Executive Summary
- Jesse Butler pleaded no contest to sexual assault charges and was sentenced as a youthful offender, avoiding prison time.
- A victim’s attorney claims the state violated Marsy’s Law by failing to consult the victim regarding the plea agreement.
- Legal experts advise that the U.S. Constitution’s Double Jeopardy clause likely prevents the court from increasing Butler’s sentence.
- A two-day hearing is scheduled for April to examine the prosecution’s adherence to victim rights statutes.
STILLWATER, Okla. — A judge in Payne County has scheduled an evidentiary hearing to determine if a victim’s rights were violated during the plea negotiations of Jesse Butler, a former Stillwater high school student who pleaded no contest to multiple sexual assault charges last year. The hearing, set for April 13 and 14, will address allegations that the prosecution failed to properly consult with the victim before finalizing a plea agreement that granted Butler youthful offender status.
According to court documents, Butler was 18 years old when the plea deal was reached, though the charges stemmed from incidents occurring when he was 16 and 17. Under the terms of the agreement, Butler was sentenced to community service, rehabilitation, and outpatient counseling rather than incarceration. Rachel Bussett, an attorney representing one of the victims, argues that the state violated Marsy’s Law, which guarantees crime victims the right to be informed and heard during legal proceedings, particularly before plea deals or sentencing occur.
Bussett stated that her clients felt excluded from the judicial process and believe justice was not served. The upcoming hearing is expected to feature testimony from several witnesses, including the Payne County assistant district attorney, regarding the communications between the prosecution and the victims. The presiding judge has described the purpose of the hearing as an opportunity to resolve serious issues and factual discrepancies regarding the representation of the victims’ interests.
Legal analysts suggest that while the hearing will provide a forum for the victim’s grievances, altering Butler’s sentence remains legally improbable. Ed Blau, an Oklahoma attorney and legal expert, noted that the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from double jeopardy, preventing a defendant from being prosecuted or sentenced twice for the same offense once a plea has been accepted. Blau indicated that while the sentence is unlikely to change, the victims may have grounds to pursue separate legal action against the prosecution or the State of Oklahoma for potential statutory violations.
Constitutional and Procedural Implications
This case highlights the complex legal tension between statutory victims’ rights, such as those enshrined in Marsy’s Law, and fundamental federal constitutional protections. While state laws increasingly mandate active victim participation in the justice process, the Fifth Amendment provides a rigid barrier against resentencing once a court has rendered a final judgment, regardless of procedural errors in victim notification. The scheduled hearing represents a significant procedural review of prosecutorial conduct rather than a mechanism to revisit the defendant’s culpability. It is important to note that all individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
