posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:46 PM
reply to post by Amanda5 and nixie_nox
Thanks a lot for your post, but mostly for doing the job in the streets. I never wanted that. A salute to you.
You're absolutely right, there was evidence. Her "statement," done mostly by pointing, to a Doctor and a follow-up gynecological exam. Everybody
knew that something sexual had gone on.
Second thought is - were the appropriate charges laid?
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:
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)
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.
BUT WAIT!! THERE'S MORE!! Act now and you can have your legal resume so blotted that other lawyers will probably look at you funny for the next few
years, and some will never forget.
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.
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:
I think the link says something like :"The
How in the world I let you guys talk me into doing even a superficial case analysis, I'll never know. I think I'll go have a lawyer-type drink.
edit on 4-10-2012 by charles1952 because: spelling
edit on 4-10-2012 by charles1952 because: moved a line.