Radonda Vaught Trial

Updated:   Published

radonda-vaught-trial-found-guilty.jpg.c91503d1294ead7440386735fe75a597.jpg

"Fourteen Nashvillians were chosen Monday, March 21, 2022 to sit as a jury in the case of RaDonda Vaught, a former Vanderbilt University Medical Center nurse charged in the death of a patient. She faces charges of reckless homicide and impaired adult abuse in the 2017 death of Charlene Murphey."

For more on this story, see

Jury chosen in homicide trial of ex-Vanderbilt nurse RaDonda Vaught after fatal drug error

RaDonda Vaught’s Arraignment - Guilty or Not of Reckless Homicide and Patient Abuse?

Tennessee Nurse RaDonda Vaught - Legal Perspectives of Fatal Medication Error

What do you think the verdict should/will be?

Specializes in Research & Critical Care.
On 4/9/2022 at 10:18 PM, MunoRN said:

Civil law is not black and white, criminal law makes a point of being clearly defined. 

I can't tell if this is a joke or not..

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
On 4/11/2022 at 4:10 AM, MaxAttack said:

I can't tell if this is a joke or not..

You're welcome to more clearly state why you disagree.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Research & Critical Care.
29 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

You're welcome to more clearly state why you disagree.

Since with RaDonda we're talking about Tennessee and really it's specifically their laws we should be looking at, I'll just present this excerpt from FindLaw's legal editors and writers (emphasis added is mine):

"Reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide are more loosely defined in Tennessee to address the wide variety of behaviors that could be considered beyond the realm of acceptable to the degree that the actions are criminal."

I get that sometimes we get in too deep with these arguments and start writing from emotion rather than logic but making up and then trying to defend positions like differences between civil and criminal law isn't going to help anyone.

There will be legal experts that disagree on this case just as certain as there will be medical experts that disagree on any given topic. That's how this world works. I think we can all agree that regardless of how we feel it should have been handled the facts are that this case was presented to a criminal court, was found to have adequate legal standing to be brought to trial, and resulted in a jury that included a registered nurse and respiratory therapist finding her guilty of two crimes.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
32 minutes ago, MaxAttack said:

Since with RaDonda we're talking about Tennessee and really it's specifically their laws we should be looking at, I'll just present this excerpt from FindLaw's legal editors and writers (emphasis added is mine):

"Reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide are more loosely defined in Tennessee to address the wide variety of behaviors that could be considered beyond the realm of acceptable to the degree that the actions are criminal."

I get that sometimes we get in too deep with these arguments and start writing from emotion rather than logic but making up and then trying to defend positions like differences between civil and criminal law isn't going to help anyone.

There will be legal experts that disagree on this case just as certain as there will be medical experts that disagree on any given topic. That's how this world works. I think we can all agree that regardless of how we feel it should have been handled the facts are that this case was presented to a criminal court, was found to have adequate legal standing to be brought to trial, and resulted in a jury that included a registered nurse and respiratory therapist finding her guilty of two crimes.

The article stated that reckless and criminally negligent homicide are loosely defined than manslaughter charges, not that they are more loosely defined that their counterparts in Civil law.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Research & Critical Care.
9 hours ago, MunoRN said:

The article stated that reckless and criminally negligent homicide are loosely defined than manslaughter charges, not that they are more loosely defined that their counterparts in Civil law.

Ffs, did you actually read the article?

"In Tennessee, involuntary manslaughter is divided into three categories of vehicular homicide, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide."

https://www.findlaw.com/state/tennessee-law/tennessee-involuntary-manslaughter-laws.html

Reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide are part of what's referred to as involuntary manslaughter. There is no individual "involuntary manslaughter" law in Tennessee. This is exactly what I mean about making up positions. You've devolved into a family member that reads the first article on WebMD and then comes into an ICU telling the intensivist the vent settings are wrong and then won't listen when someone tries talking to them. I've really tried to be patient but this is getting out of hand. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
10 hours ago, MaxAttack said:

Ffs, did you actually read the article?

"In Tennessee, involuntary manslaughter is divided into three categories of vehicular homicide, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide."

https://www.findlaw.com/state/tennessee-law/tennessee-involuntary-manslaughter-laws.html

Reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide are part of what's referred to as involuntary manslaughter. There is no individual "involuntary manslaughter" law in Tennessee. This is exactly what I mean about making up positions. You've devolved into a family member that reads the first article on WebMD and then comes into an ICU telling the intensivist the vent settings are wrong and then won't listen when someone tries talking to them. I've really tried to be patient but this is getting out of hand. 

It didn't say there is no manslaughter law in Tennessee, they actually explain what voluntary manslaughter is in detail, you're referring specifically to how Tennessee defines involuntary manslaughter, and it's a fair point I should have been more specific in referring to "manslaughter" as referring to voluntary manslaughter.

But the statement you asked whether it was a joke, which I assume meant you disagreed with it, was that civil law is less clearly defined than criminal law, which you then pointed out the differences between two criminal case charges, not a criminal and civil case.

And yes, I did read your article, including the part that points out the difference between a Civil case and a Criminal case:

Quote

Civil Case

If a defendant is found not guilty of any homicide in criminal court, the victim's family may still file a wrongful death lawsuit in civil court. Wrongful death cases have a lower burden of proof so a defendant can be found liable for wrongful death, but not be convicted of any crime associated with the death.

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
On 4/9/2022 at 7:18 PM, MunoRN said:

Civil law is not black and white, criminal law makes a point of being clearly defined.  Negligent homicide is defined as criminal negligence that results in death, if the prosecutor didn't think that the individual acts, not cumulative, that led up to the death should be considered gross negligence then it's certainly odd that's exactly what the prosecution argued.  

 

The above was your earlier comment to MaxAttack.  You said that "Civil law is not black and white, criminal law makes a point of being clearly defined."  MaxAttack replied to this comment, saying:  "I can't tell if this is a joke or not."  

Now you have made the comment below in reply to MaxAttack's reply to you where he/she said:  "I  can't tell if this is a joke or not", but your comment/reply below doesn't correspond to MaxAttack's reply to the comment you made above about criminal law.

3 hours ago, MunoRN said:

But the statement you asked whether it was a joke, which I assume meant you disagreed with it, was that civil law is less clearly defined than criminal law, which you then pointed out the differences between two criminal case charges, not a criminal and civil case.

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Research & Critical Care.
13 hours ago, MunoRN said:

It didn't say there is no manslaughter law in Tennessee, they actually explain what voluntary manslaughter is in detail, you're referring specifically to how Tennessee defines involuntary manslaughter, and it's a fair point I should have been more specific in referring to "manslaughter" as referring to voluntary manslaughter.

But the statement you asked whether it was a joke, which I assume meant you disagreed with it, was that civil law is less clearly defined than criminal law, which you then pointed out the differences between two criminal case charges, not a criminal and civil case.

And yes, I did read your article, including the part that points out the difference between a Civil case and a Criminal case:

I didn't touch on voluntary manslaughter in TN because A) it really has nothing to do with what we were discussing ("Tennessee Involuntary Manslaughter Laws" and further evidenced by the fact you had to link to an entirely separate article) and B) voluntary manslaughter doesn't have a single thing to do with this thread or this case. I'm sure we can agree on this.

Regarding your other quote, I must be missing something. It states civil cases have a lower burden of proof (which is why OJ Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges but still liable for the deaths in the civil suit). This is pretty elementary and has nothing to do with clarity of law.

You keep wanting to back yourself into this corner without a shred of evidence to back it up and I'm not even sure what your end game is. What are you hoping to prove?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CWON.
On 3/24/2022 at 9:17 AM, FolksBtrippin said:

It doesn’t fit the definition at all. She was working. She wasn’t drag racing, making a tik tok, etc. She was trying to do her job. She was incompetent, not reckless. 

And it is of no consequence at all whether she is a quality person.

She was reckless.  Incompetence would indicate she didn't have the skills needed to do the job.   She absolutely had the skills and CHOSE not to use them.  She, by her own testimony, was not stressed, overtired, under pressure, a victim of short staffing, in an emergent situation,  etc. While there very well may have been some learned complacency in action...that doesn't lessen accountability. IF ANYTHING, it shows that nurses across the spectrum should refuse unsafe assignments instead of signing a sheet of protestation.   We need to prevent fatigue syndromes because we ARE held to reasonable expectations.  We need to stop making it easy for hospitals to continue shirking THEIR responsibilities to us.  Our hospitals would fix issues far more quickly if nurses banded together and just said "no" to unsafe conditions.  This nurse's potential ramifications set an example of expectation and those expectations are reasonable. 

This was not a mistake.  This wasn't driving down the road and falling asleep at the wheel without even realizing it.  This was doing 80 in a school zone during recess.  The differences are clear.  While we are allowed to be human and to make mistakes, the public has a right to expect that we will be held accountable for gross negligence....which this was by all reports. 

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion