It has been a few days since the criminal charges were dsmissed against the VP by a judge, not by the jury. The judge took the decision into her hands.
The VP was found culpable in a civil trial for the shooting injury to the teacher in a first grade class in the elementary school in Virginia. Civil cases on behalf of the children are still active and pending against the VP. This potential for monetary gain was used against the parents when they took the stand this past week to testify in the criminal trial.
No one at the school, other than the VP was indicted by a grand jury on criminal charges related to the children. I find that piece of information telling. Evidently, the judge did not.
I am a proponent of due process especially since I know first hand how due process can be denied.
In this case, whose legal rights were given priority in this trial, the children or the principal? When you listen to the lawyers, the judge and this one example of legal commentary, you may form your own opinion. The following is my opinion.
I do not believe the children, of whom this trial was about, per the prosecutor and defense, received due process. Here are a few reasons why I formed this opinion. They are not listed in any scale of most importance. The reasons on my opinion are all important.
Reason 1: Was it the type of charge? A grand jury thought it was chargeable offense and a trial jury was selected and sworn in. This was not a bench trial. The 14 members of the jury were not in the courtroom when the judge made a unilateral decision.
COULD the jury. if questioned about the validity of grand jury findings before the trial, opted out based on a question about the charges?
CAN that type of question even be asked at jury selection? Do you think this is a valid charge? Should we proceed?
Reason 2: The defense threw red herrings into the case to distract. I know that is a common trick of the trade, but is it due process for minors? Example: Was a student in the classroom? Was there monetary gain in a pending civil case? This questioned the motivation of the parents whose kids watched or heard gunfire in their school. The defense lawyers underplayed school policy. The defense questionned every video or policy presentation to underplay and discount their validity.
Reason 3: Underplayed seriousness of impact on the children because no child got shot or killed.
Reason 4: As difficult as it may have been, the children were not allowed to testify on their own on what they heard or witnessed, not even in a controlled setting.
Reason 5: The defense lawyer kept interrupting and used the lawyer technique of asking the same question several times. Both the judge and the prosecutor said "asked and answered" for many questions.
Reason 6: HEARSAY. The adults, staff and parents were not allowed to relay the utterances of the children. So who could speak on the children's behalf?
Reason 7: Lawyers are lawyers. They talk out of both sides of their mouths. The judge and defense lawyers, but even the prosecutor, were not willing to allow the whole senario to be flushed out.
Reason 8: The prosecutor did not ask about the relationship of the principal with staff or the shooter's parents. Was there a prejudice of any sort for the student or the shooter's parents that made the VP reluctant and fail to take more action? The parents, except for that week, evidently were sitting in the classroom daily under a plan to mitigate the violent outbursts. Did the principal know the mother carried drugs and a gun in her purse? Did the vice principal find out so the parents could not sit in class anymore? Was child protective services involved before the shooting that teachers did not know? How did a young child become so violent?
Reason 9: No one legally requested the school records of the shooter. JT was protected more than the other children.
Reason 10: What was the racial make up of the school? Was there a DEI program in place? What training in school violence prevention program was used?
Reason 11: The video tape of the VP, done on Zoom in 2023 by the school HR representstive was shown in which the VP used the pronoun We when talking about what was done. She was covering for her inaction then. The defense tried to undermine the authotity of the HR representative. The VP is no longer employed at that school district. Did she fight for unemployment which is a court of law? How soon did she lawyer up? Why wasn't a policy expert at the school called by the prosecutor to explain the chain of command?
Reason 12 : Personal experience
I worked in a white picket fence school district. The violent child was a 7 year old, red haired white kid whose mother was a cop. The family participated in Civil War Reenactments. Someone gets shot, and you eat lunch with that "dead" person. He had access to guns.
The mother told us in a meeting that the father called me and the other teachers "bitches out to get him." The white principal had it out for me and showed a prejudice towards me, also white. (I was raised in the "hood" though in Plainfield, NJ). The Child Study Team gave nothing for the rights of my other students or for me. (My book does explain that!)
The day after the events that led me to speaking up and already in writing for my class, this note on a response to another report by a child is what I received from my principal. You may now understand why I question every school violence episode with or without a gun.
The hearsay rebuttals by the defense attorneys was like hearing chalk scraping on a chalkboard.
I wanted to scream.
What would you do if you received this after reporting serious concerns for safety at your workplace?
P.S. Initials of minors is clearly allowed.
Marian R. Carlino
May 23, 2026
This link is from a lawyer who has a YouTube channel. He follows and comments on trials. I only follow for the school violence related coverage. He is one of a few I pay aytention to.
Legal justice is important. In my opinion, this lawyer podcaster does fair coverage. I always read the comment section as well. The comments are an important part of most podcasts.
I do not allow comments on this blog. I do not want my message confused with other commentary. My blog is not monetized. Comments can always be related on Amazon or any site when searching for my book if interested.
https://www.youtube.com/live/jt9U3a9xNUY?si=N3Tcg1kIKR47nLkn
Love.
Marian