It's called Rape Shield law, and the judge just gave the defendant an entirely appealable issue. Nice job your honor :roll:
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Update
A Naperville woman who alleges she was videotaped while being raped four years ago will not be forced to view the tape at a defendant's trial, a judge decided today.
After a brief hearing on the issue in the Bridgeview branch of Cook County Circuit Court, Judge Kerry Kennedy backed off the threat he made Tuesday to jail the woman if she continued to refuse to watch the tape.
With little elaboration, Kennedy agreed with prosecutors' arguments that the Constitution grants special treatment to rape victims.
Before making his decision, the judge today asked the woman, visibly shaken, if she would view the video. She declined, as she had Tuesday, the first day of testimony in the jury trial of the 20-year-old Burr Ridge man charged in the crime. Today, however, Kennedy acquiesced.
"I am not going to force her to watch the video during cross-examination,'' Kennedy said. "I don't believe Adrian Missbrenner's case is being injured.''
I'm curious as to what article or amendment grants special treatment to rape victims. Either way, the defense probably just got their mistrial.
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Update
A Naperville woman who alleges she was videotaped while being raped four years ago will not be forced to view the tape at a defendant's trial, a judge decided today.
After a brief hearing on the issue in the Bridgeview branch of Cook County Circuit Court, Judge Kerry Kennedy backed off the threat he made Tuesday to jail the woman if she continued to refuse to watch the tape.
With little elaboration, Kennedy agreed with prosecutors' arguments that the Constitution grants special treatment to rape victims.
Before making his decision, the judge today asked the woman, visibly shaken, if she would view the video. She declined, as she had Tuesday, the first day of testimony in the jury trial of the 20-year-old Burr Ridge man charged in the crime. Today, however, Kennedy acquiesced.
"I am not going to force her to watch the video during cross-examination,'' Kennedy said. "I don't believe Adrian Missbrenner's case is being injured.''
I'm curious as to what article or amendment grants special treatment to rape victims. Either way, the defense probably just got their mistrial.
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: PingSpike
I don't understand why anyone but the jury really needs to see the tape. If its what the prosecution says it is, it sounds like its pretty clear the girl was raped. And the fact that this guy fled to Europe means its pretty obvious that this fvcker knows he's guilty.
It would be considered rape either way regardless if it was consentual or not, as a quick search to google reveals that the age of consent for the state of Illinois is 17.
Originally posted by: fisher
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Update
A Naperville woman who alleges she was videotaped while being raped four years ago will not be forced to view the tape at a defendant's trial, a judge decided today.
After a brief hearing on the issue in the Bridgeview branch of Cook County Circuit Court, Judge Kerry Kennedy backed off the threat he made Tuesday to jail the woman if she continued to refuse to watch the tape.
With little elaboration, Kennedy agreed with prosecutors' arguments that the Constitution grants special treatment to rape victims.
Before making his decision, the judge today asked the woman, visibly shaken, if she would view the video. She declined, as she had Tuesday, the first day of testimony in the jury trial of the 20-year-old Burr Ridge man charged in the crime. Today, however, Kennedy acquiesced.
"I am not going to force her to watch the video during cross-examination,'' Kennedy said. "I don't believe Adrian Missbrenner's case is being injured.''
I'm curious as to what article or amendment grants special treatment to rape victims. Either way, the defense probably just got their mistrial.
actually it sounds like the defense just got the finger.
Originally posted by: Legendary
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Update
A Naperville woman who alleges she was videotaped while being raped four years ago will not be forced to view the tape at a defendant's trial, a judge decided today.
After a brief hearing on the issue in the Bridgeview branch of Cook County Circuit Court, Judge Kerry Kennedy backed off the threat he made Tuesday to jail the woman if she continued to refuse to watch the tape.
With little elaboration, Kennedy agreed with prosecutors' arguments that the Constitution grants special treatment to rape victims.
Before making his decision, the judge today asked the woman, visibly shaken, if she would view the video. She declined, as she had Tuesday, the first day of testimony in the jury trial of the 20-year-old Burr Ridge man charged in the crime. Today, however, Kennedy acquiesced.
"I am not going to force her to watch the video during cross-examination,'' Kennedy said. "I don't believe Adrian Missbrenner's case is being injured.''
I'm curious as to what article or amendment grants special treatment to rape victims. Either way, the defense probably just got their mistrial.
It's called Rape Shield law, and the judge just gave the defendant an entirely appealable issue. Nice job your honor :roll:
Originally posted by: Legendary
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Update
A Naperville woman who alleges she was videotaped while being raped four years ago will not be forced to view the tape at a defendant's trial, a judge decided today.
After a brief hearing on the issue in the Bridgeview branch of Cook County Circuit Court, Judge Kerry Kennedy backed off the threat he made Tuesday to jail the woman if she continued to refuse to watch the tape.
With little elaboration, Kennedy agreed with prosecutors' arguments that the Constitution grants special treatment to rape victims.
Before making his decision, the judge today asked the woman, visibly shaken, if she would view the video. She declined, as she had Tuesday, the first day of testimony in the jury trial of the 20-year-old Burr Ridge man charged in the crime. Today, however, Kennedy acquiesced.
"I am not going to force her to watch the video during cross-examination,'' Kennedy said. "I don't believe Adrian Missbrenner's case is being injured.''
I'm curious as to what article or amendment grants special treatment to rape victims. Either way, the defense probably just got their mistrial.
It's called Rape Shield law, and the judge just gave the defendant an entirely appealable issue. Nice job your honor :roll:
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: Legendary
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Kwaipie
Update
A Naperville woman who alleges she was videotaped while being raped four years ago will not be forced to view the tape at a defendant's trial, a judge decided today.
After a brief hearing on the issue in the Bridgeview branch of Cook County Circuit Court, Judge Kerry Kennedy backed off the threat he made Tuesday to jail the woman if she continued to refuse to watch the tape.
With little elaboration, Kennedy agreed with prosecutors' arguments that the Constitution grants special treatment to rape victims.
Before making his decision, the judge today asked the woman, visibly shaken, if she would view the video. She declined, as she had Tuesday, the first day of testimony in the jury trial of the 20-year-old Burr Ridge man charged in the crime. Today, however, Kennedy acquiesced.
"I am not going to force her to watch the video during cross-examination,'' Kennedy said. "I don't believe Adrian Missbrenner's case is being injured.''
I'm curious as to what article or amendment grants special treatment to rape victims. Either way, the defense probably just got their mistrial.
It's called Rape Shield law, and the judge just gave the defendant an entirely appealable issue. Nice job your honor :roll:
"Rape Shield Law: Laws in 49 states (AZ does not have a Rape Shield Law) limit the use of a victim's prior sexual history as an attempt to undermine the credibility of the victim's testimony. "
This are questions and a videotape of the actual rape in question, doesn't sound like the rape shield laws apply.
Originally posted by: fisher
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: PingSpike
I don't understand why anyone but the jury really needs to see the tape. If its what the prosecution says it is, it sounds like its pretty clear the girl was raped. And the fact that this guy fled to Europe means its pretty obvious that this fvcker knows he's guilty.
It would be considered rape either way regardless if it was consentual or not, as a quick search to google reveals that the age of consent for the state of Illinois is 17.
if they are both under 17 is it rape? i've never understood that. they are both 20 now right? and it happened 4 years ago?
Originally posted by: Mokmo418
UPDATE UPDATE
CHICAGO ? A judge in Cook County said Wednesday a 20-year-old woman won't have to watch the videotape of her alleged rape.
Judge Kerry Kennedy ruled that defense attorneys could cross-exam the Naperville woman without her watching the video.
The Cook County state's attorney's office says Kennedy also ruled that the tape could be shown in court after the woman is done testifying.
The ruling is a reversal for the judge ? who Tuesday threatened the alleged victim with contempt of court charges after she refused to watch the video in court.
The confrontation over the tape came during the sexual assault trial of 20-year-old Adrian Missbrenner. He's one of four men charged in the assault of the woman in 2002 when she was 16 years old.
Text
The judge sided with the victim, i bet he got a call from his boss about this bad press. This was just a very dumb move by the defence attorney. I just hope they never teach that in a law school.
You are fairly ignorant, please read assault laws. Spitting on someone is assault. See also defamation (sp?) of character, you know, it's kinda fits the situation to a T. While you're at it, also see slander and/or libel since this was taped.Originally posted by: fisher
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
The inability to say "no" isn't the same as saying "yes".Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Sounds like she wasn't raped. She let herself get drunk and gangbanged.
I'm sure she agreed to being spit on and having whatever written on her exposed lower half. Sounds like fun to me...
Way to pass judgement.
spitting on someone and writing on them isn't a crime. sleazy? yes. but not a crime. not even close.
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
No one will remember his name after the trial if he is found innocent. It may take some time, or even distance, but "forever guily" is BS.Originally posted by: Feldenak
What I'm talking about are these kinds of cases being tried in the media. In the court of public opinion, this guy will forever be guilty. This kind of exposure potentially influence jury members.
IF the guy is guilty, then I agree...string him up by his pubic hair and beat on him like a piñata.
Any exposure could affect potential jury members. Should we ban news?
In court cases like this? My answer is yes.
That's so illogical I don't know how to respond. Extend that line of thinking and you will ban ALL news. Think about, say, watergate. That shouldn't have been covered because each and every person in the US was a potential juror, right?
Just about each and every news story has the potential, if not likelyness to be a court case with jurors. I'll agree media coverage is too much on some topics, and the can certianly affect juror pools.
What makes this case special? What makes it a "case like this"?
You're comparing apples and oranges. Things like Watergate are different because there is a public interest there (ya know, the government) and the people involved were public personas/servants. This case involves private citizens. Also, what makes this case different is the reactionary attitude people in this country seem to have regarding "sex crimes". All a "victim" has to do is point a finger and the accused is no longer innocent until proven guilty...in fact, it is the exact opposite. Think about it. Why do I have to try and defend the accused in this case if the supposition of guilt works the way it should.
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
No one will remember his name after the trial if he is found innocent. It may take some time, or even distance, but "forever guily" is BS.Originally posted by: Feldenak
What I'm talking about are these kinds of cases being tried in the media. In the court of public opinion, this guy will forever be guilty. This kind of exposure potentially influence jury members.
IF the guy is guilty, then I agree...string him up by his pubic hair and beat on him like a piñata.
Any exposure could affect potential jury members. Should we ban news?
In court cases like this? My answer is yes.
That's so illogical I don't know how to respond. Extend that line of thinking and you will ban ALL news. Think about, say, watergate. That shouldn't have been covered because each and every person in the US was a potential juror, right?
Just about each and every news story has the potential, if not likelyness to be a court case with jurors. I'll agree media coverage is too much on some topics, and the can certianly affect juror pools.
What makes this case special? What makes it a "case like this"?
You're comparing apples and oranges. Things like Watergate are different because there is a public interest there (ya know, the government) and the people involved were public personas/servants. This case involves private citizens. Also, what makes this case different is the reactionary attitude people in this country seem to have regarding "sex crimes". All a "victim" has to do is point a finger and the accused is no longer innocent until proven guilty...in fact, it is the exact opposite. Think about it. Why do I have to try and defend the accused in this case if the supposition of guilt works the way it should.
Sheesh, on one hand you make the argument that this guy is forever branded a rapist, and the other you say there's no public interest. Take a side will you?
There IS public interest in virtually ALL violent crimes (ya know, things that can directly affect you just like the gov't).
The reaction of others is not the job of the news, it's to inform. The reaction of others is their personal responsibility.
The public interest refers to the "common well-being" or "general welfare." The public interest is central to policy debates, politics, democracy and the nature of government itself.
Well it's opinion, not fact, so no need to quote a dictionary. There is no "right" answer.Originally posted by: Feldenak
You misunderstand the use of "public interest"
The public interest refers to the "common well-being" or "general welfare." The public interest is central to policy debates, politics, democracy and the nature of government itself.
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Well it's opinion, not fact, so no need to quote a dictionary. There is no "right" answer.Originally posted by: Feldenak
You misunderstand the use of "public interest"
The public interest refers to the "common well-being" or "general welfare." The public interest is central to policy debates, politics, democracy and the nature of government itself.
Lets just say, if my neighbor was accused of the crime we are discussing, I would want to know. I consider information about violent crimes public interest. The gov't goes through a lot of BS to track and inform the public of this data on a regular basis. Why? Because they want to know.
Originally posted by: ggnl
I'm thinking one of two things are happening here:
A: She really was raped and doesn't want to watch the tape because of emotional trauma.
B: The tape shows that she was a willing participant and she doesn't want to hurt her case, or maybe she's just humiliated.
Also, I think the contempt case stems from her refusal to comment on the tape, not her refusal to actually view it.
They track both. I also said I'd want to know if it was accused.Originally posted by: Feldenak
The government tracking is of convicted criminals.
Originally posted by: fs5
sicko, it's RAPE.Originally posted by: acemcmac
wtf? ohhhh 4 years have elapsed....
link to tape?
Originally posted by: montanafan
I don't understand people questioning why the defense attorney would want to show the tape. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that most rapes, especially of this type, don't go to trial because the victim doesn't want to testify and have to relive the humiliation of the rape and answer the sorts of questions defense attorneys will use to try to defame their character.
This defense attorney is scum, but competent. He was hoping that she would not want to watch the tape and then use that as the basis for a mistrial. There was no reason for her to have to view the tape to answer questions about it, nor was there any reason to have her view it to have it admitted as evidence. He was pushing for having her view it during questioning knowing that she would balk as most rape victims would and either getting the tape thrown out as evidence by the prosecution, getting a mistrial, or having the charges dropped entirely when she refused to continue. Lousy behavior for a person, but good strategy for a defense attorney.
Now he'll use it as the basis for an appeal if his client is convicted.
Originally posted by: montanafan
I don't understand people questioning why the defense attorney would want to show the tape. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that most rapes, especially of this type, don't go to trial because the victim doesn't want to testify and have to relive the humiliation of the rape and answer the sorts of questions defense attorneys will use to try to defame their character.
This defense attorney is scum, but competent. He was hoping that she would not want to watch the tape and then use that as the basis for a mistrial. There was no reason for her to have to view the tape to answer questions about it, nor was there any reason to have her view it to have it admitted as evidence. He was pushing for having her view it during questioning knowing that she would balk as most rape victims would and either getting the tape thrown out as evidence by the prosecution, getting a mistrial, or having the charges dropped entirely when she refused to continue. Lousy behavior for a person, but good strategy for a defense attorney.
Now he'll use it as the basis for an appeal if his client is convicted.