Woman Sues Judge for Banning Words (rape trial barred use of 'rape', 'sexual assault')

[Ghost in the Machine]

Woman Sues Judge for Banning Words
Published: 9/8/07, 3:26 PM EDT

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - The accuser in a sexual assault case is suing a judge because he barred the word "rape" and other words from the trial.

The federal court complaint filed Thursday claims Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront violated the accuser's First Amendment right to free speech by barring her from saying words including "rape," "victim" and "assailant" during the trial of Pamir Safi.

Safi, 34, was charged with first-degree sexual assault stemming from an encounter between him and Tory Bowen, 24, at his apartment the morning of Oct. 31, 2004.

Safi said he and Bowen, who met at a bar the night before, had consensual sex.

Bowen says she was too intoxicated to give consent.

In restricting language, Cheuvront said he was concerned that Safi's constitutional right to a fair trial might be jeopardized if witnesses were permitted to use the banned words in their testimony.

http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?bfromind=2728&eeid=5399498&_sitecat=1522&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=0&ck=&ch=ne

[WindRavenX]

1. I still dont understand how this was even legal

How can the words "rape" "victim" and "assailant" be banned during a rape trial? :wtf:

[djg21]

6. Because . . .

(1) its a legal conclusion to be made by the jury/judge based upon the evidence presented at trial (that is why you have a trial); and more importantly,
(2) use of the terms would unduly prejudice the defendant.

BTW, the judge has absolute judicial immunity and can't be sued for this.

[jgraz]

2. I think we've found our next Attorney General

Only because a slot on the SCOTUS isn't available.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clovis Sangrail]

4. hmmm....

I don't get why the judge didn't just sustain Safi's lawyer's objections whenever a prejudicial term was used.
(which would eventually lead to a "you can't say xxx" statement from the judge to the prosecution.

I also don't get why Bowen (or her lawyer) wouldn't just repeatedly say things like "and then he proceeded to to force me to have non-consentual sex... there's a word for that that starts with R but we aren't allow to use it"


meh... this is why I hate lawyers, judges, and politicians.

[Richard Steele]

7. It sounds like a pretty blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the trial, doesn't it?

The defendant is accused of sexual assault, but the
judge decides that bthe jury can't hear it? Bizarre.

Also, imagine how that affected the way the jury
perceived her.

Trying to answer questions from the defendant's lawyer
while simultaneously trying to avoid those forbidden words
might make someone appear confused, uncertain, or dishonest
to a jury.

[Clovis Sangrail]

16. maybe... maybe not

I think it makes sense to forbid the lawyers/witnesses from calling a defendant a 'rapist' or 'murderer' or whatever it is they're accused of - since they haven't been found guilty of that crime that sort of language *is prejudicial.

What's odd is that usually this sort of thing is taken care of by objections by the defense... which begs the question - why did the judge feel the need to ban certain words?

There's really not enough information in that story to tell us what was really going on.

[dsc]

5. In a case like this one I could see banning the police and techs from using the word rape

but the victim is a whole other story. She should have been permitted to use whatever words she wanted.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[itsrobert]

9. We need to drop it

Obviously if you're a man, you are guilty until proven innocent. And even if you are innocent, you are still guilty. ;) This is my last input on this topic.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gaspee]

47. Oh please

Try living in the real world for a little while.

[MissB]

10. You should take your concerns up with the adminstrators of the site.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WindRavenX]

11. because getting intoxicated IS NOT A CRIME.

Anyone else who is intoxicated who commits a crime still commits a crime regardless is they are intoxicated.

that's the crux of this issue.

[ComerPerro]

12. then why is that guy being accused of rape? He got drunk and had sex

[WindRavenX]

17. and if it's consensual, it's not a crime.

Look, my beef with this thread is that its moving from the unknowns of the trial--which there are many, including whether or not she gave consent--to more overlaying views in general on these types of cases.

What I'm getting is that some people feel that if a woman is intoxicated, the act of non-consensual sex--either unable to be given or is told to stop-- is somehow less of a crime because there was a failure of "personal responsibility" on the part of the woman because she was intoxicated. Thats my issue.

With this case specifically, there isnt enough known. But the attitudes expressed in this thread sure read as if this is a general attitude in general towards these situations, and that is scary.

[ComerPerro]

18. her entire defense is that she was drunk, so it must have been rape

ie: "I am not accountable for my actions when I have been drinking".

[WindRavenX]

19. is that *exactly* what she has said?

I have not been following this case. From what I've read, the words bared from being used are words that make describing the incident impossible.

And what *were* her actions while drinking? Dressing a little too flirty?

[ComerPerro]

20. she claims she was too drunk to give consent. But she obviously left the bar with him

and wherever they went, they had sexual intercourse.

Like someone else pointed out, can you imagine if she had driven home and got busted for DUI? She would be suing the fucking cop for pulling her over!

[WindRavenX]

25. they're too different things.

drinking while driving is a crime.

Assuming there is consent with leaving with someone from a bar is folly. There are numerous things that can change between then and the actual bedroom, and it doesn't mean consent to leave with him.

Men prey upon drunk women and will act completely different in bars to get women home.

But whatever.

[ComerPerro]

26. it doesn't automatically mean it was rape. She was drunk and made a dumb decision

apparently so did he.

Only difference is, he could go to jail for five, ten, fifteen years or more. All over what may have been consensual sex.

[WindRavenX]

29. No it doesn't.

Which is why I think the assumptions, like saying she left with him, mean consent is also not valid.

[ComerPerro]

30. point is, she was aware enough to make that decision.

this is a case of regrets the morning after.

Good news is, she gets to go on with her life, and he gets to spend a good deal of his life in jail.

All because he had consensual sex with a woman too stupid to think for herself, apparently

[WindRavenX]

42. "this is a case of regrets the morning after"

As you've been saying to me the *entire thread*--how do YOU know that?

Do you know everything that took place between the pickup and the place of intercourse?

[Ghost in the Machine]

45. a little more info

Safi testified that it was consensual sex. Bowen claims she was so intoxicated, and possibly drugged, that she was unable to consent.

Bowen said she had gone with a female friend to a pre-Halloween costume party at a downtown Lincoln tavern and had consumed maybe four mixed drinks before the bar closed.

She said she didn't remember leaving the bar, although a surveillance camera showed her leaving with Safi.

The next morning, she woke up naked with the man atop her. Bowen said Safi stopped the sex when asked.

"His words were, 'You don't remember last night? You consented,'" she recalled. "That shows he knew the difference."

The ruling on excluding prejudicial language was made in a hearing well before the trial, outside the view of the jury.

One juror in the mistrial, Milt Foreman of Lincoln, said he wasn't fully aware that some words had been banned, but he didn't think it mattered. The jury, he said, understood it was a rape case.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=2397636

[angstlessk]

43. Exactly, if he murders her because she is drunk is that consent? n/t

[noamnety]

50. Thank you for that stunning defense of date rape drugs

Apparently some folks here must think that if a woman is drugged, and you successfully guide her back to your house without her protesting, that counts as consent.

I wonder how many of that crew here on DU has committed rape - and justified it by saying "if she was incapacitated, that was close enough to consent for me."

I forget sometimes how much contempt some people have for people's rights, when it conflicts with their own sense of entitlement to "get laid."

[fizzgig]

21. you hit it perfectly

it is scary to think this type of crime is less so because a victim - female or male - decided to get drunk

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Matariki]

23. I agree with you, except on one point.

I'm seeing more posts that seem to assume the man is automatically guilty.

I was trying to post something to the sub-thread that was deleted while I was posting. My question is this - If a man were to get drunk to the point of passing out on the street and someone robbed him, would you agree or disagree that he has *some* responsibility in getting that drunk?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WindRavenX]

27. Of course he does. He may be stupid as a rock, but that doesnt mean you can legally rob him.

Right?

[ComerPerro]

28. what if, while in a drunken stupor, he gives you $100

[WindRavenX]

31. thats not a crime, is it?

You're stretching. And comparing "giving" money to "giving" sexual intercourse is just disgusting. :puke:

[ComerPerro]

32. it was within the metaphor of robbing. try to pay attention

you say its not a crime to take money from a drunk guy who offers it to you.

[Matariki]

35. Why are you assuming that the situation isn't the way the man thought it was?

That the woman willingly had sex with him?

[WindRavenX]

37. I'm not

And for the last time, I've already stated that I do NOT know the case specifically!

[Nikia]

49. I don't know the history of there being cases like that

But if you were alone in someone's home with them while they were drunk and you took all their money from their wallet and they remembered nothing about the night, I think that you still could be charged with robbery. Of course money can be returned so perhaps your aquaintance would let you give back the money before calling police.
In the case of intoxicated sex that is charged as rape, usually it isn't a case of where the woman just offers sex like an intoxicated guy would place a $100 in one's hand. It is more like the thief saying, "I am taking your money, you don't object, do you?" For someone who is so intoxicated that they don't know what is going on, there is something ethically and legally wrong with that situation.
If you don't want to get charged with rape, if you don't want to hurt someone who you were attracted to, don't have sex with someone who that intoxicated. When in doubt, don't do it.

[Matariki]

34. No of course not. What if he was drunk and gave his money away?

Could he accuse the recipient of robbing him the next day?

And would you agree or not that a man passing out on the street isn't taking personal responsibility?

[Matariki]

13. I think the idea of personal responsibility is a hot topic here.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissB]

38. Glad to hear you're done.

I'm sure WindRavenX and I have completely different views than you on the issue of fucking drunk people.

[WindRavenX]

40. it's predatory--no matter what gender.

And that's my final words on this matter.

[Katherine Brengle]

48. "Supposed feminists" means exactly what?

Having sex with another human being who is incapacitated is rape.

How about some accountability from men? When in doubt, do not press GO.

It's really not hard.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. i know judge cheuvront, how strange is that?

[MissB]

39. Very strange.

:)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. only judge i know in this country too. so weird

[Left Is Write]

44. WTF? So how the HELL do you have a trial on charges of sexual assault

without using the words "sexual assault"?

Does that mean a defendant on trial for murder can count on words like murder, homicide, and kill to be absent from the record?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

46. Was there a motion in limine hearing?

The defense could have filed a motion in limine, covering subjects and words NOT to be used at trial, and they could have had a hearing on it, and the judge would have ruled that those words were "inflammatory and prejudicial to the jury".

Yes I am a lawyer but I don't play one on tv.

That's the only way I can see that this happened. The reporter didn't understand pretrial procedure, and that's a common motion in both civil and criminal cases. In civil cases usually the bad word is the I-word, INSURANCE.

[Bariztr]

51. Repost from othe thread

This is a copy of what I posted in the other thread about the issue of the judge's ruling.

I am a criminal defense lawyer and I find the judge's decision here courageous and proper. I have often made the motion prior to trial to have inculpatory words limited or even excluded. Why? Simply the presumption of innocence, a simple yet powerful concept that is seemingly lost based on the comments on this thread. The words rape, rape kit, victim and the variations are extremely powerful words that immediately bias the fact finder without them hearing a single bit of the evidence. If using those words are fair then the defendant should be addressed as the "innocently accused" to make it completely fair. But this is the burden of the defense community, prejudging and bias.

There are very few in this thread who should be jurors.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

52. What words should be used in the place of rape?

"The had sex"? "He penetrated the woman"? Does this apply to other alleged crimes as well? How about theft? How would you describe someone stealing something if you couldn't use a word like "steal"?