Posted on 11/01/2021 3:21:01 PM PDT by ex91B10
A judge dealt a blow to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense Monday during a pretrial hearing in Manhattan federal court, ruling that her alleged victims can testify anonymously at her upcoming trial.
U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan granted prosecutors' request to let witnesses testify under pseudonyms.
The jurist cited the sex-trafficking cases of Nxivm leader Keith Raniere and R&B singer R. Kelly in which victims were permitted to testify anonymously at their federal trials.
"Given the sensitive and inflammatory nature of the conduct alleged, such publicity may cause further harassment and embarrassment, and other alleged victims of sex crimes may be deterred from coming forward," Nathan said.
The judge also shot down the defense's request to bar prosecutors from using the word "victim" in front of the jury.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Anonymously? Let’s just BURN the Constitution, since we’re not following it anymore. Something about confronting your accusers? All well. That’s over now.
Constitution no longer followed. Dead letter.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
*****
You’re trying to make an Old America point there, this New America.
In New America being “confronted with the witnesses against him” doesn’t mean the defendant gets to know who they are, see their face, or hear their unscrambled voice, nor does he even need to be able to ask the witness any questions.
The defendant is being “confronted” by the anonymous taped testimony.
There’s always a “good reason” to ignore the Constitution it seems. It’s too inconvenient to LEs and Courts in the pursuit of their aims of “public safety.
So said every dictator in history.
The Founding Fathers would instantly recognize what is happening here.
You can no longer face your accuser? When did this happen?
Too many attorneys, but too little justice. If any profession in the US needs dramatic sweeping reform, it’s the legal profession. That includes judges, definitively.
Being a victim of a sex crime, is no different than being a victim of being hit in the head with a steel pipe.
Those who would treat the victims differently, need to grow up.
Hmm...isn’t there some sort of weird right to confront your accuser? Also, if the judge is already calling them victims maybe he’s already made up his mind. Amis the trial just about sentencing?
That is a bad ruling. Sets a horrible precedent.
We have a RIGHT to face our accusers !!!
Perhaps they are trying to give her an excellent chance on appeal?
I seriously doubt they will actually be unknown to the defendant and her lawyers. I think what they are talking about here is that they’d be able to testify anonymously, that is, not be identified to the press and public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.