Law&Crime Sidebar - 'She Wasn’t Raped’: Judge Removed from Bench After Overturning Teen’s Conviction

Episode Date: March 1, 2024

Cameron Vaughan was just 16 when she says an 18-year-old raped her at an Illinois graduation party. Judge Robert Adrian found Drew Clinton guilty of sexually assaulting Vaughan and Clinton was expected to be sentenced to a mandatory four years in prison. But the judge threw out Clinton’s conviction in January 2022, saying the 148 days he’d spend behind bars were enough. Now Adrian’s days as a judge are over. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber had a chance to speak with the victim, as well as former Judge Elizabeth Scherer, about the Courts Commission's decision.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. views shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. A judge is removed from the bench after he throws out a sexual assault conviction and kicks a prosecutor out of his courtroom. It is a wild story with a wild development. We bring on retired judge Elizabeth Scher to get her take, and we sit down with the assault victim to hear what she thinks about her attacker's conviction being tossed, and now the judge being removed. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

There are times when we question judges' decisions. We disagree with judge's decisions. But what if I told you that a judge was actually removed from the bench for allowing a man originally convicted of sexual assault to go free. I'm going to explain this. So let's go to Chicago, Illinois. And this is where the Illinois Courts Commission removed Adams County Judge Robert Adrian

after a three-day hearing. Commission writing that Adrian, quote, abused his position of power to indulge his own sense of justice while circumventing the law did this when he threw out Drew Clinton's conviction for sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl. In fact, instead of sentencing Mr. Clinton to the mandatory four-year prison term,

Adrian throughout Clinton's conviction, saying sending him to prison would not be, quote, just, and that the 148 days he had already spent in jail was punishment enough. By the way, it was Adrian who originally found Clinton guilty. This was a Ben's trial in front of him, so he seems to have had this change of opinion. It's our understanding that he found Clinton originally not guilty of two other charges as well. So the victim in this case, who has come forward publicly as Cameron Vaughn, said that after throwing out the conviction, Adrian said, quote, this is what happens whenever parents allow teenagers to drink alcohol to swim in pools with their undergarments on. Now, putting this incident to the side, the commission cited another event as well in their decision.

They say that Adrian kicked a prosecutor out of his courtroom after this prosecutor like comment on social media that was critical of Adrian, the commission stating that in all, Adrian's conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and brought his judicial. office into disrepute. The commission found that Adrian violated the Code of Judicial Conduct Rules regarding judges upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary, avoiding impropriety and being partial. Adrian told the Chicago Tribune that the commission's decision to remove him from the bench is, quote, totally a miscarriage of justice. I did what was right. I've always told the truth about it. Let me bring on right now, retired judge, Elizabeth Sherer, who practices at Conrad and Sherer Law Firm, Judge. Great to see you. Uh, what

What are your initial impressions of this decision by the commission? I'm a little shocked, not at the decision, but at the whole situation. It's unbelievable. I think that the commission's decision was spot on. I think that this happens probably too much, and people usually don't complain about it. In other words, prosecutors, victims, defense attorneys probably let things slide because this is the judge. We're going to have to peer in front of this judge in future proceedings. But I think that from what I've read and the factual complaint, I think that this was warranted.

I think that this judge was way off base in his decision to essentially reverse himself. Let's talk about that because I was very excited to talk to you about this. We hadn't talked before. I didn't know what your opinion would be about it. I actually thought that you might say, you know, look, it's dangerous to second guess a judge's decision here. You know, the judge looked at the evidence. It would be in his right to reverse a conviction, especially if he came from. forward with the original finding of guilt.

I think the judge made some questionable comments or allegedly made some questionable comments. But from the other side, do you have any concern that a judge's decision here is not only being second guest, but he's essentially being fired for it? I mean, this is judging 101, okay? You can't rent, imagine if a jury had done this. If this case was in front of a jury, which in my opinion, it should have been, a jury can't come back three months later and say, we found this guy guilty.

We want to change our mind. No, once that decision is announced in open court. that's the decision. So if he had any question in his mind initially, he should have said, I need to think about this. I need to defer a ruling. You know, I want to take the matter under advisement. But he found this guy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And once that sentence is pronounced, a judge doesn't sit in an appellate capacity of himself. You can't reverse a decision. Jeopardy has attached. It's done. You cannot reverse yourself. This was completely inappropriate. And it goes against just like I said basics judging 101 let's be clear so there's you've never seen an

example where a judge has found someone guilty and then said you know what I'm reversing it that doesn't happen it shouldn't happen I've never heard of it happening and if it does it absolutely shouldn't because like I said it's no different than a jury pronouncing its verdict rendering its verdict a jury cannot then come back and say I changed my mind no what the decision is final and obviously this judge shouldn't have been making this decision this should have been in front of a jury And by the way, the commission also said that Adrian, for lack of a better word, lied. So they say that when Adrian appeared before the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board testified under oath, he claimed his decision to throw out Clinton's conviction was because the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was incapable of giving her consent.

But the commission said that that testimony was false. They said that he reversed the guilty conviction in order to avoid imposing the mandatory prison sentence on Clinton. So what do you think of that? Jesse, when I read the complaint, I was having deja vu. You know, I was a prosecutor for 10 years. I tried 75 jury trials. I had a trial once where a jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated assault with a firearm. When I told the judge that there was a three-year minimum mandatory, he actually threatened to do what this judge did and said, well, then I'm going to reconsider the motion for judgment of acquittal, which is basically after the state presents its case, the judge decides.

is there enough evidence to go to a jury? And my judge, and I won't tell you who it was, said, well, that I'm going to reconsider my motion for judgment of acquittal. And I said, you can't do that. And he was mad. He was not happy. He said the legislature had turned him into a robot, but he was smart enough to know,

I have to convict this guy, and I have to impose a minimum mandatory. So bring that to this case. I guarantee I would be willing to bet. This judge did not realize there was a minimum mandatory prison sentence. He intended to give this guy a county set, sentence, which would be a couple months in jail, when he realized that he could not, and he had to send him to prison for four years, he didn't know what to do, so he reversed himself. That is exactly what happened. I'd be willing to bet my experience on that. That's what happened. That is very, could be very likely what happened based on what we're hearing. I mean, let me give you, let me give you an example of what Adrian said. He spoke with Muddy River News and he said, quote, found a not guilty guy, not guilty after I mistakenly found him guilty after the trial on one count. After I found him not guilty on two other counts. Then he goes on to say, well, the people need to know

that Drew Clinton was not guilty and it's terrible. And I feel bad because I found him guilty. People are throughout all of this calling him a rapist, et cetera. That's terrible. I found he was not guilty of all of that. That's what I feel sorry about, this poor kid because he was not guilty, to have to go through that as an 18-year-old and be falsely accused of rape, then called a rapist and have to put up with all of that. That's terrible. What do you think? He's backpedaling. He realizes that you cannot reverse yourself. Again, I'm going to give you a situation of a jury. A jury cannot change their mind 90 days after their verdict is rendered. So he's backpedaling. He's trying to say, well,

it was for the, you know, judicial process, you know, a defendant who's not guilty. If he had found him not guilty from the beginning, seeing as the parties obviously waived their right to a jury trial, then I would say, absolutely. Someone who's not guilty should be found not guilty. And and that's the end of it. But again, he found beyond a reasonable doubt during the trial that this defendant was guilty of a count of aggravated assault. He then went and reversed himself and he needed to find some judicial support, some legal support. So he's saying, oh, well, I can't wrongly convict a man. Well, you already did that. So to me, the commission didn't believe this, nor do I. And I think what sits unwell for a lot of people here is the subject matter of this

criminal case right we're dealing with a sexual assault and it seems to suggest based on the alleged comments made by adrian that he didn't believe the victim right he's talking about that you know he didn't believe that she was incapable of giving consent that he allegedly made this comments that again this is what happens whenever parents allow teenagers to drink alcohol to swim in pools with their undergarments on what do you take away from those kinds of alleged statements well first of all he's trying to cover his tracks he's trying to come up with a legal basis for the change of his decision, but if those were the things that he believed, first of all, it's not appropriate. An opinion is this is what happens when a parent allows X, Y, and Z. That's an opinion.

A fact would be the children or the parties were swimming in a pool with their undergarments on. That would be a factual finding. What he said is not a factual finding. It's an opinion. And it's inappropriate and insensitive to a victim because he's almost suggesting that if you swim in your underwear, you deserve to be assaulted, which a judge has to be very careful about saying things like that. And I think that that was insensitive to say the least. And we know that Mr. Clinton cannot be retried. There's double jeopardy concerns. So that is the end of that case. I'm sure that is quite difficult for the victim in this case to talk about. But let me ask you about this. So this commission, they had a few options here. They could have reprimanded Adrian. They could have suspended Adrian.

They could have censured Adrian. But they decided to remove him from the bench. That is a very big deal. Talk to me about what those other options could have been and why you think they ultimately went with removing him. I think because he lied. I mean, you have judges that fall on their swords say, yes, I made a mistake. But if you lie about it, how can you be trusted with the lives of other people? You just can't. And his decision to do this, he couldn't just say, because he even admits, he couldn't just say, I've changed my mind because I don't want to impose a four-year minimum mandatory. I don't think that is a just outcome in this case.

And he says that he was going to find that four-year minimum mandatory statute unconstitutional, but he knew he would be reversed. That's essentially saying, I don't agree with the four-year men man, but I know I have to go with it or I'll be reversed. So therefore, I'm going to lie and say that I'm going to find something different than I found originally. So I think that's the reason for the removal. And again, I think that based on the facts before the commission, I think that that was justified. Tough case. Tough case.

I think it's pretty clear from watching Sidebar and hearing about all the stories we talk about that the world can be pretty scary, pretty unpredictable. And that is especially true if you get injured, if you get seriously hurt. At those times, you need to know how to protect your rights and whether you should be compensated. That's why I want to talk about Morgan and Morgan.

I have a great sponsor here on Sidebar, the largest personal injury law firm in the country. Not all law firms are created equal. And if you are going to take on big insurance companies that sometimes low ball offers, you're going to need a big firm. Morgan and Morgan, they don't settle for those low ball offers either. No, they fight for the money you deserve.

Now, if you don't believe me, we'll get this. In the past couple of months, Morgan and Morgan saw verdicts of $12 million in Florida, $6.8 million in New York, and $26 million in Philadelphia. Now, mind you, these are all considerably higher than the highest insurance offers for these accidents. I get this. The fee, absolutely free unless you win. Now, what I always am excited to talk about with Morgan and Morgan is how easy they make it for their clients they've completely modernized the whole process because from submitting

your claim to uploading documents to talking with your whole legal team it can all be done on your smartphone how easy is that you can see if you have a case in just minutes so to start your claim now with morgan and morgan go to for the people dot com slash lc sidebar or click the link in the description and pinned in the comments to ask about whether um by muddy river news whether there's any appeal process or anything. He responded there is not. I mean, you could file a lawsuit in a federal court for violation of property rights or whatever. That's never been successful. I wouldn't think about doing that. That's not an avenue, especially in Illinois and this climate. I wanted your take on that in terms of him ever being able to be back on the bench or him filing some sort of legal action to be

back on the bench. It sounds like, you know, he also, I think, told Muddy River News that he was planning on retiring anyway. But what do you make of his options moving forward and whether there's any way that he could be back on the bench? Okay. So in Florida, we do it a little. little differently. If a judge wants to contest charges brought against the judge, the judge has a trial, so to speak. Well, it is a trial, and it's in front of the commission. The commission makes findings, and then the Florida Supreme Court either says yes or no. Either goes along with their findings, goes along with their recommendation, or says, no, our Florida Supreme Court has said, no, we're not going to reprimand this judge. We're going to remove this judge. And that's the

final answer. It looks like in Illinois that it's only done by the state judiciary board, which may be comprised of, um, of their high, uh, court members. I see that there are judges on this board, whether or not those are their highest court, their Supreme court, uh, judges or not, but it looks like that's their process and there is no appeal. Judge Sherer, let me ask you this before we let you go. Um, so typically speaking, when a judge makes a decision, they're immune from facing any sort of, and, and if there's not this kind of situation where the commission not only questions what they did and removes them, But a judge's decision is generally immune from, they're immune from being facing any kind of legal liability, being sued for their decision, correct?

And so my question now is the fact that his decision has not only been questioned, it has now resulted in him being removed. Does he open himself up into any kind of legal liability, any kind of lawsuits? I don't believe so because I believe a judge still has sovereign immunity, immunity from the decisions that they make on the bench. He was still on the bench when he made this decision, so I don't think so. But I'll tell you this, the question of double jeopardy is very interesting. Because I've never heard of this type of situation, Jeopardy attached when he rendered his first verdict. Technically, his second verdict was an illegality and maybe should be reconsidered by the higher court. I believe the state would have a leg to stand on on an appeal, that this was, you know, a judge's decision that was, I believe there's a good argument that Jeopardy shouldn't attach here.

And I believe that if the state appealed, they'd have a shot at it. And I think because this is such a unique situation and because this is so unfair and unjust to the victim that perhaps, you know, the state might have an appeal. That's a really good point. In other words, his second consideration, his second ruling that this defendant is not guilty or that the conviction should be thrown out. You know, you say that's invalid. That was illegal. Correct. It's a really good point.

Interesting. I didn't think about it like that. Well, maybe we'll wait to see. And it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. I guarantee you they've never had a situation like this before because this kind of thing doesn't happen. I told you, in my case, it almost happened. It didn't happen. But I saw where the judge's thinking was, which is why I would bet that's exactly what happened in this case.

He didn't know about the four-year minimum mandatory. So interesting. All right. We will wait to see what happens. Judge Sherer, thanks so much for coming on. Really appreciate it. Love talking to you. Very nice to see you.

Have a great day. All right, so we want to continue this discussion about judge or maybe former Judge Robert Adrian being kicked off the bench now. With Cameron Vaughn, the young woman at the center of this case, Adrian had overturned Drew Clinton's conviction for sexually assaulting Cameron when she was 16. And now with Adrian being removed, let's talk about it. So Cameron, thanks for coming on. I know you like to go by Cammy. So I'm going to call you Cammy. And also, I just want to let everybody know you're in the backseat of a car right now.

You're not driving. We wouldn't have allowed this interview to happen if you were driving. diving, but I know you're busy, you're very busy right now and have a lot going on, so appreciate you taking the time. So, Cammy, first of all, let me just start by saying, I know that this must be a really difficult time, but it also might be a very interesting time for you in light of what happened. What is just your overall reaction to the judge that was overseeing this case now being removed off the bench? I mean, I was thrilled. Like, we've been waiting years for this now. It's been two years trying to get

a judge removed. We'd had petitions and we sent so many letters in and I was just beyond happy that they actually removed him. And you know what's interesting is he did an interview with a local media outlet where he says he feels Drew Clinton is not guilty. He feels empathetic that he was falsely accused of rape. I mean he's doubling down on his decision and his thoughts. What's your reaction to that? I think it's just ridiculous because the judge is the one who looked over all the evidence. He could see all the evidence, all the proof of what had happened.

He, I mean, it makes no sense why he's now saying that he's not guilty whenever he's admitted to it. I'm curious why you think Adrian did this. There are some talk that, well, he didn't realize what the minimum was, that if he convicted Clinton, that he didn't realize he would have to send him to prison for four years and said, up, up, I made a mistake. So now I'm just going to overturn his conviction because he didn't realize that he would have had to send him to prison. What do you think happened here?

Just all based on his opinion, like, he is a judge. He knows the minimum mandatory sentence for rape. He's had other rape cases before. He knows what the minimum sentence is. He just didn't want to do it. He chose to let him free. He said, by law, I'm supposed to sentence this man to the Department of Corrections, but I will not do that.

He knew that he was supposed to. He just, in his personal opinion, didn't want to do it. He said that, well, I looked at it again, and I think the prosecution did improve their case. Again, not because he didn't want to send Clinton to prison, but he says the prosecution didn't prove his case. I mean, one of the reasons we're covering this is because I've never heard of a judge finding someone guilty

and then saying, nope, nope, nope, I'm going to reverse it. I really haven't, I mean, unless somebody, there was evidence to suggest the person didn't commit the crime. You know, there was, we haven't heard of something like this. So, again, what do you think about that? Yeah, the thing is, there was no new evidence or anything. I mean, he found him guilty, and then nothing happened in between besides, I mean, sentencing day was the day he overturned his verdict.

But there was no new evidence or anything that happened in between to even make him change his mind. So I have no idea what went through what happened in between sentencing. and the verdict. What was your reaction when you found out that he was overturning Clinton's conviction? I had to leave the courtroom. Right when he said it, I just was in tears and couldn't be in there anymore. I didn't even hear the whole thing.

I had to leave. At one point, Adrian had said, this is what's happened when parents do not exercise the parental responsibilities when we have people, adults, having parties for teenagers, and they allow co-eds and female people to swim in their underwear in their swimming pool. And then he went on to say, no, underwear is not the same thing as swimming suits. They provide liquor to underage people. And you wonder how these things happen. What do you make of that statement? He's saying, he's literally blaming me, blaming my parents and the people at

the party for what happened. He said, this is what happens. What happens then? If I, if he thinks I didn't get raped, what happens when that people drink and swim in their underwear then? The fact that he doesn't believe this or he has doubt about it, can you explain to our viewers and our listeners what this attack, the impact it had on your life? I mean, I dropped out of school, dropped out of all sports, and went completely online. It was so controversial in the town where everyone thought they either had to be on my side

or Drew's side, and I just couldn't be around. I would get looks. People would come up to me everywhere, and it just was, it wasn't the ideal situation. I thought people, whenever we went public with it, would just believe me. And they most did, but then there was the people who did it. So it was super just controversial, and I ended up moving, actually, to Joplin, Missouri now. Yeah.

Cammy, by the way, if you can tell us, why was this decided by Judge Adrian? I mean, why did this case not go to a jury? It was his decision. I'm pretty sure. I mean, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure it was the judge who said, I'm going to set this as a bench trial instead of jury. We didn't. I had no idea why even, but.

Maybe Drew Clinton decided that. And speaking of Drew Clinton, by the way, now that it seems his conviction was overturned unless something would change, are you concerned about the fact that he could be out there and is in the world? I mean, what is your feelings on that? Absolutely. I mean, I'm glad. Thankfully.

He's not a rap near me and he is in Michigan, but that doesn't mean there's not other women in Michigan that he could hurt. Luckily, he did try to get his name off the registry list and the courts denied him, so he's still on the sex offender list. So at least he has to let jobs know and people know his neighbors. Maybe that'll help not let anything else happen, but I tried to do something about it and it didn't work. So hopefully he looks. learned from his mistake and doesn't do it to any other woman. Cammy, thank you so much for coming on again. I know this must be a really, really difficult time for you, a complicated time for you,

but, you know, it sounds to me like this is a situation where enough attention was brought to the matter. You were able to bring this to the commission's attention and clearly something was done about it. Again, wishing you the best of luck, but thank you so much for taking the time to talk a little bit more about this. Thank you for having me. Well, everybody, that is all we have for you right now here on Sidebar.

Thank you so much for watching us and joining us as always. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time. Add free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.