Friday, October 25, 2013

No verdict yet.

10/25/2013Event ScheduledEvent Scheduled
Event: Trial Resumed
Date: 10/28/2013 Time: 9:30 am
Judge: LEIBOVITZ, LYNN Location: Courtroom 202


I wouldn't worry yet.  Deliberations resume Monday morning.  I hear lots of people stressing over how long it's taking... but remember they barely got the case before they recessed that first day and might have needed to get to the next day to even pick a foreperson.

There's two defendants, not just one, so each state's witness had two batches/sets of cross examinations (two different sets of defense lawyers).  I think about twelve charges per defendant (correct me if I am mis-remembering.)  And juries like making charts.  That's a lot of charts!  Plus we know two notes from the jury already meaning they are possibly disputing their recollection of testimony, and getting testimony read back by the court reporter takes time.

I'm not stressed about this.  It's NOT as simple as "hey there's two videos, why not a guilty in ten seconds."  I'm delighted when juries take their time.  I want a very well-reasoned, well-debated verdict.

Have a good weekend.

2 comments:

Neil Ashmore said...

I was slightly confused about why it was taking so long. I didn't realise there were that many charges though, that's got to make the thing a whole lot more complicated, because with 20-something charges it's pretty likely that at least a couple could be debatable.

I have a question Georgette. A couple of weeks ago you said that the defence intended to argue that "They could not know she wasn't consenting" or something of the sort. Surely that's not actually a working defence? I'd have thought that people have to be able to give clear consent, right?

As for the teammates testifying (and even female teammates?) well that's just bizarre to me. Even if you don't think it was rape (seems like that'd be a stretch, but I haven't seen the evidence, say it's possible) how can you possibly support two guys that left a teammate unconscious and bleeding, alone on the concrete? How can you even trust them ever again? I don't get it.

Georgette said...

Lots of questions :)
1. Is that a working defense? Depends what you mean by working. There's no list of defenses-- aside from the law which will define what elements the State has to prove. Those elements kind of create defenses. For example if the law says something has to be done intentionally, then the defendant is free to make whatever argument they like about why the action was not intentional (which in this case could be "They thought she was enjoying herself, therefore they were not intentionally committing nonconsensual sex.")

The law usually doesn't say anything about what "kind" of consent the rape survivor has to give to make it not-rape. In DC, while it is a valid defense that the victim consented to the sexual act, the defense has the burden of proving consent by a preponderance of the evidence (that is, more likely than not).

I'm going to write a blog post about the law on rape in DC. Stay tuned.