apparently, charges of kidnapping and some sort of sexual offense charge (that bears the same potential of 40 years in prison as the rape charge) remain.
Anyone know the elements of the sexual offense charge? Or whether this step allows Nifong to exclude the DNA evidence and the accuser’s inconsistent stories about the previously alleged rape?
I do not know the elements of the sexual offense charge, but Nifong has stated that he has **no **evidence, DNA or otherwise, other than her statement, so he had to drop the rape charge. He knows this because he interviewed her for the first time yesterday.
Oh, heck, I’ll say it again. He interviewed her for the first time yesterday.
Back in April, before he went to the grand jury, he had the DNA report from DNA Security, so he knew in April that he had no evidence other than her testimony. Yet, he sought an indictment without interviewing the complainant, and continued to insist that the defendants were brutal rapists.
I can’t imagine how he can exclude her inconsistent stories. No one other than her is saying anything happened at all. She’s all he has.
according to the news story I read, the ‘sexual offense’ charge allows them to claim sexual contact w/o penetration
and yes, it would be a strategic move to keep DNA out of it (ie, that not only were the accused DNA not present, other specimins were)
from here.
I’m not a lawyer and certainly not in that jurisidiction, but wouldn’t that strategy open up the possability for the defense to claim that she’d been raped, but by other guys?
not a lawyer, nor in that jurisdiction, however, I attended a rape trial where the defense was prohibited from using prior inconsistent statements the accusor made to various folks as a means of impeaching her testimony. All they could do was have her read (for example) the police report and ask if that’s how she remembered it (ie the jury was not allowed to hear her prior inconsistent staetments at all)
This is not a rape trial. The rape charges have been dismissed.
In the police report, and in a statement written in her own hand, she describes multiple acts of vaginal penetration by various penises, (as well as other combinations of penetrations by penises.) Since he cannot have her read those, what else does he have?
the term “rape” has many types of meanings - in that post, I used the term to conote the general “sexual misconduct” type of behavior, the specific charges included both penetration and groping. and the defense was not allowed to specifically enter her prior statements into the record, he could only show her, for example, the police report and say “I want you to look at this part, is that an accurate description?” the jury would not have known that it was her statement, vs, the cops restatement. and yes, in that case every single statement by the accusor was a substantive change from the prior ones (“I was sitting to his left” “I was standing in front of him”) varied about what acts were done (“He touched me” “he penetrated me”) etc. Wasn’t allowed to use it. They weren’t under oath.
In this instance, it has a very specifiv meaning, i.e., the definition of rape according to NC statute, of which a necessary element is vaginal penetration. Since the DA has no evidence other than her statement that this actually occurred, he was forced to drop the charge of rape.
If the prosecutor enters the police report, it is all available to be cross-examined. She made multiple statements to the police, many of which involved vaginal penetration. She also wrote a statement in her own hand. If she affirms any part of either, she can be asked about any other part of either.
Nifong has said (almost word for word) that he has nothing but her testimony. They are the sum total of his case. To prosecute this case at all, he will have to put her on the stand. Whatever statements she makes on the stand are fair game for the prosecution.
Yeah, that’s kind of what I expected. Depending on how “sexual contact” is further defined, this could get interesting.
For rape, there’s kind of bright-line to apply. Either there was penetration or there was not. And even though she was there as a stripper, lapdancer or whatever, that doesn’t diminish her right to say no to intercourse. So a jury who believed the accuser could have some rational basis for evaluating the situation, finding nonconsensual penetration, and convicting.
Similarly, kidnapping/unlawful restraint is a pretty clear either/or situation.
And for a normal, non sexual encounter, if a guy starts groping a woman that he’s with, I can see how a jury could evaluate that, and have a basis for finding sexual assault.
But if this turns into a claim that she was there, put on a show, did some lapdances, and in the middle of the (up to then consensual) contact, the lapdance receipient touched her breast, so she objected and ran out (or some similar momentary scenario), how the hell is the jury supposed to evaluate that?
Yeah, I’m probably going to get flamed for that, so I should be as clear as I can be about what I mean.
She still has the right to end the lapdance at any time. If there’s a videotape where she says “let me go” or “stop”, and the guy keeps groping her for more than the few seconds needed for a person to hear and comprehend what"s being said, lock him up.
On the other hand, if the story is “yeah, I was giving him the lap dance, and I was okay with him touching me there and there, which he did, and through my responses I let him know I approved, but then he touched me again, slightly lower, and I didn’t like that, so that was assault”, I don"t know how the jury convicts beyond a reasonable doubt.
But who knows what the story will end up being. If (as the kidnapping charge seems to indicate), the claim is that she was forcibly restrained and molested sexually in some way, then the problem I’ve raised doesn’t arise.
Here is how K.C. Johnson, of DURHAM-IN-WONDERLAND sums up the situation.
(Quoted with permission.)
Tawana Brawley II will claim it’s too stressful to take the stand (lest we confirm she lied). More charges will be dropped. She won’t have to admit she lied and can blame stress/racism/media-whatever.
Old article seems to hint that:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/410489p-347230c.html
It is beyond belief to me that she will ever take the stand. Truly beyond belief. Joe Cheshire will have her babbling incoherently in no time. The important question is why Nifong is continuing on, since her testimony is all he has.
The end is in sight, but the shitstorm for Nifong is just beginning.
wtf? you were quoting a post of mine where I was clearly talking about a different jurisdiction, and what was allowed. even here, you quoted me saying “in that post, blah blah blah”. anyhow,
and I"m telling you that in my jurisdiction, the police report etc were NOT put into evidence. I don’t see where either of us have specific knowledge of how this state would handle this, but the point I was making was that formany of us armchair lawyers, it may seem obvious that the police report would be part of the record. However, IME, IMjurisdiction, that was NOT the case. the accusors sworn testimony atthe trial was the only thing that the defense could use, they could NOT introduce the police report which contained MANY contradictions.
I don’t know what the pertinant law is in that state. BUt my experience tells me that what may seem obvious to us spectators may not be the actual way it will work in court.
Hey, the lying skunkfucker drops the rape charges on the Friday right before a long holiday weekend. What are the odds of that? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
What do you mean by “your jurisdiction?”
In the case you cited, was the testimony of the claimant the sole evidence available to the prosecution? If not, whatever parallels you attempt to draw are of little value.
Please try to understand this. She will have to take the stand. She will have to point out her assailants. Once she does, the photo array will be introduced. She will then be asked why she identified the defendants as the men who raped her, and later decided that she is no longer sure whether a rape occured. This is not about prior statements. This is about the substance of the ID process.
I honestly fail to see what you are on about. Your anecdote of winessing a trial, devoid as it is of pertinent facts, is meaningless.
Even in this third version the prosecution has suggested, Seligmann cannot have commited a crime.
From DURHAM-IN-WONDERLAND.
my state, MI
yes, accusors statement was the sole evidence, which was why I believe it’s pertinent
listen carefully, then. yes, she’ll have to take the stand. yes, she’s make her accusation and point at the guys. BUT unless you have some information that demonstrates that in that jurisdiction, the police statement(s) etc WILL be introduced (mustbe, can be), then her prior inconsistencies would not be known by the jury. As I stated, I was surprised that prior statements to the cops by the accusor would not be introduced in court and that the defense could not bring them out. It ran contrary to my expectations of how thingswould work. Now, I admit that it might just be that way in my state, but I think that’s unlikely, and IF it runs the same in this case, then her prior inconsistent statements would NOT be able tobe introduced by the defense (though I suspect w/all the publicity folks would probably be aware). note I think this woman is not telling the truth, I think the prosecutor is on a blind vendetta, unable to admit he’s wrong. but this maneuver may indeed allow him to get convictions nonetheless.
Could the defense demand an immediate jury trial? There is no way a jury is going to believe anything the accuser says.
Don’t be so sure:
The racial makeup of the city was 45.50% White, 43.81% African American,
Load up the jury right, and it will be OJ all over again. After all, they re-elected Nifong…
North Carolina’s Open Discovery Law requires the prosecution to turn over its entire file to the defense. This file includes all of the police reports, as well as the victim’s hand written statement. They are now evidence in the case at hand. Now, I cannot predict the future, but the defense attorney’s seem pretty sharp to me. If the witness takes the stand, which she must for the trial to proceed, she will be put under oath, at which point she will be compelled to confront the evidence of her statement, and confirm or deny it.
Similarly, if any police officer is put on the stand, his report in its entirety will be intruduced as evidence.
The reports themselves are full of inconsistencies. How, exactly, do suggest that only the parts favorable to the prosecution will be allowed?