Rugby Rape Trial - Defendants Acquited

[Pope Joan]

"Guilty until proven innocent" has become de facto the way the game is played in the USA in cases involving any allegations of sex abuse or domestic violence.
My client was not allowed to examine adverse witnesses nor to examine any evidence used against him. "How dare you!" was the response to my requests to the judge. I can give you the judge's name, and tell you more about him if you send me a message.

Hopefully there was an acquittal or an appeal to rectify the situation.

He, a first time offender, was jailed, and lost his job and his home as well as his family. He even lost his dog; the wife took it to the pound.
His offense was that the kids had unplugged the food freezer which was on the back porch, and all the contents (which were vegetables) spoiled before he discovered the problem. He became angry and went out to the porch, dumped all the rotting bags out, and cut them open with his pocket knife.

That was all, no direct physical threat to anyone, yet the wife claimed they were so terrified that they had to have him immediately removed from the home.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I'm tired of these idiots who were wrong about everything from Rolling Stone to Duke Lacrosse acting like they're so sure the accused is guilty for realsies this time.

We need anonymity for the accused as much as for the accuser. If you can't convict them without resorting to copycat accusers, so be it.

[Ifreann]

There is no evidence that the alleged victim made a false accusation. That there was no conviction does not mean she lied.

Were they convicted, despite both sides admitting sex happened? No.

The parties involved do not all agree that sex happened.

Ergo, they are innocent. It is on the accuser, not the accused, to provide proof of the claim that a crime was committed.

The prosecution prosecutes crimes. Not the complainant.

Ergo, she has made a false claim.

Does not follow.

To claim otherwise is to try to have and eat the "They're innocent but she was still raped" cake. Were it a case of, "Someone raped me!", and they were found and falsely accused? They ought to be able to sue the police in that case, but that would be a case where the fact that the people brought to trial were not guilty of the crime would not necessarily mean she lied. But she accused THEM. Not some half-seen creep in an alleyway. Not some half-remembered date rapist. She specifically accused *them* of raping her.

And the fact that they were acquitted doesn't mean she was lying.

[Chestaan]

Yeah just saw this. I guess he called Jackson a rapist in the tweet?

One imagines he must have said something along those lines.

Occupy Dame Street posted up the tweet and tbh I can't see the problem with it. It never mentioned the word "rapist" and the closest it came was the hashtag indicating that he believed the accuser.

Anyway #suemepaddy is now trending on twitter in response to this.

[Gravlen]

It's called appeals.. it's not like no one's thought of this..

appeals are only for errors of law though, not fact-finding issues

That could easily be changed, however. Just look at how the criminal justice system works in nordic countries.

[Gravlen]

There is no evidence that the alleged victim made a false accusation. That there was no conviction does not mean she lied.

Were they convicted, despite both sides admitting sex happened? No. Ergo, they are innocent.

That's not correct. They were found not guilty. That does not mean they're innocent. There's an important difference here.

It is on the accuser, not the accused, to provide proof of the claim that a crime was committed.

It's actually on the prosecution, not the accuser.

Ergo, she has made a false claim.

That conclusion does not follow. The claim she's made can be correct, and their aquittal can be correct at the same time.

To claim otherwise is to try to have and eat the "They're innocent but she was still raped" cake.

Which shouldn't be ruled out either. I mean, they might be aquitted because there was reasonable doubt but may be ordered to pay her compensation for rape in a subsequent civil trial, if a court then finds it more likely than not (or clear and convincing evidence) supporting the claim that they raped her.

Were it a case of, "Someone raped me!", and they were found and falsely accused? They ought to be able to sue the police in that case, but that would be a case where the fact that the people brought to trial were not guilty of the crime would not necessarily mean she lied. But she accused THEM. Not some half-seen creep in an alleyway. Not some half-remembered date rapist. She specifically accused *them* of raping her.

And they still might have. A weakness of the black-box jury system is that we don't really know what the jury thinks about this.

[Gravlen]

Acquittal doesn't mean there wasn't enough evidence to convict. It just means that the jury voted to acquit.

Indeed. Here in the States we have jury nullification. I don't know if other nations legal system(s) feature it though.

How quaint. And?

[Ors Might]

Were they convicted, despite both sides admitting sex happened? No.

The parties involved do not all agree that sex happened.

Ergo, they are innocent. It is on the accuser, not the accused, to provide proof of the claim that a crime was committed.

The prosecution prosecutes crimes. Not the complainant.

Ergo, she has made a false claim.

Does not follow.

To claim otherwise is to try to have and eat the "They're innocent but she was still raped" cake. Were it a case of, "Someone raped me!", and they were found and falsely accused? They ought to be able to sue the police in that case, but that would be a case where the fact that the people brought to trial were not guilty of the crime would not necessarily mean she lied. But she accused THEM. Not some half-seen creep in an alleyway. Not some half-remembered date rapist. She specifically accused *them* of raping her.

And the fact that they were acquitted doesn't mean she was lying.

That’s true. However, I doubt that many people arguing that point would put much stock in the opposite, that a conviction means that she was telling the truth. I should clarify that I don’t believe that she was necessarily lying about being raped, or at least not intentionally. It could be that she was raped and in her confusion got the identities wrong. I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt in part because I’ve known rape victims and I’m hesitant to dismiss anyone claiming that they’ve been victim of something so awful.

[Ifreann]

The parties involved do not all agree that sex happened.

The prosecution prosecutes crimes. Not the complainant.

Does not follow.

And the fact that they were acquitted doesn't mean she was lying.

That’s true. However, I doubt that many people arguing that point would put much stock in the opposite, that a conviction means that she was telling the truth.

So maybe some people might think something different in a different situation and maybe that would make alternate universe them a hypocrite compared to this real universe.


Cool.

I should clarify that I don’t believe that she was necessarily lying about being raped, or at least not intentionally. It could be that she was raped and in her confusion got the identities wrong.

I don't think there's any realistic possibility of that.

I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt in part because I’ve known rape victims and I’m hesitant to dismiss anyone claiming that they’ve been victim of something so awful.

Cool.

[Infected Mushroom]

appeals are only for errors of law though, not fact-finding issues

That could easily be changed, however. Just look at how the criminal justice system works in nordic countries.

Do you think I would like the Nordic approach?

What do they do?

[Big Jim P]

Indeed. Here in the States we have jury nullification. I don't know if other nations legal system(s) feature it though.

How quaint. And?

Just an observation. Here in the states, if a jury feels a law is unjust, or that one is being applied unjustly, they are not required to convict, regardless of the evidence presented. As I said, I am not sure if the legal system in other countries (or even all of the states here) allow such.

[Luziyca]

Honestly, I think at this point, it might be a wise idea to prohibit news coverage of all initial criminal trials altogether, and only have the verdict of the trial be released to the media once it has been delivered. By restricting coverage of trials, it would reduce the risk of "lynch mob" mentality, especially for high-profile cases. *cough* Colton Boushie *cough*

That said, appeals should not be subject to a media ban, though, since once the verdict comes out, and the necessary info does come out, then it would not exactly be a wise decision to have any appeals not be covered by the media.

Of course, if the defendant(s) and the prosecutors agree to let the media in to cover the trial, if not broadcast it... that's a whole different can of worms.

[Gravlen]

That could easily be changed, however. Just look at how the criminal justice system works in nordic countries.

Do you think I would like the Nordic approach?

What do they do?

They allow for appeals when it comes to the question of guilt.

What can be appealed?

Appeals can be lodged against District Court judgements with the Courts of Appeal. Both parties can appeal - the convicted party and the prosecution. Appeals have to be lodged within two weeks. However, the victim, next of kin or injured party affected by a criminal act cannot appeal if they are dissatisfied with a District Court judgement.

Appeals can apply to:

evidence submitted to prove guilt
the sentence
case proceedings
application of the law

If the accused's appeal concerns evidence submitted to prove guilt, exact details have to be given in the appeal. This means that in a new court case, the issue of whether the accused has done what he is accused of or not is addressed. The Court of Appeal has to consider all sides of a case, known as full appeal hearing.

If the appeal only concerns the case proceedings in the District Court, you must describe the mistake you believe was made. Explaining why you believe the judgement is wrong will also be an advantage. If there is new evidence in the case, it should also be referred to.
Not all appeals are allowed

The Court of Appeal has to consider all appeals, but not all of them are allowed to proceed to a full hearing, see section 322 of the Criminal Procedure Act (link to lovdata.no). If the Court of Appeal rejects an appeal, it has to provide a written ruling explaining why a full appeal hearing will not be allowed.

Appeals cannot usually be disallowed in cases that can lead to a prison sentence of over six years. Appeals will not usually be allowed in cases when the prosecuting authority seeks judgement in the form of a fine, confiscation or loss of driving licence and the court did not make judgement for any other penal sanction. The Court of Appeal can consent to hear such appeals when there are special reasons to do so.

In other cases, an appeal can be rejected when the Court of Appeal finds it obvious that it has no grounds to proceed. An appeal from the prosecuting authority that is not to the advantage of the accused can be rejected when the court believes it concerns minor issues.
https://www.domstol.no/no/Straffesak/Sakstyper/Anke-i-straffesak/

Appealing a criminal case

The person who has been convicted, the prosecutor and the victim of the crime can appeal against the District Court judgment in the Court of Appeal. This must be made in writing. The appeal must be received by the District Court within three weeks of the date on which the judgment is pronounced.

The final date for appeal is given in the judgment. The appeal is sent to the District Court. The District Court sends the appeal and all the documents in the case to the Court of Appeal, which re-hears the case. The appeal procedure is given in more detail in the judgment.
The procedure in the Court of Appeal

In certain cases leave to appeal is required if the Court of Appeal is to hear the case. A legally trained person at the Court of Appeal examines the case and presents a verbal report to three judges. The judges then decide whether or not the District Court has adjudicated the case correctly. If, among other things, there is reason to believe that the Court of Appeal would arrive at a conclusion different to that of the District Court, the Court of Appeal will grant leave to appeal. The judgment states when leave to appeal is required and, if so, the procedure.

Certain criminal cases are decided by a legally trained person going through the documents in the case. The majority of criminal cases, however, are decided following a preliminary hearing and are prepared in more or less the same way as in the District Court.
http://www.domstol.se/Funktioner/English/Legal-proceedings/Trials-in-criminal-cases/Appeal/

Denmark also allows appeal on evidence.

Also, the courts have to explain why they conclude the way they do in the question of guilt.

[Gravlen]

Honestly, I think at this point, it might be a wise idea to prohibit news coverage of all initial criminal trials altogether, and only have the verdict of the trial be released to the media once it has been delivered. By restricting coverage of trials, it would reduce the risk of "lynch mob" mentality, especially for high-profile cases. *cough* Colton Boushie *cough*

That said, appeals should not be subject to a media ban, though, since once the verdict comes out, and the necessary info does come out, then it would not exactly be a wise decision to have any appeals not be covered by the media.

Of course, if the defendant(s) and the prosecutors agree to let the media in to cover the trial, if not broadcast it... that's a whole different can of worms.

The idea of secret trials is disturbing to me.

[Chestaan]

Honestly, I think at this point, it might be a wise idea to prohibit news coverage of all initial criminal trials altogether, and only have the verdict of the trial be released to the media once it has been delivered. By restricting coverage of trials, it would reduce the risk of "lynch mob" mentality, especially for high-profile cases. *cough* Colton Boushie *cough*

That said, appeals should not be subject to a media ban, though, since once the verdict comes out, and the necessary info does come out, then it would not exactly be a wise decision to have any appeals not be covered by the media.

Of course, if the defendant(s) and the prosecutors agree to let the media in to cover the trial, if not broadcast it... that's a whole different can of worms.

The idea of secret trials is disturbing to me.

I imagine it would be a lot harder to find witnesses if everything was kept secret.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Honestly, I think at this point, it might be a wise idea to prohibit news coverage of all initial criminal trials altogether, and only have the verdict of the trial be released to the media once it has been delivered. By restricting coverage of trials, it would reduce the risk of "lynch mob" mentality, especially for high-profile cases. *cough* Colton Boushie *cough*

That said, appeals should not be subject to a media ban, though, since once the verdict comes out, and the necessary info does come out, then it would not exactly be a wise decision to have any appeals not be covered by the media.

Of course, if the defendant(s) and the prosecutors agree to let the media in to cover the trial, if not broadcast it... that's a whole different can of worms.

The idea of secret trials is disturbing to me.

Well, we can go by the possible consequences of secret trials, or we can go by the already known consequences of public ones.

[Gravlen]

The idea of secret trials is disturbing to me.

Well, we can go by the possible consequences of secret trials, or we can go by the already known consequences of public ones.

What about going by the already known consequences of secret trials? It's not like it's a new phenomenon.

[Luziyca]

Honestly, I think at this point, it might be a wise idea to prohibit news coverage of all initial criminal trials altogether, and only have the verdict of the trial be released to the media once it has been delivered. By restricting coverage of trials, it would reduce the risk of "lynch mob" mentality, especially for high-profile cases. *cough* Colton Boushie *cough*

That said, appeals should not be subject to a media ban, though, since once the verdict comes out, and the necessary info does come out, then it would not exactly be a wise decision to have any appeals not be covered by the media.

Of course, if the defendant(s) and the prosecutors agree to let the media in to cover the trial, if not broadcast it... that's a whole different can of worms.

The idea of secret trials is disturbing to me.

Can't blame you. Having a secret trial might mean that nobody knows what the fuck happened to you. Also, people might need to know what crime you've been charged for, especially if it affects the local community. And of course, we all know many secret trials were often rigged to favor the government, especially in dictatorships.

Plus, Chest has a pretty good point regarding witnesses: how can we expect to find them when there is literally nothing known to the public regarding the trial?

But considering the recent situations where many people want someone's head long before the trial actually begins just for having allegedly committed a heinous crime, the irony would be that secret trials may actually be the best way to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial untainted by popular opinion in this coming century, especially if we are to assume that these attitudes prevalent on the social media only increase.

[Des-Bal]

The idea of secret trials is disturbing to me.

Sensible people bristle at the idea of secret trials. There exists a middle ground between people disappearing and justice as a spectator sport. If defendants must assent to having their names published with the same protection afforded to victims I think that middle ground can be reached. We don't need a total bar on reporting and we don't need to close courtrooms with the exception of when a vulnerable witness is testifying.