Danny Reynolds
Posted by Webmaster in Administrators, High Schools, ME-FV, Not Guilty, Texas
(06/28/08 – Initial BBT Report)
Danny Ray Reynolds Jr., 33, Assistant Principal at Vidor High School in Vidor, Texas has been indicted by an Orange County grand jury on two counts of sexual assault and two counts of an improper relationship between educator and student.
The grand jury indictment alleges that Reynolds had a sexual relationship with an underage student that lasted from November of 2005 to January of 2008.
Reportedly Reynolds turned himself in and was thereafter released on $10,000 bond.
If convicted Reynolds would face a punishment range from two years probation to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
02/03/09 – Trial Underway
The jury trial of Danny Reynolds on charges of sexual assault and improper relationship between an educator and a student is currently underway.
Reynolds faces up to 20 years in prison with a maximum $10,000 fine if convicted on all charges.
02/04/09 – Defendant Testifies and Displays Legs
Earlier the alleged victim testified during the prosecution’s case against Danny Reynolds and described various alleged events, places and the appearance of the defendant’s body, particularly scars on Danny Reynold’s legs. The witness told jurors of the the alleged relationship between Reynolds and herself and described the home of Reynolds’ mother where some of the alleged sexual activity was said to taken place.
The alleged victim testified that she and Reynolds had sex at least 20 times from November 2005, when she was 14, to January 2008.
During the defense portion of the trial Reynolds’ mother testified about the condition of her home in the wake of Hurricane Rita. She also testified that her son had no scares on his legs.
The point regarding scars on the defendant’s legs was driven home when Reynolds attorney requested and the judge granted permission for Reynolds to leave the courtroom and change into shorts prior to taking the witness stand. With the lower portion of Reynolds body dressed in shorts jurors were permitted to walk past the witness stand to view Reynold’s legs. Following the display of the defendants legs he left the courtroom to change back into the suit he was wearing prior to the demonstration.
Other defense witnesses have testified regarding the appearance of Reynolds’ mother’s home during the time in question and about events, all of which conflicted with the testimony of the alleged victim.
02/05/09 – Jury Begins Deliberations
The jury in the trial of Danny Reynolds has begun deliberations after the defense concluded it case and both sides made their closing statements.
In the prosecution’s closing statement Kelly James said Reynolds “saw a vulnerable child and he took advantage of her.” James also characterized Reynolds as “sneaky and conniving.”
Defense attorney Larry Hunter told the jurors that the girl, now 17, “concocted this story and it doesn’t make sense.”. Hunter also told jurors, “I think you have reasonable doubt by the truckloads in this case”.
02/06/09 – Not Guilty Verdict
A seven-man, five-woman jury has returned a not guilty verdict on all counts in the sexual assault trial of a Vidor High School assistant principal Danny Reynolds.
References:
Jury: Reynolds not guilty in student sex case (02/06/09)
Jury acquits Vidor Asst. Principal Danny Reynolds on all charges (02/06/09)
Jury left to decide if Vidor administrator had affair with student (02/05/09)
Teen describes long relationship in Vidor assistant principal’s sex trial (02/03/09)
Assistant Principal Indicted on Charges of Sexual Assault, Improper Relationship (06/27/08)
COVER UP at Vidor ISD District witholds records in Reynolds case (06/21/08)
Behind the COVER-UP Vidor assistant principal under investigation (06/21/08)
Entries (RSS)
July 4th, 2009 at 10:22 am
as punishment for lying the accuser should be forced to marry him
February 21st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
It seems this guy will get away with this. There is know way this girl could know about a picture of him and his sister being on the dresser in his moms bedroom, or the new island in the kitchen W/ black and sparkles in it. Also the officer said that he saw the marks on his leg when Renolds called him to his parents house to talk as friends. The officer took pictures of his leg and the island in the kitchen. Renolds mom and wife said she must have gone over to the house and taken pictures. I guess she stole a car at age 14 and drove it over there too… get real
February 17th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Enough already, you people are so hung up on the “scars” only because it was reported wrong in the “Beaumont Enterprise” and covered wrong in the news media. Let’s get it right. The chief of police testified again the last day of testimony and said again “the girl did not say scars”. He testified the girl didn’t know what there were, they were dark areas on his inner thighs. I may be in the minority but I think it would be totally inappropriate for any teacher to call a student on her cell phone 37 times, some as late as 9pm. Yes, he was found not guilty by 12 jurors, that was their opinion on the information they were given. Now let’s just get over it.
In keeping with site policies as outlined in the “Comments” page the last name of the person purported to have left this comment has been altered to an initial only by the site moderator.
February 8th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
It is extremely hard to be a teacher in the public schools these days. To those who think that teaching is just a part-time job that pays a full-time salary, come on and try it. But they haven’t got the nerve. It is SO EASY to get accused of something, but it is impossible to get forgiven once found innocent. That is a fact, for that awful thought remains in the forefront of peoples’ minds forever, and it never goes away even with time.
Never trust the police! Always have a good attorney. And remember, once you are accused, your reputation will always be ruined… forever and ever.
In keeping with site policies as outlined in the “Comments” page the last name of the person purported to have left this comment has been altered to an initial only by the site moderator.
February 7th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Since the accuser is no longer a “victim”, her name should be published far and wide. Let the world know that she is a liar and every male should stay 50 yards away from her. (Deleted by site moderator)
This comment has been edited by site moderator in accordance with site policies as outlined in the “Comments” page.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:33 am
It should be a law that a person who falsely accuses somone of a crime be sentenced to that same amount of time that the accused would have faced.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Law – I see the point you are making, but look at the heading in a green box in big bold letters NOT GUILTY. That says a lot 1) the cops that arrested him look like the Keystone Cops 2) The DA has mud on his face for wasting money on weak cases 3) An innocent person can find hope in knowing not everyone goes to jail because of poorly conducted police investigations.
Danny Ray Reynolds, is a hero!!! He stood his ground and said no, where others fell under the pressure and plea deal out. I don’t think having his name on this web site is a disgrace to Mr Reynolds, I also think in the long run this site will help him to win the law suits he should be filing against the police and the ‘not so smart’ DA, because it shows how wide spread the case was and the hardship Mr Reynolds had to live with for many months.
The part I don’t get is, after it was proven that she lied, why didn’t the DA drop the case and save face, instead off looking like a bigger numb head.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I am not sure who owns this site, but it might be in your best interest to remove Mr. Reynolds from your site. The mere fact that his is listed on “badbadteacher.com” could be easily a def of character offense and subject you to lawsuit. He was found not guilty by a group of his peers.
Good luck
Our policy regarding the removal of posts is discussed in our “FAQ” available from the masthead menu on every page throughout the site.
The following is a direct quote from that “FAQ”:
(10) Q. If someone asks will you remove a particular post?
A. No – unless what we posted is factually wrong, should not have been posted at all or in cases where a person is found not guilty or against whom charges were dropped and they or their attorney specifically asks us to delete coverage of their case.
And there is a very specific reason for this policy and that reason is Google and others that archive just about everything that appears on the Internet. If we were to take down our coverage of this case today now that a not guilty verdict has been handed down it would do nothing about the archived coverage from prior to today.
In other words, if we took down our coverage of the case, from now on anyone searching Google or other archival sites for anything on the accused would be offered the “outdate archive” of our coverage of the case and not our complete coverage which now indicates that the accused was found not guilty.
At the very minimum it takes hours and in some cases days or even weeks for the archival sites to update the latest coverage of these cases and that is the reason for our policy.
And while I appreciate your sage legal advice, we will continue to abide by our policies as set forth above. – webmaster
February 5th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Mr. Reynolds – SUE, the PD, the DA, and the media. How dumb can the cops and the DA be. Didn’t the cops look at his legs? Witch Hunt.
I have a few friends that work in a DA office, and what happens is the cops over react, trusting the gut feeling instead of facts and arrest and charge someone. Even if the case is weak to save face with the public the DA will try to plea deal out of it. Very few people will take it to jury because of the cost, and most settle for a plea deal. It is a dirty game that cops and the DA are playing, it is a power trip these cops are on. Remember if a cops says something doesn’t make it the truth. Cops are very willing to lie on police reports, until the video comes out, and then they say “the video doesn’t show both sides” and people believe it.
February 4th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
NOT GUILTY!!! The accuser is being caught in her own lies.