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 ...
That is ridiculous. How is "he forced me to have sex" more inflammatory than "he raped me"? And even if it is, the accuser is clearly claiming that she was raped. Unless I misunderstand, rape is what the defendant was charged with. It's beyond absurd to have a trial where the crime being decided cannot be mentioned.
Are you saying that both might have been unconscious while they were having sex? Seems highly unlikely to me.
“If she wasn’t unconscious ....”
Thats just it. She contends she was unconscious, or so incapacitated as to have been unable to say ‘yes’ or assent. Whether she was or not is the question.
It is up to the prosecution to prove their case.
If what she says is true, then the only evidence the prosecution is presenting of a crime is the testimony of a witness that admits she was too drunk to remember the incident clearly.
If she's telling the truth, there is no credible evidence of a crime.
If she's lying, she is the one committing a crime.
Still, if what she claims is true, she may have been raped.
It is POSSIBLE that she may have been raped. However, the case should have never have been brought and should be thrown out because it is not possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was raped.
If this guy is convicted it is because the jury ignores the facts and rules emotionally based on the accusation of a horrible crime having been committed.
We are all responsible for our own actions, and in this case, this woman needs to accept responsibility for consuming so much alcohol that she became that drunk. It is because of her own actions that she now says she was unable to consent, and it is because of those actions that it is so much uncertainty about what happened.
He should be held accountable for his actions as well, however there is no credible evidence that his actions were illegal.
Hey, I’m sorry for disagreeing with you!
I won’t do it again.
What do you want me to think?
You can think whatever you want, but if you support forbidding the word ‘rape’ in a rape case or ‘murder’ in a murder case or ‘robbery’ in a robbery case, then I hope you’re not a judge.
How do you know? There could be all sorts of evidence. What was their relationship? If they hated each other, it’s a pretty good bet she wouldn’t have consented no matter how drunk she was. Likewise, what did the physical examination show? If there was trauma, it is also unlikely that she had consented. No one consents to sex that is painful or injurious.
We don’t know what kind of evidence there may or may not be. Trying to prove innocence or guilt based on a newspaper account is pointless.
Its a state law, and has little to do with being PC. Rape is a legal term, as is sexual assault. As a witness she is not qualified to render that decision, that what the jury is for. It would be like Darth Vader becoming his own light saber. Its a color word, a buzz word. Ive asked three women that I know who have been raped and they said it wasn’t rape, just naivety and/or stupidity with a helping of entitlement and ‘poor me’ thrown in.
“the defence is allowed to call the rapist a “honorable and upstanding member of the community”, but the prosecution cannot mention that the guy has a track record.”
Actually, if the defense “opens the door” to reputation witnesses (the “honorable” testimony), the prosecution can then ask about specific intances of bad prior act. (E.g., “So he had a good reputation? Even though he raped Mrs. X on 1/1/2001 and Mrs. Y on 1/1/2003? Would knowledge of those events change your opinion?”)
If she was so incapacitated how does she know she didn’t say yes and just does not recall the next morning. Also, what’s to keep this guy from claiming that she did consent.
You know we used to call a bottle of wine used in the performance of sex, seduction. Women used to be smart enough to see it coming and quit drinking and go home. I’m sorry, but if this guy got this girl drunk so she would have sex with him she bears the responsibility, unless of course he forced her to drink.
Actually, they are two closely related things. ‘Incapacitated’ means that you cannot walk or talk, or focus your eyes, or think, or do anything else requiring cognitive ability, including have sex. The only difference between the two is that you can be ‘incapacitated’ and still have your eyes open and when ‘unconscious’, your eyes are closed.
The man may have been drunk too, in which case he would have had ‘reduced capacity’, but he could not have been ‘incapacitated’ because if he had, he would not have been able to take his pants off and insert his penis into the woman. Incapacitated means NO CAPACITY.
I believe I am beginning to understand your confusion. You say “ That was my reply to your assertion that if the guy was able to perform, he could not be incapacitated by alcohol to the same degree that she was.”
There are no degrees of “incapacitation”. Incapacitation is total. If someone has lost partial capacity, you don’t say they are incapacitated, you say they are impaired, or partially impaired.
“Again, he may have been as drunk as she was. Why then would she not be equally liable for rape?”
This may be true, and if they were equally drunk then neither could have been incapacitated. In that case she would have been able to give consent, and neither would be guilty of rape.
“Unless this is a case of drink-spiking, she voluntarily diminished her own free will with the use of alcohol. She made her decision at that point: it’s too late for her to complain about it now.”
Whaaaaaaaaaat? O_o
A person can be plenty capable and still be too drunk to remember in the morning.
If that qualifies as rape many fat chicks are rapists.
BINGO
Thats what the trial is for. Presumably there is other evidence, witnesses, or circumstances that would prove she was raped. I doubt a prosecutor would take a case where the only evidence was the word of a woman who was admittedly so drunk as to be incapacitated. She would have no memory of the crime, if indeed, there was one. She could have imagined the whole thing.
Of course they can. She has to prove that not only was she drunk, but that she was so drunk as to be virtually unconscious. I don’t know how she plans to do that unless there were witnesses. Her testimony on the subject is useless.
If that qualifies as rape many fat chicks are rapists.
lol....Undoubtedly. Thankfully, for them, that doesn’t qualify as rape. Many would never get laid except for guys wearing beer goggles.
___________________________________________________
Yeah, Right!
That is exactly what Nifong did and I suspect plenty of prosecutors before him!
Perhaps this judge knows this case is malicious due to the reputation of the prosecutor, so he is making it hard for him/her/it?
It is not likely that a person consented to being stabbed in the chest, or having his wallet stolen, or lots of other crimes.
So the words “murder” and “robbery” are fine.
It’s entirely possible that the accuser believes she was raped and the defendant believes she consented, for example.
If the accuser can say the defendant is a rapist, can the defendant reply in kind?
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.