We recently finished the second of two mock trials in class. This most recent case was about rape and I was for the defense. The case consisted of two college students who had had a relationship during their freshman year, split up the next summer, got back together during their junior year, and had consenting sex several times before, and now the girl is accusing the boy of raping her.
When the event happened there was no one else in the the apartment with them and the girl, Susan, showered almost right away after the event. The only physical evidence was a torn shirt (we'll get to the explanations of each side later) and some faint bruises on Susan's arm that wouldn't show up in a photograph.
In a criminal case the goal of the prosecution is to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no burden on the accused to prove their innocence and if there isn't enough evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty, the jury must acquit.
This case went much more quickly than the previous case. The prosecution called Susan, a college rape counselor, and the police officer who had investigated the apartment. The defense called David (the accused), David's roommate Terry, and a psychiatrist who David had gone to see after Susan accused him.
Susan told her story about her relationship with David and then about the event in question. She said that she and David had gone to a party before going back to David's apartment. While both of them had consumed alcohol, neither was drunk. Susan had seen David talking to a girl named Jenny, whom David had class with and was partnered with for a project, during the party and a note on David's desk afterwards that said "Honey, you're a great husband. See you tomorrow," (Jenny and David's project had them acting as a husband and wife).
While they were in bed together David and Susan made out but when David tried to take off her shirt, she pushed his hand away. Eventually they started making out again and David tried to make another move so Susan got out of bed. David grabbed her shirt and accidentally tore part of it down the back. Then they had sex even though Susan said no.
That right there is the whole point of contention for the whole case. The Rape counselor said that Susan exhibited symptoms of Rape Trauma Syndrome (RTS), but these symptoms were very vague and could have been cause by a variety of other things besides rape. The police officer saw the ripped shirt, but not the note from Jenny (David showed him that he and Jenny were in the same class by showing the officer the assignment), and said he'd seen similar cases in which the woman was telling the truth and similar cases in which the woman was lying. The psychiatrist maintained that David was a nice guy and didn't tend towards anger which supported what David himself had testified, but that didn't exclude the possibility that David had raped Susan, it only made it less likely. And Terry said that David was a good guy, but he also said that Susan was pretty chill also (even if he thought she was a little clingy).
All this other evidence amounts to very little except to cloud the case. In David's testimony he tells much the same story as Susan except he says that she said 'no' in a playful tone. This is where the main issue is. They both agreed that Susan said no. However the difference is in how they think she said it. David maintains that Susan expressed consent in a non-verbal way and that the tone she used when she said 'no' implied that she was giving consent. Susan maintains that she wasn't being playful and in no way encouraged David.
My personal opinion (which should probably be taken with a grain of salt since I was on the defense) is that there isn't enough information to say that, beyond a reasonable doubt, David was guilty. In other words, I was sure that I wasn't sure and so I would need to acquit David. Yes, they both agree that she said no, but how she said it definitely matters. So does the possibility that Susan was jealous of Jenny (even though her relationship with David was completely platonic). The prosecution said that David broke under his desire for sex (even though he'd restrained himself, and stopped when Susan said no in the past). This idea makes me really angry not because it's impossible or unlikely but because this is in the face of evidence that David is a really nice, patient, slow-to-anger, guy and the defense wouldn't recognize that the same could be said of Susan. Sure, she's a really nice girl who had no reason to claim David raped her unless he actually did, except that she did. She was clingy and could've been motivated by jealous. The double standard there, that David might have gone against his personality and raped Susan, but there is no way that Susan could've gone against her personality and falsely claimed that David raped her, no that would never happen (read after the italics with heavy sarcasm).
One of the jurors suggested a hypothetical situation in which Susan doesn't stray too far from her personality and still ends up accusing David, the man she loves very much, of rape. He suggested that Susan goes back to her apartment angry after reading Jenny's note to David and tells her roommate that they had non-consenting sex in a fit of jealous anger. After this point Susan has basically lost control as her roommate pressures her to go see a counselor and contact the police. Susan can't really stop this process without serious embarrassment so she continues on. She seems to have RTS because she is in the middle of a serious conflict with her boyfriend who she just falsely accused of raping her.
That situation might seem unlikely, but it is possible. While there isn't really a ton of evidence to suggest that David is innocent, there doesn't need to be. He is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is doubt, and so he should be acquitted.
In the end the result was a hung jury with 4 for the prosecution and 5 or 6 for the defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment