Via Law.com, a woman is suing a judge who banned the words "rape," "victim," and "assailant" among others during a trial.
The federal court complaint filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Lincoln, Neb., claims Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront violated the accuser's First Amendment right to free speech by barring her from saying words including "rape," "victim" and "assailant" during the trial of Pamir Safi.
Safi, 34, was charged with first-degree sexual assault stemming from an encounter between him and Tory Bowen, 24, at his apartment the morning of Oct. 31, 2004.
Safi said he and Bowen, who met at a bar the night before, had consensual sex.
Bowen says she was too intoxicated to give consent.
In restricting language, Cheuvront said he was concerned that Safi's constitutional right to a fair trial might be jeopardized if witnesses were permitted to use the banned words in their testimony.
The language restrictions, which also barred the use of the words "sexual assault," were in effect for Safi's first trial, in November.
Bowen testified then for nearly 13 hours, and said the ban had a marked effect because she had to pause and make sure her words wouldn't violate the ban.
Cheuvront declared a mistrial after the jury deadlocked 7-5. He declared a second mistrial in July during jury selection, citing news coverage and public protests on behalf of Bowen.
I'm glad this woman is suing. Jurors should be able to hear a witness's testimony about assault and determine how much weight to give the words used. Barring such terms seems to me to be an impermissible restriction. How do you describe an assault without using that term? And is a person forced to get clinical about what was done to her if she can't use the word "rape"? It seems that the solution is worse than the problem.
|