Censored Rape Trial

[MA-Caver]

Judge bans word 'rape' at rape trial
Defense lawyers say witnesses 'can't reach legal conclusions'
Posted: June 21, 2007
1:30 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A California appeals court recently ruled "family values" could be considered "hate speech," but now a judge in Nebraska has gone even further, banning the use of the words "rape" and "sexual assault" during a trial for a man accused of sexual assault.
The new order comes from Jeffre Cheuvront, a district judge in Lancaster County, who granted a defense motion to ban such words. A defense lawyer, Clarence Mock, told the Lincoln Star-Journal those references should be restricted to keep the trial fair.
"Rape" is not even a legal term, he noted. And while "sexual assault" is, that references something only the jury can determine, he said.
"Under the rules of evidence, witnesses can't reach legal conclusions," he told the newspaper.
But the judge also rejected a motion from prosecutors to ban the words "sex" and "intercourse," because they imply consent, and the woman who brought the complaint, Tory Bowen, said that leaves her being forced by the judge to commit perjury.
"The word 'sex' implies consent," she said. "I never once would describe (what happened) as sex. He's making me commit perjury."
The encounter happened Oct. 31, 2004.
"In my mind, what happened to me was rape," said Bowen, 24. "I want the freedom to be able to point (to Safi) in court and say, 'That man raped me.'"
But Mock said removing the words to which he objected will leave the case to "turn on the facts."
"Using words like 'rape' creates unfair prejudices for defendants and invades the [duties] of the jury," he said.
On trial for the second time is Pamir Safi, 33. A November trial ended in a hung jury.
Bowen testified for nearly 13 hours then, when "victim" and "assailant" also were banned, and said the impact was "huge."
Jurors will think she's choosing to use the word "sex," she said.
Prosecutors later filed the sexual assault charge on the grounds Safi knew Bowen was too intoxicated to consent to sex.
Wendy Murphy, of the New England School of Law in Boston, said the ban could be powerful.
"It's very difficult to explain why jurors feel the way they do," she said. "The point is, language is so passively absorbed they don't even know it."
She said banning the word "rape" is unprecedented and said such a restriction on witnesses "impugns their candor, their credibility."
"Jurors will go back to their room and say, 'She didn't feel it was harmful. After all, she called it sex,'" Murphy told the newspaper. "It's like saying to a robbery victim, 'You can’t say you were robbed, because that's a legal judgment. You can only say you gave your stuff to the defendant.' That's absurd."
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2007/07/10/digiacomo.ne.rape.censored.trial.ketv
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=191808
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56296

Feels like this story should be in the Horror Stories section but either way it merits discussion.
Leave it to a lawyer to get a judge to censor the words Rape, Victim, Assailant and a few others on the idea that it would unfairly influence a jury and thus justice isn't correctly meted out.
IMO, even if a woman is too drunk to resist it's rape. Though she didn't complain or say "no", ask her the next morning when she's sober if she had wanted it she would very likely say "no."
Main thing is that; as the video article stated: where would it stop? Where will it be ok to say this and not that? If the judge is allowed to get away with this atrocity what about other judges and rape/assault cases? How can victims of personal crimes tell what happen if they're inhibited by a court order not to use certain words? Are new adjectives going to be made so that the crime can be described in a way that a juror will know that the defendant is guilty?
The woman, Tory Bowen is very brave to come forth and talk about this tragedy of justice. Hopefully that she can get an appeal to a higher court where there will be no censorship.
The judge needs to get out of the legal system and end up being a greasy garage mechanic on some lonely highway out in the Nevada desert.

 

[DavidCC]

I'm not sure but I think this might be the same judge who allowed a child molester to server probation because he was "too short to go to jail". This is supposed to be a conservative state, why do we have these San Frank-Freako judges???

I heard on the radio this morning that she does intend to use the word rape, take her contempt charge, and pursue it up the legal chain (looking for intelligence) Good Luck.

It's a big embarrassment for the state of Nebraska, I don't know anyone here who agrees with this insane idiot of a judge.

-D

 

[CoryKS]

And while we're at it, we should probably disallow the word 'murder'. Brings up all sorts of negative legal connotations.

 

[Grenadier]

Political correctness garbage taken to the next level...

There's an old adage, that there are times that you simply have to say that "a spade is a spade," and that to try to sugar coat a phrase is to destroy the intent.

This judge should be reprimanded, and that a mistrial should be declared.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Sickening. How do nutjobs like this become judges?

 

[Dave Leverich]

CorkyKS took the words out of my mouth, I'd seriously love to walk up to the judge and simply ask him to take a drug test. Then slap the bajeepers out of him. Of course that would be 'outside inflicted reddening' as we can't call it slapping the snot out of him as that would make jury's influenced... wtf I swear.

 

[MA-Caver]

Sickening. How do nutjobs like this become judges?

Simple politics.

 

[Ceicei]

If she is allowed to say "sex" but cannot say "rape", why not call it "forced sex"?

- Ceicei

 

[DavidCC]

it was 2 different judges in 2 different counties.

the rape case judge is Jeffre Cheuvront, a district judge in Lancaster County. Bailiff's Phone number is 402-441-7065, clerk's email is [email protected]


the "too short" judge is Cheyenne County District Judge Kristine Cecava
Clerk District Court
Edith Baumbach
PO Box 217
Sidney, NE 69162-0217
Phone: (308) 254-2814
Fax: (308) 254-7832
E-mail: [email protected]

 

[Ping898]

A mistrial....hope the lady get's a better judge for the retrial...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070712/ap_on_re_us/censored_trial;_ylt=AgBVS88TSlhjVxCWNoRKy0FvzwcF

LINCOLN, Neb. - Before a jury was even seated, a judge declared a mistrial Thursday in the sex-assault case where he had barred the words "rape" and "victim" among others.
Judge Jeffre Cheuvront of Lancaster County District Court said publicity surrounding the rape case against Pamir Safi, 33, would have made it too difficult for jurors to ignore everything they heard before the trial, which had been expected to begin next week. A jury was in the process of being selected when Cheuvront declared a mistrial.

Safi is accused of raping Tory Bowen in 2004. He said they had consensual sex, but she said she was too drunk to agree to sex and that he knew it.

Cheuvront barred attorneys and witnesses from using words including "rape," "victim," "assailant" and "sexual-assault kit," and ordered witnesses to sign papers saying they wouldn't use the words. Words such as "sex" and "intercourse" were allowed. State law allows judges to bar words or phrases that could prejudice or mislead a jury.

Bowen, 24, was fighting the ban, arguing that it hurt her testimony because she had to pause and make sure her words wouldn't violate the ban. She said: "I want the freedom to be able to point (to Safi) in court and say, 'That man raped me.'"

 

[theletch1]

I always thought the word "alleged" was used in the court room to remind the jury that the decision of guilt was still up to them. If there is no-one to be referred to as a "victim" then how the hell can there be a trial? Things have gone just a little too far over the edge in this country. What will be the spark that ignites the people of this country to take it back from the nut jobs?

 

[Steel Tiger]

Look's like the judge got a tap on the head from his superiors over this idiocy.

Now I'm from Australia so I'd like some clarifications please. Nebraska state law allows judges to ban words or phrases that might be prejudicial. OK. But if this interferes with a witnesses ability to give truthful testimony are there constitutional ground for contesting the judges decision?

I can see how this might get out of hand if not nipped in the bud.

 

[Grenadier]

At least they did declare a mistrial:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jul13/0,4670,CensoredTrial,00.html

LINCOLN, Neb. — Before a jury was even seated, a judge declared a mistrial in a sex-assault case where he had barred the words "rape" and "victim."
Judge Jeffre Cheuvront of Lancaster County District Court said protests and other publicity surrounding the rape case against Pamir Safi, 33, would have made it too difficult for jurors to ignore everything they heard before the trial, which had been expected to begin next week.
A jury was in the process of being selected Thursday when Cheuvront declared a mistrial.

 

[DavidCC]

Look's like the judge got a tap on the head from his superiors over this idiocy.

Now I'm from Australia so I'd like some clarifications please. Nebraska state law allows judges to ban words or phrases that might be prejudicial. OK. But if this interferes with a witnesses ability to give truthful testimony are there constitutional ground for contesting the judges decision?

I can see how this might get out of hand if not nipped in the bud.

The defense lawyers are taking this up in Federal Court.

 

[Steel Tiger]

The defense lawyers are taking this up in Federal Court.

That's good to hear.

 

[grydth]

Look's like the judge got a tap on the head from his superiors over this idiocy.

Now I'm from Australia so I'd like some clarifications please. Nebraska state law allows judges to ban words or phrases that might be prejudicial. OK. But if this interferes with a witnesses ability to give truthful testimony are there constitutional ground for contesting the judges decision?

I can see how this might get out of hand if not nipped in the bud.

What judges are supposed to do is require witnesses to testify about facts and objective observations/experiences... and not couch their testimony in the form of legal conclusions (which just may have been fed to them by a lawyer).

As many of you have noticed, if mishandled or done clumsily, the prejudice is then done to the other party.