Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

« NYT Idiot Wants "Elite Status" Recognition for His Starbucks Patronage | Main | Dr. De Cock: AIDS Just Is Not a Heterosexual Pandemic, Despite False Claims »
June 09, 2008

Judge Forbids Use of the Word "Rape" in a Rape Trial; UPDATE

Bumped because there's not much else going on and this has been niggling at the back of my grey matter all day.

This story is raising eyebrows on the right and the left side of the blogosphere. A Nebraska district court judge prohibited the victim from describing what happened to her as rape, saying that it would be too prejudicial to the defendant. Also prohibited: "sexual assault", calling herself "a victim," or calling the defendant "the assailant."

Bowen’s case gained national notoriety and drew the attention of free-speech proponents after she filed a lawsuit challenging the judge’s actions as a First Amendment violation. A federal appeals court dismissed the suit, but Bowen’s attorney plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although he dismissed her suit, a federal judge said he doubted a jury would be swayed by a woman using the word “rape” instead of some “tortured equivalent.”

“For the life of me, I do not understand why a judge would tell an alleged rape victim that she cannot say she was raped when she testifies in a trial about rape,” wrote U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf.

I haven't read the district court case, but I expect that it was dismissed because issues of undue prejudice are committed to the trial judge's discretion. Which means that if you get some judge who thinks that the presumption of innocence--a standard of proof--supersedes the adversarial system, you'll be stuck describing your rape as "when the defendant had sexual intercourse with me."

Judges matter.

UPDATE: A commenter, Centerfire, over at Hot Air explained why he thinks both the trial judge and the federal district judge got this wrong:

It’s a Rule 403-alike problem that the Nebraska judge got comically wrong.

Otherwise-relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to a party. That determination is ordinarily committed to the discretion of trial judges, but that discretion isn’t unlimited or unreviewable. The rule favors admission of evidence: the issue isn’t prejudice (since every piece of evidence is by its nature prejudicial) but rather unfair prejudice, and whether the risk of such substantially outweighs the extent to which the evidence sheds light on a factual matter. In a criminal context, defendants can’t hide behind Rule 403 to prevent admission of evidence of the outrageousness of their conduct; the rule only serves to exclude lurid, unnecessary, waving-the-bloody-shirt displays by a prosecutor.

The problem is appellate courts that uncritically pass on this crap rather than making heads roll at the trial court level. This is classic, classic abuse of discretion by the trial judge, and the appellate court had an absolute obligation to slap him down.

I agree and would emphasize the difference between the victim of a crime and an expert testifying in the case. When the victim is testifying, there's little chance that the jury will confuse her use of the term "rape" or "victim" or "assailant" to mean that the ultimate question in the case has already been determined. They know that their purpose is to decide that very question. More than that, the defense is free to cross-examine the victim and make that point.

On the other hand, when an expert witness is testifying, it's much more likely that the jury would be confused and the defendant unduly prejudiced if the expert were allowed to express with certainty his conclusion as to the ultimate legal resolution of the case.

digg this
posted by Gabriel Malor at 05:39 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
Sock Monkey * Invictus Maneo : "somedood I'm very aware of who Antifa is. The s ..."

Sam Adams: "Hard to know who to believe. Thankfully, the same ..."

Miklos actually quotes Socrates: "this means we know fuckall. Posted by: somedood ..."

m: ">>>The NSA ... says it lakes the ability (MuckRoc ..."

somedood: ""I believe the shooter is Maxwell Yearick. Posted ..."

Sam Adams: "How long has our national media been comparing Rep ..."

Maxwell Yearick: "I believe the shooter is Sam Adams ..."

somedood: ""Sure I saw all that in the 2017 attempt to win CA ..."

Chic Hot club: "It's very simple to find out any topic on net as c ..."

Biden's Dog sniffs a whole lotta malarkey, : "Thanks for that meme, Biden's Dog! Need t-shirts.. ..."

the more Mikloses the merrier: "Yep, my bad. Clumsy attempt at humor. Not good for ..."

Sam Adams: "Just saw a video from Thomas Mathew Crooks, statin ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64