the DA’s office should have prep’d her. Go over the testimony. Make her aware of the questions the defense will ask and tricks they’d pull to get her angry.
The prosecution should have prepared her better for cross-examination and should certainly have objected to the defense counsel’s language and badgering.
And the judge deserves a smack in the face with a dead fish.
The story doesn’t say how many warnings the victim had from the judge.
Judges have to school uncooperative witnesses all the time, but it’s usually handled with a stern warning and the threat of contempt.
If the victim called the lawyer a “bitch” after several warnings, then contempt was probably justified. If she was held in contempt after one act of verbal aggression, then the contempt was probably excessive.
So what defense should a person accused of rape be allowed to argue, then?
*“I said just get to the point bitch, it slipped out, it was inappropriate… all the bottled anger” says the alleged victim.
Without a warning, she says 36th District Judge Vanessa Bradley held her in contempt and ordered her to spend three days in jail.
After our story aired Wednesday, exposing what happened - the judge seemed to have a change of heart and released her a day early.
But to make matters even worse, she says her time in a holding cell was spent right next door to her alleged attacker who she says threatened her life, claiming the suspect who is still on the loose will come back and kill her. An investigation into this matter is underway.*
A stern warning would have been appropriate for that remark, but the Judge was waaaay out of line in jailing her.
I can totally see that remark slipping out, particularly considering how traumatized the victim was and (apparently) how obnoxious the defense counselor was.
The judge should have issued a warning along with instruction on the penalty for repeating the offense.
mmm
How about having a witness to his whereabouts when the crime was committed?
Must be pretty hard to convince a jury that she wanted to be beaten with a 2 X 4.
The judge might have issued a warning. The judge might have issued more than one warning. We don’t know. Personally I find it very hard to believe the action was taken without more than one warning, though I am speaking in total ignorance of the actual facts.
And the punishment for violating this law should be especially harsh in cases where it’s discovered that the alleged victim actually *did *ask for it because she indeed desired consensual sex with the so-called “rapist”.
Also, There should be a law requiring people to refer to an alleged rape victim as an “alleged rape victim” instead of a “rape victim”.
According to the victim, there was no warning issued.
You can see the interview with her here
Exactly. The prosecution needs to work very carefully with alleged rape victims. Not only to prepare her (or him) for potentially rough questions from the defense attorney, but also to help her through a very difficult time. Every possible victim of rape–as well as any other violent crime–deserves to have a victim’s advocate helping her (or him) through a very emotionally wrenching period.
My ex-girlfriend used to do that for a living. We were both angry and amazed that because of the tiny budgets allocated for this sort of assistance victim’s advocates had impossible caseloads and therefore couldn’t give the amount of time and attention to each case that the alleged victim’s required.
Yes, “alleged”. Because at that point, it really doesn’t matter if she was raped or not. The victims advocate needs to proceed as if she was.
But, you know, let’s like… lower taxes and stuff. Who needs those frou-frou, bleeding-heart, “entitlement” programs anyway, right?
What if his whereabouts were with the victim, having consensual sex?
According to this same person, she was kept in a cell next to her alleged attacker, who was permitted to threaten her life, without consequence.
Anyone else’s bullshit meter going to 100 right now?
No, I believe her. Especially with the interview with the prosecutor, and also because no one is contradicting her version of events.
I thought woman’s units were separate from men’s in jail/prison? A different building or at least a different wing of a building.
She may be talking about the holding cells at the court. Those may be all together.
Well, this is what you get when you have prosecutors who put defending their client over morality and judges who put court decorum over justice.
You can argue that there is a point in maintaining decorum, but you go too far when you get to the point where a single curse word or a gesture is so bad as to deserve jail time.
Similarly, a defense lawyer can ask all the necessary questions without being an asshole. The only reason to do it is because you think unnerving the person will cause them to slip. So you have to be intentionally trying to cause trauma to a rape victim for this crap to happen.
The prosecution shouldn’t have to help a rape victim understand how to answer aggressive questions, because aggressive questions shouldn’t be asked.
Then he would be found innocent, aside from the 2 X 4 thing. 
Do you think only accused rapists should be prohibited from defending themselves by aggressively questioning their accusers, or would you apply that to all accused criminals?
The lawyer asks her accusing questions and she breaks down like on a Perry Mason TV show and says, “Yes, I wanted him to fuck me! I wanted to be beaten with a 2 X 4!” ?
You have exactly 1 person’s account of this incident to base your outrage on, and that 1 person is the single most biased person possible.
Also, you forgot an “alleged” in there, right before “rape victim”. She may have been raped, or she may not have been. Either way, her account of the contempt of court issue sounds somewhere in the neighborhood between unbelievable and ridiculous.