The D doesn’t have to deny it. The D doesn’t have to do anything at all in his own defense. It is up to the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt - the burden is entirely on them. The fact that the defendant doesn’t utter a word in their own defense cannot be used as evidence of guilt. I served on a jury in federal court and this basic underpinning of the American justice system was impressed upon us very firmly by both the judge and the defense.
If all I was given was what you’ve presented, katie1341, I would say that the prosecution has not proved their case and I’d vote not guilty. This does not mean the whole thing doesn’t sound skeevy and I wouldn’t be wondering about “he said-she said” (or “she said-he didn’t say anything at all”) but that’s not how such judgements should be made.
And above all I sincerely hope this is a strictly hypothetical situation that you are presenting. If you are really serving on a jury you should absolutely not be discussing or researching anything about the case outside of the jury room and with anyone other than the complete jury. In my case we were given strict instructions about this - for example if one juror stepped out to use the restroom we had to cease discussion of the case until they returned.
Having done my “civic duty” I feel comfortable defending the integrity of the system from atop my moral high horse
The fact that a kid has previously lied doesn’t negate any future testimony, IMHO. The fact that the story is somewhat inconsistant and that she supposedly left with the defendant just means she’s a kid. All it would take is for the defendant to tell her “you’ll be in big trouble if your mom finds out. You’d better leave with me”, and depending on her relationship with the mother, her maturity level and her knowledge of the law, she could believe him. However, the fact the the state hasn’t made an attempt to better prove their case certainly shows unprofessionalism.
The evidence shows she’s been sexually active, she’s been bitten and she knew where the condom was. The fact that she was clothed doesn’t mean there couldn’t be DNA in the bite, since nightclothes are usually thin, like a T-shirt. If T-shirts could block DNA, they’d be used for condoms. The PW’s testimony is considered true unless proved false or refuted. Still, in a “he said, she said” where “he” doesn’t say anything, I’m willing to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt given the slightest evidence.
Did the rape kit test indicate that PW had engaged in sex? If so then I’d go with guilty based on the evidence presented (although I agree with others that I’d want to hear more evidence).
If the test indicates PW had sex, then we know somebody had sex with her.
PW says it was D that had sex with her.
PW said they would find a condom at a location where a condom was found.
PW says D bit her breast. The DNA test corroborates that a man bit her breast.
So you have a chain of evidence that a crime occurred (assuming the test result) and you have a witness testifying who committed the crime. The witness’s testimony is corroborated by two pieces of physical evidence.
The defense seems to be based on casting doubt on PW’s testimony. The main discrepancy is her two different statements on whether she was naked or wearing clothes when her breast was bitten. But that’s going to be based on whether her statement at the hospital is admitted.
There also seems to be an attempt to discredit PW by raising other issues like her history of lying or her apparent decison to go to the railyard with D. But I’d say these are irrelevant unless the Defense shows their relevance. In order to discredit PW’s testimony, you’re going to have to produce some evidence that contradicts her testimony. Either physical evidence or more credible testimony form another witness.
I would probably convict on the statutory rape charge and the sexual battery charge, based on b and assuming she is a credible witness, despite f and j. The DNA stuff is a red herring for the prosecution, I think, unless she testifies that she didn’t have sex with anyone else and, even then, I’m not sure the absence of DNA evidence is sufficient to create reasonable doubt if her testimony is otherwise credible.
Yeah, the lack of DNA evidence is a problem. Can’t see why the prosecution wouldn’t have done it. They need to know what the test results show so they can decide whether to proceed. From a defense point of view, if your guy is telling you he didn’t do it and he wants a test done, you pretty much have to ask the Court to order it. If the dna doesn’t match, you move to dismiss. If it does, you need to have a talk with your client. Neither side wanting the DNA evidence doesn’t make any sense to me.
It is worth noting that in many states rape kits don’t get processed because they get lost or they sit on the shelf forever because the state can’t afford to process it.
I would not use the absence of the DNA processing to suggest that the state wants to hide something. The far more likely explanation is that they just can’t afford it.
Based on the OP, I wouldn’t convict him of anything. I’d be perplexed that they hadn’t done more detective work, e.g. the DNA. IANAL but it seems like the state’s job is to provide enough evidence before asking a jury to deprive a person of his liberty. I’d be more inclined to convict on lesser charges with sketchy evidence than on bigger ones.
Sure you have evidence. You have a witness that says he did it. Unless you have some reason to discount the witness’s testimony then it is reasonable to assume the witness is correct. And that places the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt does allow for the possibility that evidence might hypothetically exist that would show the defendant is not guilty. But hypothetical evidence is not enough to be a reason - you’re supposed to decide the case based on the evidence that is presented to you. And if all the evidence that’s produced, even if it’s scanty, shows that the defendant is guilty that that’s the way you’re supposed to vote because you haven’t heard any reason to doubt his guilt.
A lot of people get “reasonable doubt” confused with “beyond a shadow of a doubt” - that standard means that there is no possible evidence that could be produced that would produce a different verdict. But the realm of possible evidence is so large that it’s generally conceded that nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
if I was on a jury that the state did not fill the need to present all the case and left it only one persons word against another I would be pissed and would not be able to vote guilty.
I was on a different type of case that we felt that a lot fact wereleft out leving us guessing.
I disagree. The Defendant is presumed innocent. The state’s burden is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the only evidence the jury hears is the victim’s testimony that he did it, and they don’t believe her, they can and should vote not guilty.
Neither of us is a lawyer, but I think this is badly, badly flawed. My personal tendency is to side with women who allege abuse, but it is not reasonable in a court of law to take a witness at his or her word. Not in a case like this, at least.
I’ve heard it called the CSI effect. People watch these shows and think that every case should have all that scientific evidence like they saw on TV. The reality is that testing a single rape kit is costs between $445 and $1200 (cite) and testing the 400,000 kits used in the country would be hundreds of millions of dollars. And that’s just for the testing; if you enter the test as evidence you’re going to need an expert witness to explain it in court and their cost averages $2000 a day (plus expenses). A DA that has enough other evidence to convict is going to go with what he has and save his resources for other cases.
Happens every day. The jury sees the witness take an oath to be truthful, gets to observe the witness on the stand, and determines for themselves whether the testimony is truthful. That testimony can be supported or rebutted by other evidence, or discredited on cross examination…that’s one of the things defense lawyers do.
Marley - So eye-witness testimony is now worthless? They were caught together by the police, shortly after her sexual assault. Proximity alone would make him a likely suspect, and when the victim ID’d him and he didn’t refute it, what more should be needed? Extra evidence would be peachy, but physical evidence is often washed away, or co-mingled with other samples. So unless he says “I didn’t do it”, I’d consider it for the State. And if he did say “I didn’t do it”, then I’d test my evidence and strengthen my case.
Right now I’m assuming all the evidence in this case is presented here. The OP is a public defender, though, so I’m wondering if some of the contentions the prosecution would make have been left out.
You assume the defendant is innocent until you hear the evidence. Then you’re supposed to decide what the evidence tells you.
Now if there are two witnesses and they offer conflicting testimony, it’s reasonable of you to decide one is more credible and you’re going to believe that one. And if other evidence is presented that offers conflicting interpretations, then you have to choose what to believe. And you’re supposed to decide in favor of the defendant.
But if you’re in court and all of the evidence you hear is telling one consistent story and that story contains enough evidence to support that the defendant committed the crime, then you are supposed to convict. You’re not supposed to be making your decison based on “evidence” that didn’t exist - like what another witness might have said or what the results of a DNA test might have been. You’re supposed to decide based on the evidence that was presented in court.
Near a railroad track. Not an unlikely place to find a condom. That wouldn’t be evidence in itself.
This story seems to have physical evidence that’s being used against the defendant. As a juror, I’d want that physical evidence to be used to its full capacity - DNA tests, mainly. I wouldn’t want to make a decision without it. That doesn’t mean I’d say ‘not guilty,’ I mean that I think the trial shouldn’t go ahead until all the evidence is there. I’m not sure how a member of the jury could do that.
Rape cases are horrible for the victim; I wouldn’t want them to go on longer than necessary. All the same, I wouldn’t want to take the chance of convicting someone of such a serious crime if I weren’t sure they did it. Sometimes rape charges can be ‘he said, she said,’ but there should be every effort possible put into building more of a case than that, on both sides.
We don’t know there was a sexual assault. We know she was bitten, but we don’t know when and we don’t know by whom. We know what she says about it but we don’t know if any evidence corroborates that.
I don’t find this convincing. She was bitten by someone at some fairly recent time; the fact that he is with her does not mean it was him.
That’s fairly persuasive, but (much as I’m trying to stay “in bounds” here) I feel like we’re not being told something by the OP.
Seems like the evidence exists and simply isn’t being examined, which I don’t understand.
Little Nemo, can you support your opinion please? It seems to me that if I’m a juror, I’m entitled to decide whether or not the body of evidence is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. What you’re describing sounds more like a preponderance of the evidence.
