Posted on 07/13/2007 7:49:43 AM PDT by BGHater
Before a jury was even seated, a judge declared a mistrial Thursday in a sex-assault case where he had barred the words "rape" and "victim," among others.
Judge Jeffre Cheuvront of Lancaster County District Court said protests and other publicity surrounding the rape case against Pamir Safi, 33, would have made it too difficult for jurors to ignore everything they heard before the trial, which had been expected to begin next week.
A jury was in the process of being selected when Cheuvront declared a mistrial.
Safi is accused of raping Tory Bowen in 2004. He said they had consensual sex, but she said she was too drunk to agree to sex and that he knew it.
Cheuvront barred attorneys and witnesses from using words including "rape," "victim," "assailant" and "sexual-assault kit," and ordered witnesses to sign papers saying they wouldn't use the words. Words such as "sex" and "intercourse" were allowed.
State law allows judges to bar words or phrases that could prejudice or mislead a jury.
Bowen, 24, was fighting the ban, arguing that it hurt her testimony because she had to pause and make sure her words wouldn't violate the ban. She said: "I want the freedom to be able to point [to Safi] in court and say, 'That man raped me.' "
The Associated Press usually does not identify accusers in sex-assault cases, but Bowen has allowed her name to be used publicly because of the issue over the judge's language restrictions.
In a written explanation of his ruling, Cheuvront said Bowen and her friends drummed up pretrial publicity that tainted potential jurors.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Sounds like a Judge who is ready for a forced retirement.
I suppose that a written and notarized contracts are now necessary for sex? After all, that is not so far off from what it used to be, when the only legitimate sex was with a marriage contract, or legally in a brothel.
Pamir Safi, eh ? Sure sounds like one of those ROP members. Now we can’t be offending them, now, can we ?
What dry cleaners does he use for his pants?
Sounds like the judge knows the case is B.S. case of “she changed her mind in the morning and thus it is rape.”
"Mr. Barton, if you object once more, you will spend the next 3 days in the county jail." The attorney sat down and was quiet. Judges had balls in those days.
Who is this PC nut?
Sounds like the judge is working pretty hard for the defendant. A good reporter would start digging. A good DA should probably start subpoenaing financial records.
In that case he should have the courage to grant a motion to dismiss, or let the case go to trial and direct an acquittal after the jury is seated, instead of manipulating the system.
I totally agree with the judge. The case and charges are highly dubious. Think of the Duke “rape” case.
The jails are full of innocent men imprisoned for rape. We know this since retrospective DNA testing is releasing scores of meneach year.
He probably doesn’t have discretion to do so, and has to rely on things that are within his discretion.
Judges just can’t “dimiss” a case. If there is one smidge of evidence (which there is; there is this lady’s word), then it has to go before a jury to determine the credibility of witnesses.
Judges determine questions of law and admit evidence.
Juries decide questions of fact.
This bears no resmeblance whatsoever to the Duke case.
He actually engaged in sexual behavior with the complainant.
The judge is a moron.
Yes, and it appears the judge is doing his job to prevent sensationlistic claims and inflamitory words from causing a weak juror or two to rely on emotion, instead of facts.
The guy is up on charges of sexual assault.
You can't get more sensational than that.
The plaintiff should be free to give their interpretation of the events and the defendant should be free to give his.
In the United States, a juror or two cannot convict. Twelve can.
Sounds a bit like the Kennedy Smith trial a few years ago. He was acquitted.
This judge is a turkey.
It’s the nature of this kind of trial that the woman accuses the man of rape, the man says that she consented but was too drunk to remember, etc., etc., and the jury sorts it out and gives its verdict.
So, how on earth can the jury give a verdict if one side or the other isn’t allowed to state its case?
Like I said, this judge is a turkey. He needs to be put out to pasture (oh, no, that’s for cows; well, whatever).
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.