Can’t say “rape” in a rape trial

June 12, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you are involved in a trial dealing with an alleged rape, then the word “rape” should come up in order to describe the purported crime. But one judge in Kansas has made headlines because he doesn’t want the word “rape” or any kind of synonym for the term to be uttered in his courtroom during a rape trial because that would be unfair to the defendant. What about the alleged victim? Placing restrictions on her testimony to not include the words “rape,” “sexual assault,” or “assailant” hinders her ability to accurately describe what happened to her.





 This country prides itself on the First Amendment protection of free speech, but the Kansas judge decided the defendant’s right to a fair trial was more important, believing that allowing the victim to say the defendant “raped” her might interfere with the presumption of innocence by the jury. But could placing restrictions on the alleged victim’s testimony and the use of the word “rape” during trial affect her rights as a victim?



  This case is just begging to be looked at by the United States Supreme Court. The victim, Tory Bowen, filed a lawsuit claiming the judge’s actions violated her First Amendment rights. A federal appeals court dismissed her suit, but her attorney plans to petition the nation’s highest court to take a look.  Apparently, this isn’t an isolated case – it’s a growing trend in sexual assault cases. When is a judge is overstepping his or her boundaries in restricting the use of the word “rape” in a rape trial? It’s not a “forced sexual intercourse” trial or a “disagreement about consent” trial, but a rape trial.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Okay--that is just ridiculous. When the charge against the defendant _itself_ contains a word, how is the jury hearing the word in the courtroom any more damning than the simple fact that the defendant is on trial? Last time I checked, evidence is supposed to be weighed as to whether it is more prejudicial than probative, not whether it is prejudicial at ALL.

    Of COURSE the words are prejudicial--this isn\'t embezzlement or securities fraud, for heaven\'s sake. The negative connotations associated with the words rape and sexual assault are there because those crimes are, by their nature, PERSONALLY violative. Taking away the prosecution\'s right to use those words dehumanizes the victim all over again, in either of two ways: either the severity of the crime or the extent of the damage it inflicted will be minimized; or the victim will be forced to relive the incident even more than is necessary because the prosecution will need even greater graphic detail to get the message across to the jury. Yet another burden on prosecutors who already walk a tightrope in trying to get inflict any additional pain.
  • No, it makes sense. Its not a rape until the jury or judge convicts. To allow a witness to say He raped her is a legal conclusion that a witness may not make under the IRE. The same can be said for calling someone a victim...judges may properly admonish all lawyers to watch their, and their witnesses, language use during the trial. A mistrial is not warranted upon a violation of the admonishment. All such admionishments do not apply in final argument, of course.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT