It is a weirdly specific hypothetical.
From time to time, I write hypeothetical cases for the mock trial competitions. This is how we’re supposed to do it- give very specific fats, with enough ambiguity so that both sides will have something substantial to argue. We also have to supply a list of 4 or 5 witnesses, along with the statements that they made to the police, which flesh out the fact pattern somewhat. I do sometimes get criticised for making my fact patterns too defense oriented.
One of the things I am interested in is how important little inconsistencies are (dressed, not dressed), as well as things that sound so wierd they don’t make sense, which is why I threw in the condom thing. Sometimes those things are pointed to as being “reasonable doubt” in and of themselves, and while I believe that such things can contribute to reasonable doubt, I’ve often felt that it was disingenuous to try to hang RD completely on one or two oddities.
We have talked a lot in my office about the CSI effect, and how juries sometimes expect some kind of scientific evidence when there just isn’t any to be had.
The major flaw in my hypothetical, as so many have pointed out, is that no prosecutor worth his salt is going to let a condom go untested by the crime lab, or let someone sit in jail without getting a search warrant for a DNA swab. And, if the defendant is proclaiming his innocence, no defense attorney is going to ignore evidence that could exonerate his client (the defense can get tests done by the crime lab with a court order. A court order is not hard to get). So this probably wasn’t the best hypothetical in the world to determine how important physical or scientific evidence is.
There has also been a lot of bruhaha in Georgia about mandatory minimum sentences, which is why I made this a sex offense case- they are the ones with the mandatory minimums, plus there is having to register as a sex offender for life (which is why I made stat rape a possibility). The state of the law right now is that the judges cannot tell a jury what the punishment for a crime is (except in death penalty cases). I’m wondering if it would make a difference if the jury knew what the punishment would be.
I have enjoyed reading the responses.
Why? There’s no evidence of either. In the OP there’s no mention of evidence that sex actually took place. The girl is an acknowledged liar.
Everybody has lied at one time or another. EVERYBODY in the entire fucking world is an “acknowledged liar”. You cannot find me one person in the entire history of the world who has not told a lie at some point.
I’m sick and tired of all the posters screaming “THERE IS NO EVIDENCE”. There is. She testified. Under oath. Believe it or not, that’s evidence. At least some posters were willing to at least acknowledge that fact and say much of the case depends on her credibility. And her testimony has corroboration. The condom, he’s found with her right after the act, the bite marks. It’s an incredibly silly hypothetical with huge gaping holes that wouldn’t happen in reality, and there are some problems with her story. But to say there is no evidence completely ignores reality too.
Like I said, it’s a wonder anyone was ever convicted before DNA and rape kits. :rolleyes:
The girl’s testimony is evidence. Her testimony is that she woke up to the guy having sex with her. Assuming a jury finds her credible, that’s sufficient to convict on the statutory rape charge.
True but in this case she on record as having lied to officials - the false claim against her parents.
Curious - or maybe not - that male respondents here are tending to not convict but female respondents are tending to convict.
The witness’s testimony IS evidence, and I believe her. Her past “false claim” against her parents does not affect her credibility in this case, IMO. There is no evidence that there is a motive for her to lie in this case. Also the bite mark is clear physical evidence of a physical assault, and its location is a sexual organ, which makes it sexual battery. In addition, the defense has given no reason for me to have any reasonable doubt. Hope that explains my rationale.
Not guilty.
-
She’s a 12 year old–it’s not unreasonable to believe she might be sexually active already; evidence of previous activity does not mean D was a part of it
-
Everyone has seen a used condom lying on the ground. It’s unusual and titilating, you remember the location for weeks. Could have been anyone’s.
-
She’s filed false charges in the past, there is a good chance she’s looking for drama. Alternatively, crying “rape” could get her out of trouble for sneaking out of the house with the guy. Her story stinks–why voluntarily run off with someone who attacked you?
As presented: Not guilty on all counts, but I wonder who chomped her.
And no, the consequences of a guilty verdict had no bearing on my decision. If it looks like he done it, then he gets what he gets. But it doesn’t look enough like he done what she says he done.
However, in this case we do have both, and theres no good reason why it should be excluded or ignored. Thats why I dont believe that simply the PW’s testimony is sufficient. This would be my position even if I did not know she lied about her parents, as that information is, to me, extraneous and coercive.
Well…Bam Boo Gut said this:
So she may have left the house of her own accord, but how voluntary was it? Obviously we’ll never know since it’s a made up story.
Fair enough. As the OP is written I don’t have enough information to form an opinion. As presented there is not a lot of physical evidence. Without seeing the actual testimony there is no way to know. Mandatory sentences will no effect my opinion one way or the other.
And if you are forming a case for the reasons given there has to be a reason why the tests weren’t done. There are plenty of reasons why there would be no DNA evidence in cases. But if there is evidence but it wasn’t tested, there needs to be an explanation.
I’m fairly flabbergasted that some here believe that **j) **is not relevant. The accuser, whose testimony is essentially the only evidence in the case, is known to have previously made a false accusation of abuse at the hands of an adult. If **you **were on trial for a crime facing 25 years in jail, and the lone witness against you had falsely accused other people of committing similar crimes in the past, that would the most relevant fact in your universe.
Not at all curious, I think. Sexually, the nightmare scenario for men is that some crazy woman (or, worse yet, girl) will make up a rape story and you won’t be able to prove you didn’t do it. The nightmare scenario for women is that some guy will rape you and no one will believe you. Naturally, both men and women will be leery of possibly abetting the nightmare scenario that applies most directly to themselves.
I don’t either. Again, given this poorly constructed hypothetical, you shouldn’t ignore it.
THIS is where I have a problem though. The existence of the possibility of DNA testing has NOTHING to do with the “sufficiency” of PW’s testimony. 30 years ago there was no such test even possible, yet juries were able to make actual determinations about witness credibility without it. And, unless you are arguing that all those convictions were wrong, witness testimony and corroboration in those cases WERE “sufficient”.
The results of the DNA testing certainly has the ability to help prove the case one way or another. But the MERE EXISTENCE of a DNA test, without more, does little to nothing to prove one way or the other. It’s merely speculation, not evidence.
I wasn’t sure what the “busted” in the OP meant (again, poor hypothetical), whether she was simply caught in a lie, or if she had actually been arrested for lying to officials. If the latter, I think it would certainly be relevant to whether she is lying now. Lying is something everyone does. Lying to police or under oath, however, is a step beyond that.
Problem is…they were wrong a lot of the time.
Eyewitness testamony, especially from the victim, is the most compelling evidence. It’s also more like to be mistaken. Even if they are 100% honest, people don’t remember traumatic events that accurately.
As for me, I don’t see any evidence besides PW’s word that any sex occurred, thus I couldn’t vote guilty on the rape or statutory rape charge.
As for sexual battery, if the prosecution only gave me what was outlined in the OP with nothing else, I’d be leaning toward’s thinking it likely D did it, but not enough to vote guilty.
I’d also be thinking that the prosecution seriously flawed their own case.