Lincolnite

I wholeheartedly agree. A prosecutor isn’t allowed to say, “Where were you on the night that you committed 1st degree murder?”

some words just make things cleerer at someone is acused of if i siad somebody took this metal item and put a a hurt my frends body - did my frend get shot or stabbved or ice picked or hit by a line drive.  an y of those cudda hapend, but if i said shot you now has a visun of what hapend that visun doesnt make the somebody gulty just gives you a visun!

But when you ban technical terms like “sexual assault kit” it’s really hard to try a case. I’m all for defendant’s rights, but this judge is just plain absurd.

No reason to use the word rape in this trial.  The NE legislature didn’t use it in the law that the defendant in accused of breaking.  Any English dictionary contains a definition of rape that could be used instead.  NE law prohibits witnesses from giving opinion, only factual testimony is allowed in court.  The alleged victim claims to not remembered the time period when the rape would have occured, she only surmises or concludes that it was rape because she can’t remember giving consent.  Of course she claims to not remember anything during that time period.  And Eric, “rape kit” becomes “evidence kit”.

What is wrong with this judge is even letting this NiFonging continue.  There is no credible evidence that a rape even occured.  This case should have been dismissed years ago.

Spell check = good.

I would die a happy man if poor spelling were my worst flaw.

Irbinfrisco, first of all, I didn’t say “rape kit”, which is an acceptable term. I said “sexual assault kit”.

“The NE legislature didn

I guess I could have said defendants, just not assailants.

Eric, “evidence kit” works equally as well as “sexual assault kit”.  I doubt that this case will apply to most rape cases or sexual assault.  This ruling is unique to the circumstances. 

The accuser can’t testify to the fact that she was raped without perjuring herself.  She can testify that it’s her conclusion that she was raped based on her interpretation of facts.  However, NE law prohits witnesses testifying of conclusions that it is the jury’s charge to decide.  The jury has to decide if it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape occured.  The accuser claims to not have any memories of the time when intercouse commensed.  She claims to have imbibed mind altering substances the night before.  Her testimony is the only thing to the DA has to show that a rape occured.  This case should never has seen the inside of a courtroom.

“evidence kit”? Evidence of what? When she was at the hospital, did the nurse request an “evidence kit”?

She apparently was in no state to consent to sex. I would call that rape and I don’t see why her saying so would be perjury. Apparently the prosecutor believes her.

I’m no lawyer so I don’t claim to know legal definitions. But according to lawyers.com, rape is “unlawful sexual activity and usu. sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usu. of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception”. She awoke to a man on top of her having “evidence” with her. I would say she was “incapable of valid consent because of ... intoxication [or] unconsciousness” and thus rape defined. So why would she be perjuring herself?

I must be reading your argument wrong, because it sounds like you’re saying that unless a woman can prove that she was raped and has nothing but her word, that she shouldn’t even report the rape.

<em>I must be reading your argument wrong, because it sounds like you

Defendant: the person accused of the crime

Crime: an offence against a public law

So isn’t calling him a defendant essentially saying he committed an “unlawful” act? So should the term “defendant” be disallowed?

In the definition I used of rape, I think the word “unlawful” could be omitted because I’m not aware of a lawful sexual activity where one party is “incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception”.

She claims to have been slipped a roofie. I would say Rohypnol would prohibit her from giving consent. But since Rohypnol stays in the body such a short time, it’s hard to prove. Another benefit of drugging your victims is they can’t fight you and thus there’s less evidence. Rape is a crime where there’s often very little evidence, which is one of the reasons so many women don’t come forward. I see this case making it worse.

The prosecutor obviously thought there was sufficient evidence. Furthermore, he convinced a grand jury.

Please keep in mind that my legal training consists of reruns of Law & Order.

I’m guessing it comes to no surprise that I’ve already made up my mind about this guy (I’d be a bad juror).

How many women have to accuse a person of rape before you can call the person a serial rapist? Yes, I realize it’s irrelevant and requires a person to be convicted of multiple rapes before they can technically be considered a serial rapist.

And then there is the flipside. “I had sex with a guy from a bar on O street…how sleazy. I feel bad about it now.”

I am closely acquainted to someone who, on a college movie night with a bunch of friends in a dorm room, was left in the company of a guy after she fell asleep in the room. She woke up, after meeting this guy once (that night-acquaintance of a friend of a friend from a freshman mixer type of thing) and he was on top of her and engaging in festivities. No alcohol was consumed. In her case it was found to be rape/assault because there was no prior relationship between them and because of the lack of substances involved and that the guy said “well, she stayed/slept here….” (remember, she was asleep before the others in the room left) I’m closely watching this case.

There are many similarities, but what sticks out is that Ms. Bowen was drinking, he was drinking. They were already making out at the bar, her friends left her there, for whatever reason, assuming she was a big girl that could take care of herself. She had relations twice, stayed over an hour in the morning after waking up (based on cell phone timestamps) and then he drove her home. I don’t see this as ‘forced’ anything. I see it as a bad decision on her part and after morning regret. The evidence kit will do nothing other than show that sex occurred, so its inclusion in the trial is really not that beneficial for anyone. Calling the nurse a ‘rape examiner’ only serves as a way to work the language into the psyche of the jury when it’s irrelevant.

The difference between this case and my personal experience is that 1. she also was told that a kit would not do much for her case since the guy didn’t beat her up so it also was ‘he/she’ said, 2. Prior relationship/conduct figured in-the guy in the dorm was a stranger to her, 3. no altering substances, 4. He was known as a ‘player’ to others in the room, but not the freshman girls that came along to watch movies.

I take this case somewhat personally, but there are elements to Ms. Bowen’s case that make me question her motives and those of her attorney. Do guys pick up girls in bars that are drunk? Sure, I guess. Do things happen that they wish didn’t? Absolutely, probably a hundred times a weekend in Lincoln amongst the UNL/Doane/Weslyan/SCC crowd. Do most people treat it as a lesson learned? Yes. They don’t go to the media, challenge judges, and generally whine when they can’t have their own way. Remember, she was pre-law. She had to have known this type of language was not contained in the law, and that NE courts have wide discretion with allowing what can and cannot be said in a courtroom. Honestly, I feel that she is looking to make a name for herself in legal circles. I’m sorry if I offend anyone with that, but my legal experience, while somewhat from Law and Order, also comes from reading the actual statutes and looking up other cases, and dealing with the case of my acquaintance who had nothing to gain by lying and, quire frankly, wouldn’t be interested in the guy in question sexually or otherwise even if she had been drunk.

<I>“evidence kit