- 27 Jan 2023 14:42
#15263197
I was reading about the 1992 rape case against Mike Tyson.
A woman whom he slept with accused him of rape. Only four months after he began serving the prison sentence, the woman then filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court trying to get money for the alleged rape.
But there is one particular part of this case I want to focus on.
In the case, three witnesses said they observed that the woman had her legs wrapped around Tyson as they came into the lobby in the wee hours of the morning. They were not allowed to testify because the judge thought their testimony might prejudice the jury.
Boxer Mike Tyson's appeal of his rape conviction will likely center on the trial judge's refusal to allow the testimony of three witnesses, legal experts say.
Marion Superior Court Judge Patricia J. Gifford's decision to deny testimony by the three Indianapolis women was a questionable ruling, said Thomas Schornhurst, an Indiana University School of Law professor in Bloomington."The exclusion of the testimony of witnesses who purported to see Tyson and Desiree Washington embracing in the limousine would seem to be a pretty significant point," he said.
Tyson claimed during his trial that he and Washington kissed and embraced in the limousine before going to his Indianapolis hotel room early the morning of July 19. Washington, who was an 18-year-old contestant in the Miss Black America Pageant, testified that there was no physical closeness between the two of them. She said she rebuked Tyson when he tried to kiss her in the limousine outside her hotel. Tyson's attorneys have said the excluded witnesses would have corroborated the fighter's account of what happened between him and Washington.
Tyson's Appeal Will Center on Exclusion of Defense Witnesses, Deseret News, March 29, 1992
Some could argue that the whether the alleged victim showed intimate physical contact with the accused perpetrator is indeed irrelevant, since even if she showed romantic/sexual interest in him she could nevertheless still have been raped.
However, should it really be up to the judge to decide what facts are "irrelevant"? The jury is supposed to be the one to decide guilt.
Some could argue that if we are going to be sending men to prison based only on a woman's accusation, that the fact of whether a woman was seen showing sexual interest in the accused should be taken into account. How else is a man going to have any realistic chance of being able to defend himself against a woman's accusations of rape?
I mean, if a woman is seen willfully and happily entering into a bedroom with a man, should that also be considered totally irrelevant?
How about (in more modern times) if there is computer evidence that the woman met the man through an internet site for casual sexual hookups, and had been sent naked pictures of the man's face and body (which were accurate) before she had chosen to meet the man? Also "totally irrelevant"? Don't allow the jury to hear it?
A woman whom he slept with accused him of rape. Only four months after he began serving the prison sentence, the woman then filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court trying to get money for the alleged rape.
But there is one particular part of this case I want to focus on.
In the case, three witnesses said they observed that the woman had her legs wrapped around Tyson as they came into the lobby in the wee hours of the morning. They were not allowed to testify because the judge thought their testimony might prejudice the jury.
Boxer Mike Tyson's appeal of his rape conviction will likely center on the trial judge's refusal to allow the testimony of three witnesses, legal experts say.
Marion Superior Court Judge Patricia J. Gifford's decision to deny testimony by the three Indianapolis women was a questionable ruling, said Thomas Schornhurst, an Indiana University School of Law professor in Bloomington."The exclusion of the testimony of witnesses who purported to see Tyson and Desiree Washington embracing in the limousine would seem to be a pretty significant point," he said.
Tyson claimed during his trial that he and Washington kissed and embraced in the limousine before going to his Indianapolis hotel room early the morning of July 19. Washington, who was an 18-year-old contestant in the Miss Black America Pageant, testified that there was no physical closeness between the two of them. She said she rebuked Tyson when he tried to kiss her in the limousine outside her hotel. Tyson's attorneys have said the excluded witnesses would have corroborated the fighter's account of what happened between him and Washington.
Tyson's Appeal Will Center on Exclusion of Defense Witnesses, Deseret News, March 29, 1992
Some could argue that the whether the alleged victim showed intimate physical contact with the accused perpetrator is indeed irrelevant, since even if she showed romantic/sexual interest in him she could nevertheless still have been raped.
However, should it really be up to the judge to decide what facts are "irrelevant"? The jury is supposed to be the one to decide guilt.
Some could argue that if we are going to be sending men to prison based only on a woman's accusation, that the fact of whether a woman was seen showing sexual interest in the accused should be taken into account. How else is a man going to have any realistic chance of being able to defend himself against a woman's accusations of rape?
I mean, if a woman is seen willfully and happily entering into a bedroom with a man, should that also be considered totally irrelevant?
How about (in more modern times) if there is computer evidence that the woman met the man through an internet site for casual sexual hookups, and had been sent naked pictures of the man's face and body (which were accurate) before she had chosen to meet the man? Also "totally irrelevant"? Don't allow the jury to hear it?
- By wat0n
- By litwin