An interesting quandry

So the New Jersey supreme court ruled a couple of days ago that a defendant who was jailed for sexual assault can now bring up the sexual history between him and his accuser in a new trial. Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t this new ruling make it easier for a rapist to not be convicted of the crime in the future as this would now set a precedent?

Here’s an example that popped into my head.

Suppose Joe Schmoe has been hooking up with Jane Schmane for the past 3 or 4 months. They have been having sex regularly and it just so happens that today he’s in the mood for it and she’s not. She says no, he continues and proceeds to sexually assault her. Now comes court time and Joe is now allowed to bring up the fact that he’s been with her every which way but Sunday for about four months, so he did not rape her. Wouldn’t this then paint her in the wrong way causing the jury to acquit Joe of the accusation?

8 replies on “An interesting quandry”

I tell you one thing Davers, any man better hope he NEVER, EVER tries to rape or sexually assault me. I’d kick his ass, then rip his dick off and show him something he’s never seen before…the other end of it…bastards in those damn courthouses, they’ve lost their fucking minds…

Umm, I can say that this sort of thing helped an old friend of mine get out of jail.

About six years ago, there was the first of the so-called Cyber-rapists: Oliver Jovanovic. Oliver was convicted of raping this girl after they met online. Lots of sordid information regarding S&M, etc, but suffice to say, he really was given the raw deal.

It took several years, and a panel of judges to toss out the original conviction, when the girl’s family even admitted she was a liar. The court had not allowed evidence to be used in the original trial that showed their history, and in the retrial, I believe charges were dropped.

In this instance, this sort of thing saved my friend from an overzealous DA and clueless judge.

In this instance, the girl cried wolf, the DA saw a chance to make a splash (not to mention that she used it as fodder for a novel), and my friend was shafted.

Now, this was a unique case, but it does show that there can be extenuating circumstances.

I may have to blog on this.

I can definitely understand where some circumstances would warrant this ruling. If I have my facts straight, the reason this ruling was passed was because an officer successfully appealed a decision against him after he’s been in jail for about 3 years. Apparently, the woman who pressed charges on this officer was known to flirt numerous times with him and he turned her down. Apparently, she got very upset at the rejection and placed charges of sexual assault on her when no such thing occured.

During the trial, this past history was not allowed which subsequently sent him to jail. Now he’s got a new trial to prove his innocence and thereby now allowed to bring forth this past history to a jury in his defense.

If it does turn out that this woman also “cried wolf” and nothing indeed did happen, then I am all for this ruling. However, given the nature of these types of criminals to find any means necessary in aquitting themselves of sexual assault charges, I can see this ruling being taken advantage of way too many times.

I should qualify some things before people get pissed at me:

I don’t condone rape. What happened in Oliver’s instance is quite detailed and you can find it via a Google search very easily. It’s a bit different than what we’re talking about here.

Here’s a link with everything you’d ever want to know:

I don’t think anyone here would be upset at your earlier comment Scott. They would have no reason to as it was a very specific set of circumstances where this ruling may have helped.

Comments are closed.