Judge bans word 'rape' at rape trial

World Net Daily ^

[Lorianne]

A California appeals court recently ruled "family values" could be considered "hate speech," but now a judge in Nebraska has gone even further, banning the use of the words "rape" and "sexual assault" during a trial for a man accused of sexual assault.

The new order comes from Jeffre Cheuvront, a district judge in Lancaster County, who granted a defense motion to ban such words. A defense lawyer, Clarence Mock, told the Lincoln Star-Journal those references should be restricted to keep the trial fair.

"Rape" is not even a legal term, he noted. And while "sexual assault" is, that references something only the jury can determine, he said.

"Under the rules of evidence, witnesses can't reach legal conclusions," he told the newspaper.

But the judge also rejected a motion from prosecutors to ban the words "sex" and "intercourse," because they imply consent, and the woman who brought the complaint, Tory Bowen, said that leaves her being forced by the judge to commit perjury.

"The word 'sex' implies consent," she said. "I never once would describe (what happened) as sex. He's making me commit perjury."

The encounter happened Oct. 31, 2004.

"In my mind, what happened to me was rape," said Bowen, 24. "I want the freedom to be able to point (to Safi) in court and say, 'That man raped me.'"

But Mock said removing the words to which he objected will leave the case to "turn on the facts."

"Using words like 'rape' creates unfair prejudices for defendants and invades the [duties] of the jury," he said.

On trial for the second time is Pamir Safi, 33. A November trial ended in a hung jury.

Bowen testified for nearly 13 hours then, when "victim" and "assailant" also were banned, and said the impact was "huge."

Jurors will think she's choosing to use the word "sex," she said.

Earlier testimony showed the two were strangers who met at a Lincoln bar the night of Oct. 30, 2004. They had drinks and left together about 1 a.m. Police reports show Bowen told an investigator the following day she could not remember most of the previous evening and that she did not willingly accompany Safi.

Prosecutors later filed the sexual assault charge on the grounds Safi knew Bowen was too intoxicated to consent to sex.

Wendy Murphy, of the New England School of Law in Boston, said the ban could be powerful.

"It's very difficult to explain why jurors feel the way they do," she said. "The point is, language is so passively absorbed they don't even know it."

She said banning the word "rape" is unprecedented and said such a restriction on witnesses "impugns their candor, their credibility."

"Jurors will go back to their room and say, 'She didn't feel it was harmful. After all, she called it sex,'" Murphy told the newspaper. "It's like saying to a robbery victim, 'You can’t say you were robbed, because that's a legal judgment. You can only say you gave your stuff to the defendant.' That's absurd."

Prosecutors said they disagreed with the order, but will follow it.

The earlier ban on "marriage" and "family values" was imposed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California, which found municipal employers could censor such words because they are hate speech and could scare workers.

"To allow the lower court's ruling to stand exposes every public employee to outright censorship by a municipal employer for merely mentioning words such as the 'natural family,' 'marriage,' 'and 'family values,' issues which are at the forefront of national debate," said the Pro-Family Law Center, which is appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We are simply unwilling to accept that Christians can be completely silenced on the issues of the day – especially on issues such as same-sex marriage, parental rights, and free speech rights," Richard D. Ackerman, of the Pro-Family Law Center, told WND.

[jaredt112]

What next, can’t say the word murder during a murder trial? Child molester when a child molester is on trial? That’s insane.

[Does so]

"...'Rape' is not even a legal term, he noted. And while 'sexual assault' is, that references something only the jury can determine, he said..."

Let's see:

A lawyer says the witnesses opposing his client may not use a legal term nor a non-legal term in trial.

[KittyKares]

There are a surprising number of crazy judges rendering decisions. I am almost wondering if judges should be required to pass a sanity test.

I am curious about the case where the words “marriage” and “family values” were banned because “they are hate speech and could scare workers.”

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

What does this Clymer of a judge want instead of the real term? Undocumented Sexual Partner?

[SeaHawkFan]

Earlier testimony showed the two were strangers who met at a Lincoln bar the night of Oct. 30, 2004. They had drinks and left together about 1 a.m. Police reports show Bowen told an investigator the following day she could not remember most of the previous evening and that she did not willingly accompany Safi.

Unless thaere was physical evidence of battery, I'd be hard pressed to vote guilty given these circumstances.

[Iwo Jima]

Half of the judges out there are downright stupid.

Let the witnesses use their own words. On cross examination the other side can point out if the words that they chose to use were not correct. Let the jury decide who is right.

Let the complaining witness use the term rape if she wants. Either the prosecutor, the defense attorney, OR THE JUDGE could show her the legal definition of the word rape which the jury will be told to use during their deliberations and ask her to use the term in that context.

Juries often complain about how confusing and not credible the lawyers and witnesses were when it was the judge who bollixed things up so badly.

If I were this woman, I would look at this jury and say "he raped me." Let the judge do what he will.

[Pontiac]

"Rape" is not even a legal term, he noted. And while "sexual assault" is, that references something only the jury can determine, he said.

According to this judge’s legal philosophy how can the bailiff even read the charges against the defendant.

It was my understanding that the prosecutor was to accuse the defendant of a crime and the jury was to decide if the defendant was guilty of that crime.

So if the prosecutor can not even mention the crime of which the defendant is accused how is the jury to judge this man.

[rednesss]

Sounds like a case of buyer’s remorse.

[Paisan]

...told an investigator the following day she could not remember most of the previous evening...

Based upon that statement, I’d say not-guilty as well

[MaxMax]

I am almost wondering if judges should be required to pass a sanity test.

That and a sobering up from being drunk with power.

[muir_redwoods]

The judge better ban “A$$hole” too, otherwise no one will use the term “your honor”

[HEY4QDEMS]

I understand that there are liberal judges as well as conservative judges and would not condone restrictions on either, but there needs to be something done to prevent psychotic people from the bench.

This is plain nuts.

[R. Scott]

That’s insane.

That's California. Same thing I guess.

[AmericaUnited]

This might not be as kooky as it sounds. In this case, the two were getting drunk together and then had sex. The judge just wants exactly what happened detailed, and for the jury to determine if it was rape.

[SkyPilot]

I am almost wondering if judges should be required to pass a sanity test.

I agree.

This one in Texas, Judge Vanessa Gilmore appointed by Clinton, is not insane, but a terrible judge.

She throws tantrums (and her keys) in open court and acts like an arrogant "queen" rather than a judge.

Here are some ratings and comments of her by both defense and prosecutors.

The Robing Room - Judge Vanessa Gilmore.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Criminal Defense Lawyer
Comment #: 3702
Rating:1.8
Comments:
Judge Gilmore does not possess nor does she appear to aspire to the qualities of a minimally acceptable judge. She is routinely belittling, arrogant and impatient with counsel both in front of and outside the presence of the jury. I have seen her be rude and impatient to witnesses (again, in front of the jury). Her temperament usually varies from one of only two modes: angry and not paying attention. And when she is not paying attention, her lack of interest is obvious. She can appear annoyed and disinterested when lawyers make objections. Her shortcomings are more than a mere inconvenience for the lawyers with cases before her. Her poor temperament and questionable reasoning skills can negatively affect outcomes.

Prosecutor
Comment #: 3557
Rating:1.7
Comments:
She has a horrible judicial demeanor. She frequently, and without foundation, accuses both prosecutors and defense lawyers of bad faith. She routinely receives the lowest score in the Houston Bar judicial polls. She takes an unduly long time to provide a written opinion on a legal issue, and the reasoning is usually very confusing.

Civil Litigation - Private Comment #: 2941
Rating:3.3
Comments:
Arrogant and harsh...has a tendency to request and consider ex parte communication...simply a bad judge

Criminal Defense Lawyer
Comment #: 1516
Rating:3.9
Comments:
Very arrogant; gets petulant on being reversed.

__________________________________________________________________________

Nobody can stand her.

Lifetime appointments for these judges is a bad idea that must be reformed.

She is so bad, the Fifth Circuit even slammed her down. She tried to accuse the prosecution in a case of only seeking the death penalty against a man because he was black. The problem was, the black man roasted illegal immigrants in his tractor trailer and would not allow air in, and they died an incredibly cruel death. To her, it was "racism."

William Case and Judge Gilmore

And then there are these:

* She has thrown her keys in open court at an attorney (I believe it might have been an AUSA) for calling her "ma'am";

* She ordered an AUSA to have John Ashcroft personally write her a letter explaining the DOJ's reasons for seeking the death penalty against one defendant but not others [the Williams case, discussed in more detail below];

* When she didn't like the particular font counsel used, she told him that she threw his motion in the trash without reading it, and then she ruled against him;

* During trial she is happy to make findings contrary to stipulations of the parties; and

* She encourages ex parte contact with the court and attempts to prevent record-making: any discovery "motions" must be way of a one-page letter to the court. She will then have a hearing which she considers an "oral motion to compel." She will happily rule without actually seeing any of the discovery propounded.

She was only 34 years old when appointed by Clinton, and everyone knew she was not qualified then.

Isn't it wonderful they get to sit on the bench - for life?!

[AmericaUnited]

"It's like saying to a robbery victim, 'You can’t say you were robbed, because that's a legal judgment. You can only say you gave your stuff to the defendant.' That's absurd."

Bogus example because you would say "The defendant held on gun on me and demanded my stuff..."

[sirchtruth]

When a society allows “words” to be twisted
and turned or even banned, freedom and liberty
are in serious trouble.

[knarf]

"Tell the court, in your own words, what happened."

"Something"

Defense rests, your honor."

[Raycpa]

I actually agree.