May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates

Skip To Content

MIPTC Author:

Bookstore:


Listed in Latino Who's Who, June 2014
 Attorney
Categories [more]
General (1984)
Lawyer 2 Lawyer (284)
Latest Blogs
This Month's Posts [more]
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Links of Interest [more]
Locations of visitors to this page

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


Quote of the Day - I think when a person has been found guilty of rape he should be castrated. That would stop him pretty quick. - Rev. Billy Graham
Adjust font size: A A+ A++
Claim Your Profile on Avvo

Should Alleged Victim Of Rape Be Allowed To Use The Word During Her Trial Testimony?

Over at Courthouse News, the editors posted an article about a Lincoln, Nebraska trial.  Since I can't link directly to it, I reproduce it here in its entirety, without editing, graphic and all:

Alleged Rape Victim Sues Judge Who Won't Let Her Say 'Rape'
LINCOLN, NEB. (CN) - A woman whose alleged rapist's trial ended twice in mistrials because she violated the judge's orders not to use the terms "rape," "sexual assault" or "victim" while testifying has sued the judge on constitutional charges in Federal Court. Nebraska District Court Judge Jeffre Cheuvront twice declared mistrials because the woman used prohibited words. She says the juries were not informed about Cheuvront's language-cleansing order, and that Cheuvront threatened to imprison her for contempt if she used the words. She is facing a third trial, at which she must confront her alleged rapist again, and expects Cheuvront to issue the same orders and threats against her and against witnesses. She says Cheuvront "required her to testify using words that did not accurately describe her experience." Lead counsel Sue Ellen Wall says, "judicial review to determine whether (Cheuvront's) order violates federal constitutional principles is unavailable to the Plaintiff under Nebraska law." She says the vice president of the National District Attorneys' Association has said, "the practice of state court judges issuing orders restricting the language of victims has increased substantially in recent years. It has not yet been reviewed for compliance with federal constitutional law."

The problem likely centers around the criminal statute.  Most likely, the alleged victim is trying to gain a criminal conviction on a statute that contains the word "rape," which therefore becomes the ultimate decision the jury must make.  The judge probably wants to prevent the alleged victim from "conditioning" the jury to reach the conclusion. 

Is there really a way to communicate the crime without saying the words in the statute?   You can comment below.

9/27/07 update:  The case against the state court judge, filed in federal court, got tossed out

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 at 15:56 Comments Closed (0) |
 
Share Link