Judge Rodney Melville (from the infamous carnival known as the Michael Jackson trial) has ruled that the accused’s defense team can not have access to health & psychological records of his accuser & his accuser’s family. According to The AP / San Jose Mercury Nsws, "Jackson defense won’t get psychological exam of accuser, family.
This isn’t a debate on the strange, gloved one’s guilt (or innocence). It’s another one of those ‘what are the rights of the accused vs. the accuser’s rights to medical privacy’.
Several philosphical questions (I’m certain there are more):[ul]
[li]Is there a difference when the victim is a child as opposed to an adult rape victim?[/li][li]Does Jacko’s lawyer, Brian Oxman have a point when he states: “Mr. Jackson cannot cross-examine and confront expert witnesses unless he is permitted equal access to the subject matter of the experts’ mental examination”[/li][li]Is it a stretch to ask for the accuser’s parents records if (as alleged) they’re behind the charges? Take it a step further; Should the DA’s records be available to the defense if (as also alleged) he’s on a vengeful, meglomaniacal witchhunt?[/li]If it’s truly better that ‘a hundred guilty men go free than for one innocent to be punished’, why shouldn’t the accuser’s rights to medical privacy be overridden by the accused’s rights to avoid false punishment?[/ul]
Your link is subscription only, but I found the story anyway. It appears that the judge denied Jackson’s request to have the victim subjected to a psychological evaluation by Jackson’s psychologist. The only time I’ve ever heard that being allowed is when their is a serious question as to a child victim’s competence to testify. I’ve seen no allegations that that is the case in the Jackson case. In addition, there is a statute in California that says that the court can not order a sexual abuse victim to submit to a psychological evaluation. The judge was simply following the statute and caselaw.
As to your philosophical questions:
Is there a difference when the victim is a child as opposed to an adult rape victim?
Generally, no, but if there is an issue of the child victim’s competence to testify, then the court may order an evaluation, generally done by a psychologist the court appoints. However, both child and adult victims should be protected from having to submit to a psychological evaluation by an expert of the defendant’s choosing.
Does Jacko’s lawyer, Brian Oxman have a point when he states: “Mr. Jackson cannot cross-examine and confront expert witnesses unless he is permitted equal access to the subject matter of the experts’ mental examination”
Pretty much. The defense is allowed access to most anything that the State’s expert relies on in making his opinion. I don’t think that’s what Oxman is referring to though.
Is it a stretch to ask for the accuser’s parents records if (as alleged) they’re behind the charges? Take it a step further; Should the DA’s records be available to the defense if (as also alleged) he’s on a vengeful, meglomaniacal witchhunt?
I imagine it would be. Medical, psychological, and some other types (banking) records are generally protected materials.
If it’s truly better that ‘a hundred guilty men go free than for one innocent to be punished’, why shouldn’t the accuser’s rights to medical privacy be overridden by the accused’s rights to avoid false punishment?
Simple public policy. The psychological records of the accused are generally irrelevant to a determination of whether or not they are credible. In certain cases, such as a victim who suffers from hallucinations or delusions, the evidence may be relevant. But the fact that an alleged victim saw a counselor shouldn’t be. It’s simply irrelevant to the facts of the case.