Posted on 03/12/2013 1:20:13 PM PDT by servo1969
Full Title - 'She didn't affirmatively say no': Silence means consent according to defense in Ohio high school rape trial where passed out, drunken teenage girl was 'sexually assaulted' by multiple football players'
Defense lawyers in the coming trial of two high school football players charged with raping a nearly passed-out-drunk 16-year-old girl are expected to argue on the issue of consent.
In the case that has shocked the nation, prosecutors state that the inebriated girl was taken to a number of parties by a group of drunk teenagers, supporting her to walk when she wasn't physically capable.
The prosecution claims that the group later sexually assaulted the girl while she lay unconscious.
But attorney Walter Madison, who represents one of the accused boys, argues she was drinking voluntarily and left willingly with the group of boys.
As reported by the Cleveland Trader Madison said: 'There's an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices.' 'She didn't affirmatively say no,' he stated.
The two high school football players Ma'Lik Richmond, 16, and Trent Mays, 17, will face a judge on Wednesday.
The girl, from Weirton, West Virginia, is not expected to testify in Jefferson County juvenile court when the case begins.
Richmond's attorney Madison said of the girl: 'The person who is the accuser here is silent just as she was that night, and that's because there was consent.'
Others have argued that the Jane Doe was clearly too intoxicated to consent to sex and that this was something that has been confirmed by multiple witnesses.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The article does mention that there are “others” that are not being prosecuted. IMHO the feral animals that videotaped the rape and took pictures are as guilty as those that physically assaulted the girl. The whole town should be ashamed.
Of course, there was also an unwritten ladies code that a lady would not drink to excess in the company of hormonal young men. If both sexes observed their rules this kind of thing was minimized.
In post #1 I see a black kid and a white kid hauling the drunk white girl. So is it a love crime if whity does it?
Liberalism isn’t about protecting women, but destroying them.
The attorney has an obligation to wage as good a defense as possible on behalf of his clients, and it’s pretty hard (I think) to remove oneself from a bad case once things are in motion.
This is an incredibly weak - I mean I can’t think of a more emphatic way to state that - argument to make. I’d guess that the defense tried to get the defendents and their parents (since they are both minors) to plead down and was told no.
“Rapists are black. Victim is white. Why not hate crime charges?”
Colors are backwards. I thought everyone knew the system by now.
Rape is rape, no matter what your skin color.
Or am I wrong?
I spoke without thinking. I know that he does have to present the best defense for his client but I am wondering when the victim’s rights are taken into consideration?
The criminals are deemed to be of more worth than the victims and are treated with kid gloves.
That's been the way of our criminal justice system for quite awhile now. Sad but true.
It’s neither sad nor true. This system is the best in the world. As a defense lawyer you have to go with what you’ve got and if you were arrested you certainly wouldn’t want your lawyer to tell you, “well let me ask the victim if this defense is ok.” You zealously represent your client within the bounds of ethics and the law, period. I am so tired of all this victim’s rights bs. Look at Duke lacrosse. What if their lawyer was like, well damn, this looks bad, forget it guys, let’s plead guilty.
Now in the instant case, yes, it looks very bad, but then this is the only thing the lawyer could do. So the system will likely work and they will go down swinging, as it should be.
BS.
There have been many cases (usually rape-related) where the victims have been vilified, and it's been going on for years. Victims have had to fight and claw for any rights at all. We bend over backwards in this country for the alleged criminals.
This case is nothing like the Duke case. That was a witch-hunt extraordinaire perpetrated by political motivations on the part of a DA. I was 100% on the side of the lacrosse players. How did I know they were innocent of the charges? Because they didn't argue that it was consensual sex. They said the sex never happened. That rarely happens when it comes to rape cases.
In this case, the defendants are arguing that the girl gave implied consent. However, she was too impaired to give consent, and there is plenty of evidence to support that.
I'm not suggesting that the young men involved don't deserve the best defense, but I am hoping that them blaming the victim here will backfire on them.
It likely will backfire on them but I don’t understand what people mean when they say we bend over backwards for alleged criminals. We afford them constitutional rights, and believe me, as little as possible. Look at the Connick v. Thompson 2011 for a real lesson in how we dispense constitutional rights to defendants. Prosecutors can lie and withhold evidence proving you are innocent and cannot be held liable and IF you get lucky enough to get out 18 years later, a month before your execution, you get nothing, nada, zip. Good luck and see ya.
“It’s also what happens in towns that engage in high-school football worship (a common affliction in these parts)”
Not that far from Penn State either! Guess it’s an area-wide “affliction.” Rape is rape, whether it’s little boys or little girls! When you read stuff like this, it makes you realize why Obama’s election was a slam dunk! Earl Butz was right!
“Now in the instant case, yes, it looks very bad”
While I agree with your premise, what looks bad is a Black lawyer using nonsense before the court to get his Black rapist clients off! And I agree with the other posters who say that those who were “witnesses” should be prosecuted too.
So the boys did the right thing then...right???
I think one of the defendants is white. Otherwise I don’t see what race has to do with this case. Whatever color the lawyer is he has to do whatever he can. He’s got a horrible case. I’ve defended people accused of very bad things, you have a job and it’s really disconcerting to hear conservatives talk about how we give people too many rights. We are talking about the Constitution here. Just burns me hearing it.
“Whatever color the lawyer is he has to do whatever he can. He’s got a horrible case.”
I was merely commenting on the nonsensical notion that this “lawyer” was raising that a woman who has passed out somehow consents to be sexually assaulted because of her inability to verbalize the word no, and the further “affirms” consent because she “went with them!” I don’t have a problem with mounting a “defense” just that it should make sense to a normal human being (as opposed to most lawyers).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.