The Judge should bar the word "judge" since it could prejudice or mislead
a jury into thinking he was using his PC-sized brain to conduct a fair trial.
.
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's not the state of the law, nor do I think it should be...you're describing a cultural standard. In a lot of Hispanic communities, getting in a car with guys is implied consent.
What both have in common? While I think both are unwise, neither are consent.
The situation you described sounds like a one-night stand. I believe consent in that case has to be very clear.
Nebraska also doesn’t appear to list a crime called “rape” in it’s statutes.
No, most definitely a Hindi name and not a ROP name.
When I first heard this story, prior to it being a mistrial, I thouhgt the judge was over stretching his authority.
However, I have since decided he probably is privvy to information the rest of us are not and decided the merits of the prosecution’s case were less than stellar. Therefore, to give the defendant a truly fair trial, it was necessary to do these things.
So until we hear more about other antics of this judge, which I have yet to hear any previous strangeness about him, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I know from personal experience that prosecutors will go to great lengths to bring a case against someone with scant evidence just to show the “victim” they are doing something. Remember, prosecutors are usually elected, judges are appointed.
Why does the “victim” have “lawyers”?
So if she got intoxicated, and went to sleep in her car, she is fair game for any guy who comes along?
Now assuming he was drinking as well... how is this remotely rape? Regret in the morning is not rape.
.
I’m of two minds in this particular case due to the lack of all of the info. However, lay witnesses are usually prohibited from giving opinion testimony. Claiming that she was raped is her opinion, not a fact.
People are NOT entitled to speak freely in court. For example, you are in court on a speeding ticket. Rather than testify about the case, you go on a rant(speak freely)about what a jackbooted thug the cop is, traffic tickets are only about revenue, etc. You are supposed to testify about the case, not anything else.
I agree that’s what the trial is for.
“She could have imagined the whole thing”
On the other hand, I would bet that a woman recovering from being even that drunk is going to know she’s had sex, forced or otherwise as I understand females are much more sensitive than men in that area(physically speaking). A guy could be cleaned up and he may not know he’s had sex, not so a woman.
The prosecutor doesn't need to use the word rape to present the case.
While the AP story acts like it's unusual for the prosecutor to be banned from calling the defendant "the assailant", prosecutors aren't allowed to refer to the defendant in a murder trial as "the murder" either. This isn't something special this judge dreamed up for this case.
There is no reason for the prosecutor to be talking about a rape kit. Both parties agree that they had sex, and there she isn't accusing him of physically forcing her to have sex with him. There is no relevant evidence that a rape kit would provide. The mention of a rape kit would be prejudicial and completely unnecessary for presenting the case.
The prosecutor and the woman claiming to be a victim have making lots of public, emotional accusations in an attempt to sway public opinion, which effectively taints the jury pool.
The judge isn't doing anything that prevents the prosecution from presenting it's case. All he is doing is trying to prevent the prosecutor from swaying the jury with emotion filled accusations rather than evidence.
The liberal Associated Press is doing what the prosecutor is trying to do. They are trying to sway public opinion on this issue by making emotional accusations such as "Word-banning judge" rather that make a rational argument that what the judge is doing is unfair.
Apparently the best argument the prosecutor came up with is that they had to keep pausing to avoid saying things that effectively assumed that the defendant had already been found guilty, which prosecutors are never allowed to do. If that is really a problem for that prosecutor they need to resign.
They've gotten a lot a lot cheaper: www.breathalyzer.net
My brother got one when he was bartending and people were always buying him drinks. Plus, it was fun to have one at his local bar. People were always playing with it, seeing how drunk they were. Actually, many of these folks would opt for a cab after blowing in it.
Isn't "murder" kind of inflammatory?
It’s entirely possible that the accuser believes she was raped and the defendant believes she consented, for example.
And it's entirely possible that a witness believes she saw Mr. X murder the deceased, whereas Mr. X knows that he didn't do it.
If the accuser can say the defendant is a rapist, can the defendant reply in kind?
What, calling her a rapist? That wouldn't make much sense. He could say "I am not a rapist." If the witness can say that Mr. X is a murderer, can the defendant reply in kind?
Where have you been man?
No contract needed!
If they were both equally drunk she is as much a rapist as he is.
If he says he consented, then by definition she could not be.
I already explained to you what I thought the difference was between the situations and what Nebraska law says.
Because of the possibility of consent, and Nebraska law, I think she should not be allowed to say he raped her or sexually assaulted her in front of the jury.
That’s it.
I have no problem with the judge’s ruling at all, and neither did the Nebraska Supreme Court.
This guy already had a trial and the jury was nowhere close to a verdict.
Is any of this clear, or would you like to tell me what I should think again?
*****
In an interview earlier this week, the jury forewoman at the first trial said the language ban played no role in the outcome. Cheryl Larson was among five jurors who were leaning toward or were in favor of acquittal.
“The order did not play a factor,” said Larson, who favored acquittal.
Not if he was also too drunk to consent in a legal sense.
She likely consented as well, she can’t even claim she didn’t as she says she can’t remember clearly.
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.