given to this case has in a way sort of poisoned the lives of the people that have been affected. … The question I’ve asked myself is … ‘Is state prison for this defendant an antidote to that poison?’” 
 
 In her 12-page victim impact statement, that has spread on social media, the woman noted that Turner has only admitted to being drunk that night, but has not acknowledged that he assaulted her and has continued to argue that the encounter was consensual. 
 
 
 
 The judge seemed to show some sympathy to Turner’s perspective. “I take him at his word that subjectively that’s his version of his events. … I’m not convinced that his lack of complete acquiescence to the verdict should count against him,” he said. 
 
 Dauber said she was further shocked to see Persky minimize the significance of the guilty verdicts, which came from a jury of eight men and four women. The judge said at sentencing: “A trial is a search for the truth. It’s an imperfect process.” 
 
 Persky also appeared to rely heavily on letters that Turner’s friends and family sent and read an excerpt from a former classmate who told the judge she couldn’t believe the assault allegations. 
 
 ‘Honey bear’: Berkeley student details alleged sexual advances by professor Read more 
 
 “To me that just rings true,” the judge said. “It sort of corroborates the evidence of his character up until the night of this incident, which has been positive.” 
 
 The letter in question, however, includes a lengthy rant that places blame on the woman for being attacked: “I’m sure she and Brock had been flirting at this party and decided to leave together … I don’t think it’s fair to base the fate of the next ten + years of his life on the decision of a girl who doesn’t remember anything but the amount she drank. … Where do we draw the line and stop worrying about being politically correct every second of the day and see that rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists.” 
 
 Persky repeatedly emphasized the effect the case has had on Turner, at one point saying: “The character letters that have been submitted do show a huge collateral consequence for Mr Turner.” 
 
 Turner, who withdrew from Stanford, will likely only spend three months in jail. 
 
 Dauber also noted that Persky made no mention of a letter signed by more than 250 Stanford students urging him to sentence Turner to at least the minimum years outlined in state law. 
 
 “A light sentence, such as probation or a few months in jail, would send the incorrect message that this was not a serious crime. This would undermine the trust in the legal system at large, diminish reporting, and possibly make the Stanford community a more dangerous place for all,” the letter said. 
 
 Aaron Persky is telling these women don’t bother calling police Michele Landis Dauber 
 
 In her letter to the judge, Dauber wrote that Stanford’s surveys have found that 43% of female undergraduates have experienced sexual assault or misconduct, and that more than two-thirds of them said perpetrators took advantage of intoxicated victims. But only 2.7% of students who experienced assault or nonconsensual sexual contact reported it to the university. 
 
 Turner’s sentencing only does further damage, Dauber added, noting that she has observed nonviolent drug offenders receive much harsher treatment by judges. 
 
 “Aaron Persky is telling these women don’t bother calling police. Even if you get through a trial and even if you manage to get a conviction, I will not impose a serious sanction,” Dauber said. 
 
 Dauber said she would be launching a formal campaign this week to recall the judge from office, and a change.org petition calling for him to be removed has already garnered more than 45,000 signatures. 
 
 A spokesman for Santa Clara superior court said the judge was barred from commenting on this case while there is an appeal pending. After sentencing, Turner’s attorneys notified court that they intend to appeal the conviction. 
 
 In a follow-up email to the Guardian on Monday, the victim said her case speaks to the experiences of women across the country. 
 
 “I remain anonymous, yes to protect my identity. But it is also as a statement, that all of these people are fighting for someone they don’t know. That’s the beauty of it. I don’t need labels, categories, to prove I am worthy of respect, to prove that I should be listened to. I am coming out to you as simply a woman wanting to be heard. Yes there is plenty more I’d like to tell you about me. For now, I am everywoman.” ||||| In the midst of ongoing controversy over former Stanford student Brock Turner’s six-month jail sentence for sexual assault, a group of 53 recent graduates of Stanford Law School (SLS) have come forward with an open letter to SLS’s Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law Michele Dauber that criticizes Turner’s lenient sentencing but at the same time urges Dauber to reconsider her efforts to recall Judge Aaron Persky ’84 A.M. ’85. 
 
 The recall movement that has thrust Persky into the national spotlight includes several online petitions that called for his removal from the bench after many criticized his sentence for Turner as too light. Dauber has blasted the sentence in several media outlets. In her article for the Washington Post, she responds to Roderick O’Connor, a deputy public defender who has opposed the recall movement. 
 
 “Brock Turner’s sentence for three violent sexual felonies isn’t merely shocking, it’s dangerous,�? she writes. “It reinforces the myth that sexual assault is not a serious crime, particularly when it is perpetrated by young white male athletes in elite universities.�? 
 
 Dauber has been an active organizer for the recall efforts, spearheading the official California recall movement. And she has long been a prominent figure in the legal community for campus sexual assault. From 2011 to 2013, Dauber co-chaired Stanford’s Board on Judicial Affairs and helped to lead the first University process that reformed Stanford’s policy on sexual assault. 
 
 The law graduates’ open letter neither supports nor defends Persky’s decision, but rather focuses on issues of judicial independence and warns of a recall’s potential impact on future jurisdiction, according to several drafters. Although the dictionary term of judicial independence applies to federal judges (Persky is a state court judge), the letter-writers and signers are concerned with the consequences of a public majority recalling any judge. 
 
 “Judicial independence is a cornerstone of due process and an essential prerequisite of a fair criminal justice system,�? the letter states. 
 
 The SLS graduates emphasize that they are just as troubled as Dauber by the case’s handling of the issues of race, privilege and sexual assault– and that they do not believe that Persky’s decision was correct. However, they argue that judges must be allowed discretion: 
 
 …humility requires us to recognize that we won’t always be able to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate exercises of judicial mercy. If you or we claim the power to make that decision, how can we credibly deny it to anyone else? If we demand that Judge Persky immediately hand over his gavel for acting on his empathy for this defendant, how we can we credibly assure any other judge that her hand need not waver when the human circumstances of a case seem to call for compassion? 
 
 Nicholas Rosellini ’12 J.D. ’16, who helped draft the letter, discussed the recall as a dangerous precedent to set. He said that to ensure due process, judges must be able to examine facts without fear of an angry public. 
 
 Rosellini, who participated in SLS’s Three Strikes Project, worries that erosions in judicial independence could affect the future of disenfranchised people. He said that judges are the last stop for “unpopular people�? such as the incarcerated, the convicted, the accused, and minorities. 
 
 “Once you do that [recall process], it’s really hard to credibly deny that to the next group of people who are angry for another reason that might be unjustified,�? Rosellini said. 
 
 Another drafter of the letter, Akiva Freidlin J.D. ’16, explained the motivation and planning of the letter. He, like many others across the country, were frightened by the implications of the sexual assault case. 
 
 “But I started to see the response taking shape as a ‘we should get rid of this particular judge,’ who appears to have applied the law legally,�? Freidlin said. “[This] goes against the principles that allow us to have a system where an independent judiciary applies laws that they don’t make.�? 
 
 Both Freidlin and Rosellini urged other avenues of advocacy to replace a recall. The letter concludes by asking Dauber to pursue different reform tactics such as “educating future judges and jurors about the realities of sexual assault, or pressing for systemic changes in how these cases are handled.�? 
 
 The SLS graduates are not the only judicially-minded voice of opposition to the recall efforts. A number of California public defenders have launched their own online petition, while SLS Professor Emerita Barbara Bobcock recently criticized the recall effort in her own open letter. 
 
 In response to these viewpoints, Dauber has pointed out in other news outlets that, under the California constitution, judges are elected and therefore “accountable to the people.�? She argues that recall is a constitutional right for citizens of Santa Clara county, emphasizing that the recall efforts are not accusing Persky of illegal action, but rather are using the process provided in the state constitution for dealing with a judge’s misuse of his discretion. 
 
 In an email to The Daily, Dauber said she has to “respectfully disagree�? with the law students who wrote the letter. 
 
 “In their view, both victims and defendants in Judge Persky’s courtroom simply have to endure biased treatment in order to avoid a hypothetical and highly unlikely set of consequences,�? Dauber wrote, after noting that the law students agreed that the sentencing was unjust. “This argument does not take seriously these actual people who will not receive justice.�? 
 
 “I wonder if they would make this same argument if Turner had been convicted of a violent crime based on race or sexual orientation or gender identity rather than sex,�? she added. 
 
 But the law students remain fearful of a recall’s future consequences. 
 
 “At the end of the day, someone has to make the decision as to what [constitutes] justified or unjustified anger,�? Rosellini said. “The recall effort inevitably puts that responsibility on the majority of the voting public. And the voting majority, sometimes they get it right, as in this case, but other times, they might not.�? 
 
 Contact Isabela Bumanlag at isabela7 ‘at’ stanford.edu. 
 
 This article has been updated to reflect Michele Dauber’s comments to The Daily.
– The Brock Turner controversy rumbles on: A defendant from a very different background than the former Stanford student received a much harsher sentence from the same judge in a similar case, the Guardian reports. According to court records, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky oversaw a plea deal earlier this year involving Raul Ramirez, a 32-year-old man from El Salvador who sexually assaulted his female roommate. Ramirez, who needed an interpreter in court, agreed to plead guilty in a deal that will see him spend three years in state prison, while Turner will spend just six months in county jail. Critics say that if Persky had treated Ramirez as leniently as he treated Turner, a white 20-year-old, the Latino man would have ended up with a much lighter sentence or even have avoided prison. The deal "shows that Turner got consideration not available to other defendants who aren’t as privileged," says Michele Landis Dauber, a Stanford professor leading a campaign to recall Persky, who's a former Stanford student. Persky's days on the bench may be numbered—a recent poll found that 66% of people in Santa Clara County would vote for his recall, Palo Alto Online reports—but a group of Stanford law grads is urging Dauber to reconsider the recall campaign, the Stanford Daily reports. In an open letter, they argue that it will be more effective to fight for "educating future judges and jurors about the realities of sexual assault, or pressing for systemic changes in how these cases are handled." (Persky was removed from another sexual assault case earlier this month.)