Nebraska court: Woman must testify in rape case

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

May 11, 1:13 PM EDT
Nebraska court: Woman must testify in rape case
By MARGERY A. BECK
Associated Press

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) -- The Nebraska Supreme Court says a Kansas woman can be sent to jail for refusing to testify against the Nebraska man she has accused of sexual assault.

The woman had refused to testify, saying it would shame her and her family. But a Nebraska judge ordered her last year to take the stand or face 90 days in jail, saying her testimony was important to the case.

The Associated Press does not name victims of sexual assault.

The state's highest court upheld the judge's decision Friday, saying a state law that allows witnesses to decline to testify when they would be shamed or publicly disgraced doesn't apply in criminal cases.



Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_RAPE_CHARGE_CONTEMPT?SECTION=HOME&SITE=AP&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[tawadi]

1. This should be taken to Supreme Court of the United States

Thought we'd gotten past this a long time ago. Guess not.

[lark]

2. I wouldn't trust those right wing crazies at SCOTUS to rule correctly on anything

The Repug 5 are all ideology and no common or legal sense.

[tawadi]

4. Sadly, you are probably right about that.

[tcaudilllg]

5. That would only be the first step.

If they upheld the ruling, just think what the Democratic party could do with that.

[Angleae]

16. Which would result in a 9-0 decision

Amendment VI.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.



The accused has the right to confront his/her accuser in court. If this right is reduced, the court system would rapidly degrade to "Guilty until proven innocent"

[boppers]

20. Exactly the problem.

Refusing to testify is not the same as refusing to testify with an identity on the record.

[Stargazer09]

3. I absolutely hate living in Nebraska

Most of the time, it isn't too bad. People are usually pleasant and don't shove their political views down other people's throats.

Then news stories like this come out, and I just want to vomit. Sending a woman to jail if she doesn't want to be publicly humiliated after being privately humiliated by her rapist. Who honestly believes that this is okay???

(For the record, we only live here thanks to the military.)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. You're in Nebraska? And you call that living?

[Stargazer09]

17. It's better than Louisiana

Where my kids, and their teachers, we're relentlessly bullied at school every day.

But it's certainly not where I want to spend the rest of my life. The mister and I are arguing over the timeline for moving. I want to move NOW, he wants to be more cautious.

I'm really anxious to leave here, believe me.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

18. Actually, of course, I was not serious about my post.

I've been to Nebraska and remember many good people from there.

[brendan120678]

6. Sounds like an easy application of the sixth amendment to me.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[DallasNE]

8. This Is Why

There are so few rape convictions. Why not just go with the DNA evidence and the police reports with testimony from just those individuals. Those are witnesses against him. It doesn't say ALL witnesses against him. The actual rape, after all, is a he said/she said case that would shed little additional light on the case but subject the victim to character assassination. This seems like a case of the State prosecuting the victim, who happens to be a woman.

[Jim Lane]

12. There's no character assassination involved.

The real tragedy here is that the woman apparently agrees with you that being raped is a cause for shame. She didn't do anything wrong and it doesn't reflect badly on her.

You write, "It doesn't say ALL witnesses against him." In this context, that's clearly what the Sixth Amendment means. Your interpretation would mean that the prosecution could put on one witness (or, to be safe, two, because the text is plural), who'd be subject to cross-examination, but once that minimal requirement was fulfilled, the prosecutor could introduce any number of written statements or videotaped accounts. That's just wrong.

An old joke says that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. Don't go casually endorsing the expansion of the State's power in criminal prosecutions. Picture yourself accused of a crime and not being able to confront ALL the witnesses against you.

[DallasNE]

15. What Planet Do You Live On?

The sole purpose the defense wants to put her on the stand is to attack her character. They will attempt to show that she is a slut from the clothes she was wearing, how she was walking -- indeed, she was asking for it. That is what defense attoney's do in rape cases.

You are also reading a lot into what I said that is not there. I expressedly said that police officers, medical examiners and those doing the DNA testing are witnesses that take the stand. Written statements and videotape can only be introduced by a witness as part of their testimony.

[Stargazer09]

11. I respect that

I think she should be allowed to give a videotaped testimony to protect her privacy and avoid further trauma.

[DearAbby]

7. When does it apply?

[Towlie]

9. Which matters more, sending a rapist to prison or sparing someone irrationally perceived shame?

The court's decision is correct, and I can't see how thinking otherwise is consistent with any sensible definition of "liberal", "progressive", "left-wing", or "Democratic." It makes no sense to allow a victim to protect her attacker so that he remains free to claim another victim.

[gratuitous]

10. Not entirely clear from the story

But it appears that it's the prosecuting attorney who has asked this woman to testify against the accused. Now, it's just possible that the prosecuting attorney is a complete creep who just wants to humiliate the victim, but I think it's far more likely that he can't make his case without her testimony. And if that is so, she has decided that her shame is more important than convicting the man accused of raping her.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. She might not be the only victim or alleged victim.

The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled Friday that a witness can be compelled to testify against the man who allegedly raped her as a child.

But the court said the ruling doesn’t mean prosecutors should force the woman to take the stand. The prosecutor in the case said he will evaluate whether or how to proceed.

Lancaster County Attorney Joe Kelly said prosecutors will talk with the alleged victim, identified in the ruling only as H.M., before deciding what to do. “We will listen respectfully and very carefully to our victim and then we’ll move on,” he said.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20120511/NEWS97/705129963

[NYC Liberal]

19. It's the correct decision.

People who are accused of crimes have the right to confront witnesses.