It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by yourmaker
WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE MAKING DECISIONS???
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by newcovenant
So what does the victim have to say on the subject? Yep, just like I thought. I don't see any sort of testimony, only a heavily biased article that doesn't tell us exactly what happened, only releasing the pieces that incite the most controvery and emotional outrage.
I'm only seeing emotion here, not fact-based conclusions. Sure, rape is rape; but do we have all the facts? No. What do we have? An incomplete report that is aimed to cause strife. And it's working.edit on 4-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by peck420
So everybody gets mad at the judges for actually following the law, but nobody is crying for the heads of the politicians that write the laws?
Folks, judges administer law. They do not write it, they do not make assumptions on it. They are bound by what is written in it. For all we know the judges are just as pissed as the rest of you, but their hands are just as tied as ours.
If you want to go after somebody for crap like this, head to the state political offices and get changes made.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Consider the following: had the trial court not granted LK accommodations, she
would not have been able to testify. Had she not have been able to testify, the State would
have not been able to prosecute the case at all because there was no other evidence to
support her claim that she was sexually assaulted. Without the accommodations, the
Appellate Court would have had little reason to believe that she could communicate. Thus,
the jury’s finding that she was “physically helpless” would have been left undisturbed. It is
the ultimate catch-22. Had she not been able to testify there would have been no
prosecution. Yet, because she testified, the Appellate Court determined she was not
Criminal; Sexual Assault; Whether State Presented Sufficient Evidence that Disabled Complainant was Physically Helpless as Defined by General Statutes § 53a-65.
The defendant was convicted of attempted sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) and 53a-71 (3) and sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-73a (a) (1) (C) in connection with allegations that he sexually assaulted a twenty-five year old woman with significant disabilities. She has cerebral palsy, mental retardation and hydrocephalus.
Both crimes require the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged victim was "physically helpless" as defined by General Statutes § 53a-65 (6); that is, that the victim was "unconscious or for any other reason [was] physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act." The defendant appealed, claiming that his convictions should be overturned because the state had not met its burden of proving that the complainant was physically helpless.
The Appellate Court (118 Conn. App. 43) noted that, while the complainant's disabilities rendered her unable to communicate verbally, she could communicate by gesturing and vocalizing and through the use of a communication board, and that witnesses testified that she could indicate her displeasure by means of gestures, physical aggression - including biting, kicking and scratching - and by making screeching and groaning sounds. The court concluded that, given the uncontradicted evidence presented at trial that the complainant could communicate using these nonverbal methods and the state's failure to show that she was unable to use such forms of communication at the time of the alleged assault, no reasonable jury could have concluded that she was physically helpless at the time of the assault.
The Appellate Court accordingly reversed the judgment and remanded with direction to render judgment of not guilty. The Supreme Court granted the state's petition for certification to appeal and will consider whether the Appellate Court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the jury when it determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the complainant was physically helpless as defined by § 53a-65 (6).
BINGO! I could kiss you. This ugly case was THE PROSECUTORS' FAULT. The final decision handed down told the prosecutors that they had screwed up big time (in a polite and orderly manner, of course), in at least two different ways. (Maybe three, I really don't want to re-read the decision to make sure.) This is the sort of thing that gets you called into the office for a "WTH were you thinking session?" with the boss. From the decision:
Second thought is - were the appropriate charges laid?
I can't explain to you the sneering insult and criticism of the prosecutor's thinking process, expressed here. I don't know, maybe they thought this had slam-dunk written all over it and didn't pay attention.
Indeed, as the Appellate Court suggested; this appears to be a case in which the state ultimately proceeded against the defendant under the wrong statute. Originally, the state also had charged the defendant with sexual assault in the second degree, attempt to commit sexual assault in the second degree , and sexual assault in the second degree all of which require that the victim be unable to consent to sexual intercourse because the victim is ‘‘mentally defective . . . .’’ Because the evidence established that the victim’s cognitive abilities are significantly limited, the state could well have prosecuted the defendant under those provisions. The record does not indicate why the state decided not to do so and opted instead to pursue charges requiring proof that the victim was physically helpless. By electing to prove that the victim was physically helpless rather than mentally defective, the state removed from the case all issues pertaining to the victim’s mental capacity to consent to sex. (citations removed)
So he even picked the blankety-blank WRONG THEORY OF THE CASE! Anyway, you can find the link to the Supreme Court decision in this article: www.nbcconnecticut.com... I think the link says something like :"The Court's decision."
To the contrary, the prosecutor expressly told the jury during closing argument that the victim, ‘‘according to all accounts, was very vocal, very active, and, if in fact she felt that . . . [people were not understanding] what she was saying, I believe [that] everybody [who has] testified here [has indicated that] she would throw up her arms and say ‘stop.’ ’’ During closing argument, the prosecutor also noted that the victim was ‘‘very limited in terms of . . . what type of information she can pass on to you,’’ and that she had ‘‘some difficulty expressing herself . . . .’’ At no time, however, did the state even raise the notion that the victim was unable to communicate an unwillingness to an act. Indeed, it appears that the state believed there was no reason to contest the victim’s ability to express herself by biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing because it was the state’s theory that the victim was physically helpless, notwithstanding her ability to communicate nonverbally.
Originally posted by eriktheawful
Almost, I would wish that each of those judges has a daughter, and said daughter get's raped, but the perp walks based on their ruling......
Almost, because I would never wish rape on anyone.
Instead I'll settle to have their very names smeared in the deepest, darkest mud.