So this woman is alleging rape. She has a psychologist to testify that she suffers from PTSD (not uncommon in rape survivors.) She is suing. She asks that the man she accuses be excluded from the room while she is questioned about the rape. The judge refuses, saying the man is a party and has a constitutional right to face his accuser. Okay, so far I can agree, though I feel for her.
But read a little further down; this is a direct quote, with my explainations in brackets:
quote:Richards [attorney for the accused] then went on to criticize the lawsuit in general, saying his client had committed no wrongdoing. His remarks prompted a response from the judge.
"I have been years ago to Les Deux [club where rape allegedly occurred] and nobody raped me," [judge] Fields said.
Seriously? The JUDGE says that in the presence of a woman saying she was raped there?
posted
(Oh, and just in case there was any doubt, this is a male judge. Not that it would be less insensitive if a woman said it, but that men are much less likely to be raped in a club, from what I understand.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand why in cases of alleged violence a defendant HAS to be allowed in the courtroom. With all the technology we have now, couldn't they use some sort of closed circuit TV or something instead? I mean, he'd still get to see and react to what was being said about him (or her as the case may be) without being able to stare down a possible victim.
And yes, the judge sounds like an ass... can we say "Good Ole Boys"
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moore's attorney, Ronald Richards, argued that his client had a constitutional right to face his accuser.
Richards needs to read the Constitution again, specifically the Sixth Amendment:
quote:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. (emphasis added)
There is an element of his general due process right that suggests he be allowed to be present, but that form of the right is not nearly as strong as the one associated with criminal proceedings. I might make the same ruling as the judge, but not for the reason given by this attorney.
quote:He said Sullivan's suggestions that he and Moore text message was impractical because the attorney currently has one arm in a sling from an injury.
He's right that this is a ludicrous suggestion, whether the attorney is in a sling or not.
The judge's comment seems inexcusable barring something really outrageous having been said before it - and the context doesn't make that at all likely.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a case in Iowa where an accused child molester (James Bentley) successfully got the videotape of his accuser (Jetseta Gage) thrown out because the girl was dead. He had to have the right to face his accuser.
The girl was dead because the child molester's brother (Roger Bentley) killed her. (He was found guilty and is serving two life sentences without parole.) I think that sets a dangerous precedent, but it didn't help this man. Although he reportedly told a fellow inmate he would be getting off because his accuser was dead, he was found guilty.
I agree that the judge in the nightclub case is partly wrong. I think he's wrong in that he could figure a way for the suspect to see the proceedings but not be seen by the victim. And he's wrong to make the comment that he did. I've driven past places where car accidents have happened and didn't get into an accident. That doesn't mean the other accidents didn't happen. That's just a stupid thing to say, and you expect more from a judge.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and the judge's comment makes me wonder about his ability to be impartial in this particular case.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sorry, but the right to face your accuser is one of the fundamental rights of our legal system, and I think it applies even in cases like this. People falsely accuse other people of all sorts of crimes all of the time, and not just regarding rape; he deserves to be able to face his accuser.
Please keep in mind that I am NOT saying that is what is happening in this case....but innocent until proved guilty applies even in rape cases.
As far as the comment from the judge, that just seems very wrong, and if he really said that he should be facing some sort of punitive action.
quote:Please keep in mind that I am NOT saying that is what is happening in this case....but innocent until proved guilty applies even in rape cases.
I missed it at first, but this appears to be a civil suit, not a criminal trial. Just pointing it out, because I think Dagonee is saying that the rights of defendants in a civil suit are not necessarily the same as the rights of the criminally accused.
The judge sounds like a jerk.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that the judge's comment is a response to the accussed rapist's attorney saying that his client did nothing wrong, I doubt that the judge's comment was meant the way it seems to be being interpreted. It doesn't sound to me like he's saying the rape didn't happen, which just doesn't make sense as a reply to the attorney's contention. I'd like to see the exact statement from the attorney before condemning the judge. It may have been something like:
"This is a club where people go to meet others for sex. My client did nothing wrong because this is just normal for patrons of that club." "I've been to that club and nobody raped me." - ie, shooting down the idea that there was no wrongdoing.
This is just speculation, of course, but it makes a lot more sense to me (given what little context we do have) then thinking the judge was dismissing the idea that the crime being tried had occurred.
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Given that the judge's comment is a response to the accussed rapist's attorney saying that his client did nothing wrong, I doubt that the judge's comment was meant the way it seems to be being interpreted. It doesn't sound to me like he's saying the rape didn't happen, which just doesn't make sense as a reply to the attorney's contention. I'd like to see the exact statement from the attorney before condemning the judge. It may have been something like:
"This is a club where people go to meet others for sex. My client did nothing wrong because this is just normal for patrons of that club." "I've been to that club and nobody raped me." - ie, shooting down the idea that there was no wrongdoing.
This is how I interpreted the quote as well.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way it seemed to me, at least in the context of the article you linked to, was the judge was refuting the contention that the defendant had done nothing wrong.
That would worry me if I was the defendant, but more than likely he didn't mean it as anything to be taken against the accuser.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I don't understand why in cases of alleged violence a defendant HAS to be allowed in the courtroom. With all the technology we have now, couldn't they use some sort of closed circuit TV or something instead? I mean, he'd still get to see and react to what was being said about him (or her as the case may be) without being able to stare down a possible victim.
And yes, the judge sounds like an ass... can we say "Good Ole Boys"
The defendant has a right to "confront" the accuser, not just see the accuser on television. I think mainly you just have to keep in mind that we must, for the sake of justice, assume that a defendant is innocent, until his guilt is proven. An innocent man deserves to be let into the court room- and should be allowed to if he so chooses.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: That would make it a little better.
But if I was a judge I'd be very, very, very wary of saying something like that IN ANY CONTEXT.
Any judge should be more greatly aware of the destructive power of the anecdote. This quote, out of context, is itself destructive as an anecdote.
I just close my eyes ad think of the millions of Americans who worry about minor health problems and diseases, or the side effects of FDA approved drugs, brushing off the fact that more people die in this country every year from ibuprofen poisoning than do from AIDS. But, you know, I take ibuprofin, and I'm not dead! It's meaningless either way.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if I was a judge I'd be very, very, very wary of saying something like that IN ANY CONTEXT.
It's hard to be wary of saying something like that when you mean nothing bad or shameful in saying it (quite the contrary, if my interpretation is right-I agree with Enigmatic and others), and there's a lack of any buzz words like racial slurs or profanity in there that generally gets people's wariness up.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's terrible if the rape really did happen the way she said it did, but my sympathy wanes for an underage girl (19) who goes to a 21+ club and then complains that she wasn't carded and got free drinks.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My sympathy does not wane at all - nobody deserves to be raped - but I do question her judgment.
Clearly, she showed poor judgment going to the club in the first place. Clearly she went there to drink and did not turn down the alcohol when it was offered to her.
HOWEVER, the people at the club are NOT supposed to serve underage people and if it can be proven that they knew she was 19 and gave her drinks anyway, they deserve to be prosecuted.
Regardless, having sex with someone too incapacitated to consent is rape, no matter how many bad decisions she made up to that point.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I meant was that her poor judgement diminishes my sympathy for her complaints specifically about being let into the club and given drinks, not for the alleged rape. I understand that the club is culpable for serving the drinks, but that doesn't change the fact that she had every intention of breaking the law just by showing up there--and then by accepting all the free drinks she was given. THAT part of her "victim" status is forfeited in my eyes.
If it did happen the way she said it did, though, I hope she gets all 5 million.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:HOWEVER, the people at the club are NOT supposed to serve underage people and if it can be proven that they knew she was 19 and gave her drinks anyway, they deserve to be prosecuted.
I agree they deserve to be prosecuted. But I disagree that an adult-but-underage drinker should be able to collect anything for damages arising from her voluntarily drinking.
Damages for the rape are another matter, and there are likely theories of liability that should lead to recovery from the club.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, if the club shouldn't be liable for damages arising from her voluntary drinking, why does the fact of the rape possibly change that equation? Are you assuming that the liability for her safety is apart from her having been drunk when the incident occurred? For instance, what if a sober person is raped in a club? What would be a possible set of circumstances in which the club would be held accountable for violent crimes amongst individuals, if the club was itself committing no offense? Since there is an offense involved here that you say should not lead to damages, I'd like to know why the rape makes that a different matter.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would be a possible set of circumstances in which the club would be held accountable for violent crimes amongst individuals, if the club was itself committing no offense?
Circumstances that might support liability (as a normative statement about what the law should be, not what it is):
If the club knew that rapes were occurring there and did not alter its security to account.
If there was a standard of care in the club industry based on rapes having occurred in other clubs, and this club failed to meet that standard of care.
If the club knew one of its employees was a sex offender and he used his employment/access in the commission of the rape.
If the rape were committed by a club employee with apparent authority to compel people's movement.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
