Please Describe To the Jury What Happened..."Sounds Like..."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by Diane E. Dees

Tory Bowen of Nebraska says that she was raped, but testifying in court is a little difficult because the judge, Jeffre Cheuvront, has instructed her that neither she nor the prosecutors can use the following words: "rape," "sexual assault," "victim," assailant," "sexual assault kit." The words were banned at the request of defense attorneys, who also wanted the words "sex" and "intercourse" banned, but the judge did not go that far, presumably because the trial would then have been reduced to a game of charades. The jury will not be informed that the words have been banned.

This is the second time around for the accused, Pamir Safi. His first trial resulted in a hung jury when jurors deadlocked, 7-5. The banned words were in place at that trial, too.

Apparently, rape defense lawyers throughout the country are asking that the word "rape" not be used by the alleged victim and the prosecutor. This made me wonder whether anyone had asked an alleged armed robbery victim not to use the words "steal," "rob," and "gun." Or whether a witness to a murder has been barred from saying "murder," "kill," or "dead." I'm guessing the answer is no. Indeed, law professor Wendy Murphy of the New England School of Law says that "that is a profoundly unfair thing for a judge to do. I have a problem with the idea that you can compel a witness to contrive their testimony. I have a problem (with a judge) directing a witness, not the government, to say certain words. It impugns their candor, their credibility."

And, Murphy added, Bowen won’t be able to explain to jurors why she’s using clinical words--or, worse, words that imply consent--when she describes the encounter with Safi.

[Lansbury 19]

For a long time the Metropolitan Police in London and I think most other UK police services have not used the word rape when dealing with a victim or their family and friends.

It is described as a "Serious Indecent Assault"

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Sure sounds like the female recipient of this forcible sexual attack resulting in violent intercourse without consent is going to have a hard time getting a fair trial.

I think a creative prosecuting attorney may be able to come up with some descriptive words and phrases that make it very apparent that the real words to describe the individual's act are not allowed to be used. I hope it backfires on the defense and the judge. I still think it will be hard for the plaintiff to get a fair trial that doesn't become a mockery of justice.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Kathryn41

[mawilson 2,133]

So what are they supposed to call rape? Surprise sex?

[Alex+R 0]

So what are they supposed to call rape? Surprise sex?

I hate to admit that made me LOL.

[Queen Jenn 0]

If she can't say "Rape," can she spell it instead?

[sereia 0]

ugh all this PC ####### makes me want to barf!!!! lawyers are seriously ruining this country.

"surprise sex" LOL. surprise unwanted sex!

Edited June 29, 2007 by abdounjen

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So what are they supposed to call rape? Surprise sex?

Nope... she couldn't use the word 'sex' or 'intercourse' either.

Perhaps, physically violated?

[mawilson 2,133]

So what are they supposed to call rape? Surprise sex?

Nope... she couldn't use the word 'sex' or 'intercourse' either.

Apparently she could:

who also wanted the words "sex" and "intercourse" banned, but the judge did not go that far

[dalegg 143]

I kind of think this makes sense.

If a juror is trying to decide if the sex was a result of rape, then the word rape shouldn't be used to describe the act. I'd want to hear the actual discription of what happened- especially if there are witnesses, and not someone just saying "she was raped". How do we know what that person considers rape to be?

If somebody is being accused of murder, but their defense is that it was self defense, you wouldn't want a witness saying "I saw the defendant murder the victim", because that implies guilt. You'd want them to say "I saw the defendant kill the victim", and then you'd want to know why.

[ramos96 1]

what is this world coming too!!!>?!!

that is so wrong

Ramos

[Caladan 19]

I don't think that flies, dalegg. People are allowed to describe the crime, usually, and then the jury decides whether the evidence suffices. Witnesses are allowed to say who they thought did the murder. They don't have to avoid the words 'kill', 'terminate', 'send to his Maker.' They're allowed to introduce the detectives as from the homicide department.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bowen met Safi at a Lincoln bar on Oct. 30, 2004. It is undisputed that they shared some drinks, and witnesses saw them leaving together. Bowen claims not to have left willingly and has no memory of the rest of that night. She claims to have woken up naked the next morning with Safi atop her, "having sexual intercourse with her." When she asked him to stop, he did.

Bowen testified for 13 hours at Safi's first trial last October, all without using the words rape or sexual assault. She claims, not unreasonably, that describing what happened to her as sex is almost an assault in itself. "This makes women sick, especially the women who have gone through this," Bowen told the Omaha World-Herald. "They know the difference between sex and rape."

Nebraska law offers judges broad discretion to ban evidence or language that present the danger of "unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury." And it's not unheard-of for judges to keep certain words out of a courtroom. Words like victim have been increasingly kept out of trials, since they tend to imply that a crime was committed. And as Safi's lawyer, Clarence Mock, explains, the word rape is just as loaded. "It's a legal conclusion for a witness to say, 'I was raped' or 'sexually assaulted.' … That's for a jury to decide." His concern is that the word rape so inflames jurors that they decide a case emotionally and not rationally.

The real question for Judge Cheuvront, then, is whether embedded in the word sex is another "legal conclusion"—that the intercourse was consensual. And it's hard to conclude otherwise. Go ahead, use the word sex in a sentence. Asking a complaining witness to scrub the word rape or assault from her testimony is one thing. Asking that she imply that she agreed to what her alleged assailant was doing to her is something else entirely. To put it another way: If the complaining witness in a rape trial has to describe herself as having had "intercourse" with the defendant, should the complaining witness in a mugging be forced to testify that he was merely giving his attacker a loan?

http://www.slate.com/id/2168758/

[~Nini~ 2]

I guess coming from a country where we've been using the term "sexual assault" in the court system, I can understand why we don't say "rape". But barring both completely? How are you supposed to define the crime otherwise?

If a juror is trying to decide if the sex was a result of rape, then the word rape shouldn't be used to describe the act. I'd want to hear the actual discription of what happened- especially if there are witnesses, and not someone just saying "she was raped". How do we know what that person considers rape to be?

Are you talking about what the jurors would consider rape to be? I guess there's a difference between a sexual assault and a rape - the former implies harassment as well as the physical acts themselves, the latter implies unwanted and forced penetration.

Either way, I don't see how anyone would be able to define such terms without using "sex" or "intercourse" and especially without implying guilt through those terms.

[britty 1]

I kind of think this makes sense.

If a juror is trying to decide if the sex was a result of rape, then the word rape shouldn't be used to describe the act. I'd want to hear the actual discription of what happened- especially if there are witnesses, and not someone just saying "she was raped". How do we know what that person considers rape to be?

If somebody is being accused of murder, but their defense is that it was self defense, you wouldn't want a witness saying "I saw the defendant murder the victim", because that implies guilt. You'd want them to say "I saw the defendant kill the victim", and then you'd want to know why.

lets hope you never serve on a jury.

This story is just another reason to enforce castration for all sexual offenders. Lets face it - no one gives a sh*t what happens to the offenders, so cut off their bits, hook them up to a colostomy bag and send them on their way. Liberal left wing theories amount to nothing.