Lincolnite: Lincoln's Online Community

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’t use it in the law that the defendant in[sic] accused of breaking.” He was charged with first-degree sexual assault and “sexual assault” is a banned term.

I believe the full list of words include: rape, sexual assault, victim, assailant, and sexual assault kit.

Would it make sense for trial of a first degree murder case to ban the words murder, kill, or homicide? Because you think he’s innocent shouldn’t weigh into what words can be used in his trial. This sets precedence for a total ban of these words in any court room. I realize other judges have made similar restrictions in other cases and it hasn’t yet led to a complete ban.

If the judge wants to ban slang or even words with a extreme prejudicial connotation, that’s one thing. But when he bans medical and legal terms that goes too far.

I am all for defendants’ rights. But vict^H^H^H^H… people who press charges need to be able to make claims against defenda^H^H^H^H^H^H^H… people who are accused of crimes.

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.

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.

You are, indeed, reading lrbinfrisco’s argument incorrectly. lrbinfrisco’s argument is that the prosecution doesn’t have the evidence to try the case, not that the woman is wrong in believing that a crime occurred. One of a prosecutor’s jobs is finding the line between provable cases and cases which lack sufficient evidence to prove that a crime occurred. According to lrbinfrisco’s argument, the prosecutor is taking this case farther than the evidence warrants.

(Not that I speak for lrbinfrisco, of course.)

As for the definition of rape, the very first word you quote supports the trial judge: ”unlawful sexual activity”. Calling the defendant’s actions “unlawful” before a court has decided such is putting the cart before the horse to the detriment of the cause of justice.

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.

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

The kit is a forensic evidence kit used to gather evidence to help determine if a crime has been committed and if so to help determine who did it.  What the exact wording of the nurse’s request is not a material fact of this case.  “Evidence kit” sufficiently defines it as far as it is need in trial.  It should also be noted that we don’t have the full details of the judge’s ruling, only a very slanted version from Ms Bowen.  However, most adults of normal intelligence and of a reasonable nature would have no problem gathering material information from the use of “evidence kit”, those who can’t probably aren’t fit to serve as jurors in this case and should be eliminated in jury selection.

She apparently was in no state to consent to sex.

This has yet to be proven.  And there is no proof of this reported, only Ms Bowen’s therory based on other facts which could reasonably be interpreted other ways.

I would call that rape and I don’t see why her saying so would be perjury.

Perjury is testifying to some under oath in court that is demonstrably beyond a reasonbable doubt not true.  In Ms Bowen’s case testifying that something is a fact when it can be demonstrated that her previous testimony would preclude her from knowing that this is a fact could reasonably be interpreted as lying.  In this case, the judge appears to have threatend the lesser charge of contempt of court, but a proscurtor could charge her with perjury any time until the statue of limitations had expired.

Apparently the prosecutor believes her.

There is a wide gulf between believing someone and being able to proof their story beyond a reasonable doubt.  A prosecutors charge is only to file charges and continue with prosecution of case that they believe can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Anything else is unethical and possibly illegal behavior.  This is almost never punished though because of a strong bias of our judicial system towards prosecutors.  Hence the need to support checks to the prosecutors power like denying the use of emotionally prejudical words when others can convey the facts equally well.  This is also why freedom of speech is not a protected right in a courtroom and testimony is limited to facts with opinions being excluded except for narowly defined instances.

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?

First there is no alleged force used in the sex here.  The issue is whether Ms. Bowen was A) unconcious or incapably of responding AND Mr. Safi knew it or B) too incapacitated to consent AND Mr. Safi knew that she was incapable of consenting.  Now Ms Bowen can’t be sure that she was unconcious.  It’s like not being able to truthfully answer “yes” to the question “are you asleep?” Additionally Ms. Bowen Bowen would have to be able to show that Mr. Safi knew she was unconcious or unable to respond.  Not any way to her to get past this one.  Maybe he started kissing on her and her body responded.  Things escalated with her body giving response that could reasonably be interpreted to be concious consent.  My wife loves to be awoken like this.  Ms Bowen can’t testify to what she did or did not do or say during the period that she claims to have no concious memory. 

The 2nd part is even harder to prove.  She has no memory of just how intoxicated she was much less how her actions would have communicated that she was too intoxicated to consent that would have left Mr Safi to conclude that she was too intoxicated to consent.  She either is lying about having no memory of the time period or she can’t truthfully testify that she was raped.  Her opinion is that she was raped and she has every right to believe that and voice it outside of the courtroom as long as it doesn’t disobey the judge’s order to keep quiet about the case during an ongoing trial.  In the court room her speech, like everyone’s is regulated by the law.  She has no right to express an opinion in court.

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. 

If a woman has strong suspicion that she was raped, then by all means that she should report it.  However just because a woman reports it doesn’t mean that a prosecutor should file charges.  Charges should only be filed if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  I strongly agree with Mr. Wilson’s response as well.

Defendant: the person accused of the crime

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

Being accused of a crime is not the same as saying that you committed a crime.  Defendant when used in our criminal court system refers to someone who have been accused but not proven to have committed a crime.  Since our criminal court system offers the presumption of innocence to the accused, expressly is saying that he is innocent of any crime alleged until proven otherwise.

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.

Her claims of being drugged are inadmissible in court.  There is no proof to substanciate this. Ms Bowen claims that the urine sample was “lost in the mail”.  Whether it was or was not does not matter.  No proof = can’t be mentioned in court.  It’s pure speculation, which is not allowed.

Furthermore there are hair sample tests that are available, but expensive that can be used to show if date rape or other drugs were used.  Hair samples can be taken months after use unless one cuts one’s hair very short. I’ve found no information to show if one of these was taken or what the results were if done so. 

Finally the purpose of this trial is to determine if Mr. Safi is guilty of charges with the foremost concern of not convicting an innocent man.  Concerns about how this will affect future crime victims should have no bearing if they stand in the way of Mr. Safi’s presumption of innocence.  We punish people in our court system only for crimes that can be proven that they committed not for future crimes that others may commit.

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

It’s far from obvious what the prosecutor thought.  Many prosecutors such as Mike NiFong, bring charges that they know that they can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  Bring charges does not equal belief that the prosecution has enought evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  It should, but experience has shown this not to be true in many cases.

As for the Grand Jury, as the saying goes most any DA could ge a Grand Jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” Again the Duke Lacrosse boys were indicted with no credible evidence.  Most grand juries decide dozens of cases in a day, indicting most.  In the Duke Lacrosse case, 2 indictments came on a day were the Grand Jury reviewed over 90 cases and indicted over 80.  Grand Jury indictment does not superceed the presumption of innocence.  It only shows probably cause at best and is a rubber stamp of the DA’s wishes at worst.

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.

If I can find 3 people to accuse you of rape with no proof to support it, does that make you a serial rapist?  Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything.  Accusations mean nothing, only verifiable facts.  Search the internet and you’ll see that there is a feminist movement that is actively incouraging college women to accuse men of date rape using varying definitions of rape with some being no more than sexual intercourse with a man.  I mean any sex between a man and women is considered by some groups, but not all certainly, to be rape.  I have heard from many college aged women from across the country about seminars on their college campuses promoting the reporting of date rape.  This is also active to a lesser degree in communities.  If you seek reasonable doubt as to why 3 unrelated women accused Mr Safi of rape besides having no evidence other than their word, then look to these campaigns.  This is a political agenda that Ms Bowen’s lawyer, Wendy Murphy, is a major advocate for.  That is one reason that I believe that Ms Bowen is pushing a political agenda here.