Third jury deadlocks over rape allegations against Paso Robles Marine Corps vet
For the third time in roughly four years, a San Luis Obispo jury was unable to agree whether a Paso Robles man raped his then-girfriend’s aunt after a drunken house party in 2014.
Following a two-week trial — the third attempt by the District Attorney’s Office to secure a conviction — a jury of five men and seven women could not agree whether Rian Mabus raped an intoxicated person. They polled 10-2 in favor of his guilt.
Because of that split, Superior Court Judge Jacquelyn Duffy declared a mistrial and accepted a motion by the prosecutor to dismiss the case.
Mabus, 34, would have faced a maximum of eight years in state prison if found guilty, according to assistant district attorney Eric Dobroth.
The District Attorney’s Office had previously taken the case to trial in July 2016, when Mabus was acquitted of a charge of rape of an unconscious person, but jurors hung on the rape of an intoxicated person charge. A second trial in June 2017 ended in another hung jury.
But the third trial was the first since the #MeToo movement and an evolving social climate about what constitutes sexual assault and how much validation may or may not be given to alleged victims.
In this case, the alleged victim is a 44-year-old woman from Tehachapi who testified that Mabus raped her while she was “blacked out” from alcohol in her niece’s Atascadero apartment during Labor Day weekend 2014.
Mabus, a former U.S. Marine, initially denied any sexual encounter occurred until authorities confronted him with DNA evidence. But he’s since testified that the incident was consensual and that the woman initiated the contact after other members of their party went to sleep.
As the case is dismissed, it will not be filed a fourth time.
Mabus left the courthouse shortly after the hearing. His defense attorney, Steven Rice, said he appreciated the jury’s attention and work.
Rice said that based on the available evidence, he didn’t believe the latest deadlock was a surprise to anyone involved in the third trial, noting that previous jurors in interviews expressed doubt that any combination of 12 people could unanimously agree on a verdict.
As for his client, Rice said he “feels like he can get on with his life now.”
“Things have been on hold for him, as far as his career and his family life,” Rice said.
A spokesperson for the District Attorney’s Office was not immediately available for comment.
The alleged victim in the case, clearly upset but physically calm and collected, thanked a group of jurors being polled outside the courtroom for their efforts and said she will “continue to fight for truth and justice.”
Jury disagreements over rape trial
In each trial, the aunt testified that she, her 16-year-old daughter and her daughter’s 16-year-old boyfriend traveled to San Luis Obispo County to stay at her adult niece’s Atascadero apartment for the night with her, her 13-year old son and Mabus, who was the niece’s boyfriend.
On Aug. 31, the adults began drinking cocktails while the teenagers watched TV, according to testimony.
The woman, who The Tribune is identifying as Jane Doe, testified that she consumed about five drinks over several hours, and became very intoxicated, running several times to vomit in the bathroom, where she claimed she lost consciousness. When she regained consciousness, she testified, Mabus was having sex with her on a bed in an unoccupied bedroom in the apartment.
Mabus testified that the incident was consensual; Doe initiated contact with him when he went into the bathroom after the remainder of their party had gone to sleep, he said.
Twelve jurors in the first trial in July 2016 acquitted Mabus of an additional felony charge of rape of an unconscious person, and hung evenly on the rape of an intoxicated person count.
During two days of heated deliberations in the second trial, the judge admonished the jury after a confrontation between two unidentified jurors and excused one juror due to a “breakdown in communication.” In the end, however, the jury again deadlocked on Mabus’s guilt, with nine voting “guilty” and three voting “not guilty.”
As in the second trial, jurors in the third were not informed of the existence of the previous prosecution attempts.
Alleged rape victim speaks out
The alleged victim in the case said she is not pleased with the final outcome, and said there was additional evidence in the case that jurors never heard.
“The way the system is set up, the system is created for criminals, to defend criminals,” she said.
Doe said she was grateful for the support of the DA’s Office, noting she personally had an hour-long meeting with Dobroth and District Attorney Dan Dow on Friday to discuss the issues in her latest trial she felt were unfair, she said.
“We addressed all these concerns and I believe they’re going to move forward addressing them so they don’t happen to anyone else ever again,” she said.
Asked about the toll the long case has taken on her well-being, Doe replied: “I’ve been going through this for over five years now.”
“This happened Sept. 1, 2014, at around 1 a.m.,” she said. “And I’m still here now.”
Jurors had ‘grounds for reasonable doubt’
Jurors deliberated over Mabus’ single charge for a total of two full days.
Court records show they sent Duffy a note Friday afternoon, saying they had been at an impasse since they began over two of the jury instructions. Another note to the judge asked for read-back of a police report that wasn’t admitted into evidence.
On Monday afternoon, the jury foreman wrote that there had been a “slight shift,” and jurors wanted to pick back up Tuesday morning, court records show.
At about 11:40 a.m. Tuesday, the foreman wrote to Duffy: “Unfortunately (in terms of a unanimous verdict), although we have seen some movement, it is clear that some members are firmly convinced that they have grounds for reasonable doubt, and are clear that where they stand now is where they will continue to stand.”
The juror wrote: “At this point, trying to persuade any change verges on coercion, which is unfair.”
Following Thursday’s hearing, that jury foreman, who declined to give his name, said the jury did what it was instructed to do: focus on the evidence they heard, review the evidence, and consider the reliability of witnesses, he said.
As for the deliberations, the foreman said there was “some shifting” between guilt and reasonable doubt for a few jurors, but deliberations were “very collegial.”
“After putting our feelings aside, we were at an impasse, (and) we felt it wasn’t our job to convince people,” he said. “As the judge said, reasonable minds can disagree.”
This story was originally published November 26, 2019 at 2:02 PM.
