Are there any rules/laws to protect sex assault victims from character attacks during trial?

[Anonymous]

Reading this from one of the defense attorneys in the Rockville HS rape makes me even more concerned for the victim.

http://www.bethesdacriminallawyer.com/inconsistent-statements-can-be-used-to-discredit-testimony-in-court
"... a young teenage female alleged sexual assault victim, who are her former best friends in school. Teenagers have a lot of former best friends, and you try to find those people to see what statements have been made. ..."

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't trust Andrew Jezic with my pet fish.

[Anonymous]

I'm not exactly certain of what you include in the scope of attacking one's character, so for the purpose of briefly answering this question, I'll
presume you're referring to attacking the Victim's character in the context of his/her sexual history (the link didn't work when I clicked it). The short answer to your question is yes, there are. The longer answer to your question depends on whether the trial is in federal or state court & whether the action is a criminal prosecution or civil litigation. For example, in a federal criminal prosecution, a Victim's sexual history is generally inadmissible, though there are particular exceptions to that general rule (e.g., a specific instance of Victim's sexual conduct if it's offered to prove that somebody other than the Defendant was the source of physical evidence).

[Anonymous]

Is "character attack" some kind of euphemism for things like "evidence" or "testimony"?

It's looking very much like there was some at least some kind of consensual encounter based on text messages, photos, and video. What else happened is up for argument, but the water is sufficiently muddied at this point that were I on this jury, there'd be no possible way I could in good conscience say this was positively "rape"

[Anonymous]

OP here: I get that evidence is important and concede that the victim appears to have made some bad choices that may have contributed to her being a target. (A somewhat separate issue is where were the adults that should have been guiding this 14 year old, monitoring her cell phone use, etc.)

That said, the linked piece seems (to me) to be saying Jezic sees it his responsibility to basically make her life even more miserable by talking to friends/former friends/classmates digging for other possibly damaging comments they might be willing to say she did. Maybe there is a chance that at least some of the ugliness the defense will direct at the victim can be kept out of the media.

I'm really hoping this doesn't end up like the O.J. Simpson criminal trial where the expensive defense attorneys outshone the less effective prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Past history should not have any bearing on this.

[Anonymous]

And this is a 14 year old, for goodness' sakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here: I get that evidence is important and concede that the victim appears to have made some bad choices that may have contributed to her being a target. (A somewhat separate issue is where were the adults that should have been guiding this 14 year old, monitoring her cell phone use, etc.)

That said, the linked piece seems (to me) to be saying Jezic sees it his responsibility to basically make her life even more miserable by talking to friends/former friends/classmates digging for other possibly damaging comments they might be willing to say she did. Maybe there is a chance that at least some of the ugliness the defense will direct at the victim can be kept out of the media.

I'm really hoping this doesn't end up like the O.J. Simpson criminal trial where the expensive defense attorneys outshone the less effective prosecution.

Unfortunately, in our society, this is how sexual assault cases work. We look for areas in which we can undermine the credibility of the accuser and boost the credibility of the accused. That is especially true if you are the attorney representing the accused. If the accused's story is that it was was consensual sex, it is the job of his lawyer to identify witnesses who will make statements that support that story - whether those witnesses describe situations in the past where the accuser has had consensual sex and then changed her mind about it, whether the accuser has a history of lying about other things, etc. The job of the accuser's attorney is to convince the jury that her sexual history and her history of lying about other things is not relevant, that she was sexually assaulted by the accused, and that he should be punished accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: I get that evidence is important and concede that the victim appears to have made some bad choices that may have contributed to her being a target. (A somewhat separate issue is where were the adults that should have been guiding this 14 year old, monitoring her cell phone use, etc.)

That said, the linked piece seems (to me) to be saying Jezic sees it his responsibility to basically make her life even more miserable by talking to friends/former friends/classmates digging for other possibly damaging comments they might be willing to say she did. Maybe there is a chance that at least some of the ugliness the defense will direct at the victim can be kept out of the media.

I'm really hoping this doesn't end up like the O.J. Simpson criminal trial where the expensive defense attorneys outshone the less effective prosecution.

Unfortunately, in our society, this is how sexual assault cases work. We look for areas in which we can undermine the credibility of the accuser and boost the credibility of the accused. That is especially true if you are the attorney representing the accused. If the accused's story is that it was was consensual sex, it is the job of his lawyer to identify witnesses who will make statements that support that story - whether those witnesses describe situations in the past where the accuser has had consensual sex and then changed her mind about it, whether the accuser has a history of lying about other things, etc. The job of the accuser's attorney is to convince the jury that her sexual history and her history of lying about other things is not relevant, that she was sexually assaulted by the accused, and that he should be punished accordingly.

Uh, yeah, no. I'm assuming you are not an attorney.

[Anonymous]

He's doing his job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He's doing his job.

But hopefully there'll be a judge who isn't his buddy.