My confidence in Vermont jurisprudence has been somewhat bolstered by the news that Judge Michael Kupersmith has denied attorney Robert Katims’ motion on behalf of Norm McAllister to dismiss prostitution charges against him, “in the interest of justice.”  Pul-lease!

The disgraced ex-senator’s second trial on the same charges is expected to proceed in April.

You may recall that  three women accused him of sexual crimes ranging from soliciting for prostitution all the way to rape. All of his accusers were epically unlucky and poor. They had been forced by their circumstances to rely on McAllister, a landed farmer and politician, for housing or employment. One of his accusers died before her complaint could be heard.  

A second accuser, who was a teenager at the time of her alleged assault, was persuaded to come forward despite the fact that she was mortified by the prospect of testifying in public. After a grueling cross-examination in which she was further victimized, she perjured herself on an irrelevant detail which she feared would damage her relationship with her then boyfriend.

The state’s attorney dropped her complaint like a hot rock and she was allowed to sink back into the woodwork, alone with her humiliating memories.

The remaining complainant was herself put through the brutal experience of testimony and cross-examination, but the state was not allowed to share any of the other allegations against Mr. McAllister; nor even audio recordings, made under police supervision, of Mr. McAllister admitting he had engaged in coercive sexual behaviors with his accuser.

Without ever having to, himself, testify,  Mr. McAllister was convicted on only the least punitive of the prostitution related charges against him.  

Not content with that lenient outcome, McAllister insisted his attorney challenge the verdict on a technicality.  The attorney’s arguments were successful in getting the judge to void the conviction and tentatively schedule a new trial.  

Mr. McAllister’s next move was to request a full dismissal.  If all had gone as he had learned to expect from his prior experiences with the justice system, he was undoubtedly expecting to get off, scott-free.

Thank goodness Judge Kupersmith has a stronger instinct for justice than does Mr. McAllister:

“(McAllister) was a member of the Vermont Senate,” the judge wrote. “The Court must infer that he had a measure of political experience and power by reason of his attaining that office…It would significantly erode public confidence in the judicial system if the public could infer that the Court dismissed the charge as an act of political favor.”

A lot has happened in the interim since the first case against McAllister was brought to trial in 2016.  Donald Trump was elected, Bill Cosby was convicted and the “Me Too” movement elevated public awareness and indignation over sexual abuse which had, until recently, been enabled by misogynistic tropes and cultural apathy.

Here’s hoping Mr. McAllister will finally feel compelled to take the stand.  If he wants us to believe he is so blameless, let’s hear how he answers questions under cross-examination.