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 ...
Why? The jury is there to determine (a) whether they had sex and (b) whether is was consensual. They are not there to listen to anyone reach those conclusions for them. The terms 'rape' and 'rapist' should not be used to refer to a defendant or alleged acts until after he is convicted.
I haven't heard she was unconcious. They were drinking and she regrets what she did while drunk. That's no defense for drunk drivers. And hey - if he was drunk also then who raped whom?
Just another liberal judge defending one of his own...
The judge needs to be banned from the courthouse - permanently.
Sounds like she was too drunk to say anything. Do you think it’s acceptable to have sex with a woman who is incapacitated or passed out?
I don’t think it is acceptable to have sex outside of marriage -— point being, what is “acceptable” is not the question.
Rather than have the courage to face the heat, the judge is trying to stack the deck in favor of the defense. If I was the prosecutor, I’d have filed a motion to recuse by now. Making the witnesses sign the agreements to not use certain words is way out of line.
I do agree that it sounds like a fairly weak he said/she said case.
Since it is agreed that sex took place, the only issue is whether it was with consent.
This case turns entirely on who tells the better story or is more sympathetic to the jury. Probably the woman. Although I think a reasonable person would generally conclude that when there is no evidence, only two conflicting stories, there is more or less by definition reasonable doubt as to which person is telling the truth.
If men have any sense, they will realize that this could happen on any one-night stand. Perhaps they should reconsider one-night stands.
But then most men have no sense when dealing with this area.
“Making the witnesses sign the agreements to not use certain words is way out of line.”
I don’t know. I am repeatedly in court (seemingly once a year; comes with being in the oil business, I guess), and every case has restrictions about what we can and cannot say.
I don't think that that is acceptable behaviour:- but there's nothing about the woman being incapacitated or passed out in the article. Just her claim (after the fact) that she was too drunk to give asset.
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.
That is utterly insane. You can't use the word 'rape' in a trial to determine if someone is guilty of 'rape'?
Define "incapacitated". One drink, two, four, what ?
If he's responsible while drunk (and he would be held so) why isn't she, hmmmm ?
I believe if you are intoxicated you legally cannot give consent.
So what he did was unacceptable, it just wasn’t rape?
Rape is a horrible crime, and merely accusing someone of it makes people look at that person with disgust.
I don't think the Judge should have banned using those words, however I also think people should make rational rather than emotional decisions, but it seems rationality is getting rarer and rarer.
The case is based completely on her word that he should have known that she was too intoxicated to consent, even though she apparently did consent.
She apparently also consented to consuming huge amounts of alcohol.
The guy might not be the most moral guy on the planet, but he didn't force himself on her, which is what most people consider to be the definition of rape.
They are redefining rape to use the stigma of the word to their advantage. When the prosecution starts redefining words to get sway the jury, it the judge really that far out of bounds to prevent it?
No, the question poised is irrelevant.
You can say that he forced me to have sex, or he had sex with me against my will. Plenty of ways to say what you mean without the inflammatory term that might prejudice a jury.
A judge can dismiss the case right after the prosecution rests if he believes the prosecution didn’t show anything worthwhile.
Accusers do not deserve their day in court merely because they make a claim.
It’s defendants who have the right to a trial, not accusers or alleged victims.
My merely saying you robbed me would not mean I deserve to get you before a criminal jury, and neither does a woman’s claim that a person raped her.
Which by definition means she was either incapactitated of passed out. If she had been able to say yes, it doesn’t matter how much she had to drink, she would have been able to give assent.
“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.”
Unless a woman says yes, it is rape. The fact that she voluntarily put herself into a condition where she could not say no has no bearing. One is not allowed to take advantage of women who are helpless, regardless of who made them helpless.
If she said yes, and has since changed her mind, then I agree there is no rape. In this case she said she was too drunk to give assent, which I took to mean she was too drunk to say yes. If that is the case then she was raped.
I’m going to start carrying a breathalyzer...
Up to your room?
Just a minute.
Here, now blow into this for me.
“In this case she said she was too drunk to give assent, which I took to mean she was too drunk to say yes.”
Are you saying the her claim of being too drunk means she actually was too drunk?
Where is the evidence that she actually was too drunk. We can’t take her word and put a person away on it.
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.