Victim must view rape tape or face contempt of court

buttmunch · March 1st, 2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

CHICAGO — A 20-year-old woman could face contempt-of-court charges if she doesn't answer defense attorneys' questions about a videotape of her alleged rape.

The Naperville woman refused to view or comment on the videotape during testimony Tuesday at the trial of 20-year-old Adrian Missbrenner.

Prosecutors say Missbrenner and others videotaped themselves having sex with the then-16-year-old girl during a party at the Missbrenner family's suburban Burr Ridge home.

Cook County Judge Kerry Kennedy on Tuesday ordered the woman to answer questions on the witness stand or face contempt charges.

The judge gave her until Wednesday morning to rethink her decision.

Missbrenner's defense attorneys quickly asked for the case to be dismissed. But the judge did not rule on the motion Tuesday.

Well, what to say. I understand you have the right to face your accuser, etc. but to force this girl to re-live this is absurd and cruel. I don't think it's made clear in this article but she is being told she must watch the tape in order to answer questions about what occured on it. Talk about being victimized twice. What a fucktard the defense attorney is.

UndercoverGator · March 1st, 2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buttmunch

Well, what to say. I understand you have the right to face your accuser, etc. but to force this girl to re-live this is absurd and cruel. I don't think it's made clear in this article but she is being told she must watch the tape in order to answer questions about what occured on it. Talk about being victimized twice. What a fucktard the defense attorney is.

How can that be possibly legal? You'd think the DA would have enough on the ball to prevent that from happening.

Rogue · March 1st, 2006, 05:19 PM

I'd say it's not particularly obvious on the video then. Why on earth you'd need a complainant to view a video of what they allege I cannot understand though. I suppose the defence lawyer raised that she'd need cross examining on the content of the tape, not just her complaints, in an attempt to force her to back out.

Don't think that would happen over here, but who knows. It's a disgusting tactic to be used if it is just a tactic.

moocow · March 1st, 2006, 06:08 PM

There are some really awful judges. The worst of them seem to be appointed, so you can't even vote them out.

There was the one girl who was in college, and she was trying to get child support from her baby's father, and he sued for custody saying that the mother had to put the kid in day care while she was in school, and his mother was able to watch the kid, so he should get custody. And that fucking judge granted it, even though the father never really had anything to do with the kid.

teforde23 · March 1st, 2006, 11:04 PM

Was this an actual rape or was it statuatory rape because they had sex with an underage 16 year old?

A*O · March 2nd, 2006, 12:52 AM

Objection! Harrassment of the witness Your Honour.
Sustained.

EvilMonkey · March 2nd, 2006, 01:12 AM

I tend to think its obviously not clear on the tape that it constitutes rape.

You need to remember that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The tape itself obviously isnt enough proof. There is always the chance that the victim may be the accused - if its a false accusation.

Its unfortunate if it is rape. However its just as bad if an innocent person gets denied a fair defence to spare an alleged victim.

Until the allegation is proven then she is not a victim of rape.

Until the allegation is proven he is not a rapist.

Its prejudicial to jump to the conclusion.

It's within our nature to identify with a victim and have empathy here.

I would say you need to stop and think of the boys mother. Find the empathy with her and then ask yourself 'what if it was my son?'

Its a harsh situation but it has to be viewed from both sides.

buttmunch · March 2nd, 2006, 03:43 AM

Quote:

That's insane! They video taped themselves raping this girl so it's obvious they are guilty why can't they just be sentenced and this poor girl can get on with her life?! I HATE this screwed up legal system!!!

I'm guessing she was probably drunk off her ass and not putting up too much of a fight. Perhaps it was a situation of her being taken advantage of. And while I understand what you're saying about the boy in this situation, as a mother of two boys, if they were involved in something like this, I'd kick thier asses myself and then tell them to go and, if they did it, confess and make things right. Hopefully I'll have brought them up right and this wouldn't happen in the first place. IF it did, I'd hope they'd be man enough to stand up and take responsibility for thier actions. Even if she wasn't fighting like a cat, I would hope they'd know that the situation was wrong.

**Tati** · March 2nd, 2006, 04:26 PM

The tape should be viewed by the court, so the accused can mount a proper defense on it. But it does not need to be viewed by the woman. If she is lying/embellishing/etc. then her not viewing the tape will only hurt her ability to testify on what happened. Her not viewing it will in no way give the accused an advantage, as long as the tape is entered into evidence.

edit: it looks like that is exactly what is happening. Good ruling... eventually.