Sanding the bottom side of a patio roof is fun, I really enjoy it. Actually, the opposite is true. Sanding is difficult, and not fun. It's a little, how should I say it...balmy? in South Texas and having paint chips fall, and subsequently stick to, your arms, face and hair, is not what I call a fun time. However, I can't complain too much because the past two days have consisted of a little work and a lot of Internet-surfing at the job, so I guess you can say that I'm getting mine today. (I'm on break as I type this. There is now a white powder covering the keyboard)
I try not to be a very superstitious person, but I HATE the cover of this year's Dave Campbell's Texas Football magazine. I won't put up a link, but if you've seen it, you'll know.
Speaking of the Horns-and I was-I'm still bitter about game one of the CWS. 5 home runs for a total of 5 runs, a two run lead with two outs in the ninth...uggghhh. Coulda, shoulda, woulda, I know, but that's a game they had, but lost it.
Stories like this and this have literally kept me up at night fuming about the state of our judicial system. They're a little long reads, especially the second one, but take a few minutes and knock them out-it's worth it. I know not everyone in the legal world is this backward, and a 'normal' court case would not be worth writing a story about, but it is still infuriating that things like these can happen in 2009. To the three new attorneys that check in on JAT once and a while-save us, please.
7 comments:
I'm a little confused how she touched his genitals if he didn't take his pants down? It looks like he didn't do it, but I've seen some reliable studies showing that 1/3 of guys our age would rape a girl if they knew they could get away with it. If you ask around, I'm sure you'll find girls in your social circle that have been sexually assaulted.
I'm not saying he did it it. I'm also not saying he didn't.
I hope more evidence comes out in the appeal. The DA did so much wrong that it looks like he should eventually win.
Great, balanced article from Alipour.
Let me clarify. My study stat in paragraph one was to show sometimes you can't tell who is going to be a rapist or a victim.
"He" in paragraph three is the soccer player.
I really liked Alipour's point that soccer player and Doe both had really crappy nights that messed them up for awhile. I hope things work out for both of them.
I'll throw my two cents in here as well:
I agree with Joey that the D.A. did enough here that I think the case will be remanded back to the trial court for a new trial.
The non-disclosure of the exculpatory information such as the conclusions of the dental expert (so called "Brady" material in the legal world) is the kind of stunt that prosecutors get burned for all the time.
Also, let's remember something here. If this is a civil case with a lower burden of proof for the prosecution, perhaps the jury can decide that Frimpong did commit the rape by the preponderance of the evidence, but with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof, the evidence alluded to in the article doesn't even seem to come close to that lofty level.
Joey,
First point...elastic waistband, try it, you'll like it. Secondly, and I'm now putting on my serious face...I just don't see how they could put this kid behind bars without doing anything to prove that he did it, without a doubt. I have a feeling that's what Scott was alluding to, but I don't know what big words like preponderance and exculpatory mean, so who knows. I just have a hard time with the fact that an 18 year old girl, fresh off a DUI, can go and make the (possibly) absurd claim of rape, hide behind the 'I was too tanked to clearly remember what happened' excuse and have her story be trusted more than Frimpong's. Granted, some people can seem like good guys, but have the capacity for evil, so I'm not saying it's impossible, it just doesn't seem likely.
Also, I have a hard time with the fact that every person on the jury was white, and nine of the twelve were women. Not to accuse anyone of being racist, but isn't there something inherently unfair about that, considering the defendant is an African male? Doesn't seem to fit the 'jury of your peers,' or much of the Sixth Amendment to me.
Then again, I didn't go to law school, so correct me where I'm wrong.
Lastly, what a Dbag in the Reilly story? Amirite?
Agan, I'm pretty sure you could walk into UT Law right now, take a final, and have roughly the same GPA as I did. Anyway, I think entering the legal community kind of distorts one's view of justice and the law. Unfortunately, our system values predictability more than justice.
I guess what I was getting at with the pants is it's possible there was some consensual sexual contact but we, like Doe, don't really know what happened. For several reasons.
Rape is really tricky to prosecute and to deter. First, how do you define it? How do you define consent? When do you define it?
Recent studies have shown that in college aged women in the South, for instance, 60% of women who fully intended to have sex with their partner said, "No" at first. So, for more than half of the guys involved, "No," really did mean yes. That little stat is a good example of how confusing American sexual culture is, and how we as a culture are pulled in different directions. Girls don't want to look slutty, but they also want to get down. Girls don't know how to get what they want, and guys don't know how to respond. It's confusing.
Anyway, back to the question - how do you define rape? How do you define consent in a culture where no means yes? It's hard.
Another problem with prosecuting rape is that most sexual situations don't have an audience. It's a he said/she said situation. When does no REALLY mean no? What if she says yes through third base but as you are sliding home she says no? How long do you have before it's rape? Can you finish? (Real case.) What if she says no at first but then says yes once you start? (Real case.) Does consent count if you are incapacitated by intoxication?
As to the jury - according the article, only 2% of the city is black, right? This guys' peers are 98% non-black. "Jury of peers" isn't actually in the Sixth Amendment. In theory, you do want an impartial jury. Justin, you can weigh in on this, but I feel like that's pretty much a fiction at this point. Jury shuffles both sides knocking off potential jurors kind of makes juries a twisted compromise of the parties.
The DUI and Doe's past sexual history are basically irrelevant under rape shield laws, which are meant to protect women from getting dragged through the mud for bringing a rape charge (Remember Kobe's accuser and how her identity and photos were all over the tabloids? That's not supposed to happen.) Certainly some sexual history is necessary. For example, if the accused has a prior consensual sexual history with the accuser, that can come into trial.
I agree with you that it looks like Frimpong got railroaded. As a former youth worker and clinic attorney, I kind of have a soft spot for victims of sexual assault.
Our social confusion concerning rape and sexual mores is also really interesting to me. I've got those study names in this office somewhere if anyone wants them.
Lance and Joey,
In re: to the jury composition questions, Joey is right that with a jury pool that is 98% white, the chances that Frimpong was going to get a jury that was 50/50 African American or even 25/75 African American is just not statistically likely.
Lance, the article doesn't go into how the jury selection actually took place, but if the prosecutor in this case were going along and striking all of the black jurors in from jury panel and then not being able to offer a race-neutral reason for striking those jurors, Frimpong's attorney could have brought something called a "Batson" challenge to contest this action by the prosecutor.
"Batson" basically stands for the proposition that when it appears that a party (state or defense) is striking a certain category of jurors, whether it is race or gender, the opposing party can challenge those strikes and force the striking party to offer a race-neutral reason for striking that party. If a race-neutral reason is not offered, or the reason offered is simply a pretext overlying a racial motivation, the challenging party can either have that juror restored to the panel or even have an entirely new panel brought in.
Again, I'm not sure what happened here, but the fact that the jury was all-white is not, by itself, evidence that the potential jurors were struck in a biased manner or that Frimpong was not judged by "a jury of his peers".
Also, Joey's right that when you're picking a jury, you're really not picking the people that you want on the jury, but you're trying to knock off the people that you don't want and you know the other party does want. As crass as this might sound, you don't want an impartial jury, but you do want a jury that is partial in YOUR FAVOR. This isn't underhanded, it's simply part of our adversarial system.
When you mention a jury shuffle, Joey, the thing I see with the jury composition is that it was 9 women and 3 men. If you're prosecuting a rape case, you usually want more women than men on your jury. When the jury walked into the courtroom and Frimpong's attorney saw an inordinate number of women towards the front of the jury panel, I would have immediately asked for a jury shuffle. Again, I'm not familiar with the jury shuffle provisions in CA, but in TX, you get one as a matter of right.
I've written a novel so I'll stop and let the discussion continue.
Good stuff, guys. It's not even 8:30am and I've learned something today.
I didn't mention it in my first comment, but J touched on it. That's the fact that 9 of the 12 jurors were women, obviously an advantage for the prosecution. Seems like a shuffle would have been in order, as any male in this situation would against the odds right off the bat with a 75% female jury.
That's really all I have about this particular case, hopefully something good will come out of it in the future.
As for the other case...whaaattt? I'm sure there was some legal loophole this guy exploited for his benefit, but how does he get away with it? (If you haven't heard, he ended up being rewarded $500,000 shortly after the Reilly article was written) I know there's not a lot of room for common sense in court cases, but that one's just baffling to me.
Post a Comment