Preemptive Karma provides this interesting update to the “Insufficiently Traumatized Behavior” case.
It’s disappointing, from a I-want-to-know-the-truth perspective, that there are no recordings or transcripts. But under the circumstances, a completely new trial seems like the best thing. Unless there’s a lot more to this case than The Oregonian reported, I don’t see how a fair court could possibly find guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
I’ve repeated my original post (edited somewhat) on Blue Oregon, a blog for lefty (but not necessarily feminist) Oregon bloggers. It’ll be interesting to see what the reaction is there, compared to the mostly feminist blogs on which this story has played so far.
Also, I’ve sent a letter to the Oregonian (text below). If you’d like to send a letter to the big “O” (and I encourage everyone to! Let’s flood the op-ed page, if we can!), the instructions are here – basically, be polite and keep it under 150 words.
Since when must alleged rape victims “act traumatized” or risk jail? In effect, the Judge’s decision criminalizes failure to conform to stereotypes of how rape victims behave. Rape is already an extremely unreported crime. How much less often will rape victims report if they risk being branded a false accuser for not acting traumatized enough? Judge Ackerman and DAs Alan Rappleyea and Ted Naemura have acted disgracefully. False and sexist stereotypes about how rape victims behave should not be used to justify a guilty verdict. Finally, since Oregonian articles expire after 14 days, below I’ve reproduced the text of their December 3rd article, so it isn’t lost down the memory hole. BEAVERTON — A municipal judge found a 19-year-old woman guilty Friday of filing a false police report after she said she was raped by three young men. Even though the woman never said she lied or recanted her story, city prosecutors say they took the unusual step of filing charges against her because of the seriousness of her accusations. The woman’s attorney and advocates for rape victims say the prosecution sets a dangerous precedent and could discourage others from reporting sexual assaults. “This will have a huge chilling effect on men and women across the board,” said Erin Ellis, executive director of the Sexual Assault Resource Center in Washington County. “We’re sliding backwards.” After a day-and-a-half trial, Municipal Judge Peter A. Ackerman on Friday convicted the woman of filing a false police report, a class-C misdemeanor. Ackerman explained his decision, saying there were many inconsistencies in the stories of the four, but that he found the young men to be more credible. He also said he relied on the testimony of a Beaverton police detective and the woman’s friends who said she did not act traumatized in the days following the incident. The woman’s lawyer, Jeff Napoli, said he plans to appeal the case to Washington County Circuit Court, where a new trial would be held. The woman, who was 17 at the time of the April 30, 2004, incident, testified Friday that she was attacked by an 18-year-old boyfriend and his two friends. She said she was in the boyfriend’s bedroom preparing to go to a party when she was sexually assaulted by the men. The three men testified Thursday that the acts were consensual and at the girl’s initiation. The Oregonian is not publishing the names of the woman or the three men because the case remains unresolved and involves allegations of sexual assault. The Washington County District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute the case against the men. Robert Hermann, the county’s district attorney, said prosecutors reviewed all the information and statements but didn’t think they could prove a rape allegation. Ted Naemura, the assistant city attorney who prosecuted the case, said the woman’s false accusations were serious enough to lead to charges. The young men faced prison sentences of at least 7 years and a lifetime labeled as sex offenders. In addition, police spent considerable resources investigating the accusations. Beaverton has no policy about prosecuting such cases, but reviews each one on its merits, Naemura said. The city prosecuted a similar case a year ago in which a judge ordered the woman to pay $1,100 in restitution for the city’s investigation costs, said Officer Paul Wandell, a Beaverton Police Department spokesman. The bottom line, Naemura said, is that people can’t use the criminal justice system to further their own ends. This case should not deter legitimate victims from reporting crimes, he said. Ellis of the Sexual Assault Resource Center disagreed. She said this case could make others think twice about reporting sex crimes. Ellis, who provided peer support for the woman during the trial, said she was especially disturbed by the judge’s comments about the woman’s believability. “There’s no typical response for a rape survivor,” Ellis said. Kevin Neely, spokesman for the Oregon Attorney General’s Office, said it was rare for alleged sex crime victims to be charged much less convicted of filing a false police report. “Our concern is always with the underreporting of sexual assaults,” he said, “not with false reporting. It’s a safe bet that prosecutions for false reporting are rare.” False accusations of sex crimes, while rare, are not unheard of, said Heather J. Huhtanen, Sexual Assault Training Institute director for the Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force. Huhtanen said about 10 percent of Oregon victims of sex crimes file reports with police. A Portland Police Bureau study estimated that 3 percent of its rape cases were classified as unfounded, she said. Portland police, Huhtanen said, found that 1.6 percent of sexual assault cases were falsely reported, compared with 2.6 percent of auto theft reports. The Beaverton case has raised concerns among groups who assist victims of sexual assault. Keri Moran-Kuhn of the Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence said the case may discourage victims of sexual assault from reporting crimes. “The message it gives to other victims is they’re not going to be believed,” Moran-Kuhn said. “It can deter victims from coming forward.” Napoli, a former Washington County deputy district attorney, said he understands the district attorney’s decision to not charge the three men in the rape case because of disputes over the facts. But for the same reason, he said, it didn’t make sense for Beaverton to turn around and charge the woman. “I think it’s shocking to most people that a victim would be prosecuted for this,” Napoli said in court. The woman faces a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail and $1,250 fine, Naemura said. He would not say what sentence the city would seek. The woman is scheduled to be sentenced in municipal court Dec. 16. The sentence would be suspended until the appeal is resolved. John Snell and Amy Hsuan of The Oregonian staff contributed to this report. David R. Anderson: 503-294-5199; davidanderson@news.oregonian.com
Four stories – Teen never recants, and her lawyer says the verdict may stop others from reporting sex crimes
Saturday, December 03, 2005
DAVID R. ANDERSON
The Oregonian
That’s kinda backwards though–wouldn’t it be great if the court took its proceedings seriously enough to produce a record?
Yes, I’m with you, Mythago. It’s incomprehensible to me that there’s a situation where we might put someone in jail and we don’t take the time to make a record of the whole thing.
—Myca
You Oregonians. Is Beaverton like really out in the sticks or something?? NO RECORD AT ALL??? Do they understand that they are no longer living in the 18th Century?
Why does this obviously half-assed court have the power to imprison anybody for anything?
Oddly enough, Beaverton is one of the most affluent areas surrounding Portland. It’s where Intel and the other large computer businesses are/were located and the majority of people out in that area are at the very least middle class, if not upper middle class. It’s the location for the ‘ritzy’ mall in Portland as well. I would have been less surprised if this were Gresham we were talking about considering Gresham is where the main mover-n-shaker behind the highly suspect re-vamping of the same-sex domestic partnership bill comes from.
Beaverton is a bizarre little alternate universe, Susan. I don’t even know how to describe it other than starting with the fact that they thought “Beaverton” was a good choice for a name and up until a couple years ago their summer festival was called unironically “A Taste of Beaverton” much to the snickering of every band who ever took stage there. They’re just not like the rest of us.
All kidding aside, though, it is one of the more right-leaning corners of town, also. Most people in Portland are under the impression that it’s the lower classes out on the east side who bring us our regressive moments, but actually it’s the WASPy suburban upper class “family friendly” weirdos in Beaverton that are the most consistently reactionary when it comes to voting and social policy. They think that it’s Orange County out there.
Apparently it doesn’t. She appears to be entitled to a new trial from scratch.
From what I can see, there hasn’t been a trial or a conviction, in the meaningful “due process” senses of the word. It’s just some silly hoops they make defendants jump through prior to the real trial.
Presumably an acquittal at Beaverton would not be appealed, so another, more cynical way of looking at it is that it is a way to ensure that white, middle-classed people in Beavorton who are accused of a crime get two chances to be acquitted.
This may seem odd, but it is a conviction, it is just that the first level of appeals is a new trial. Maryland has the same system. In Maryland, a defense attorney can “jury force” a trial, which means they skip the muni court trial and go to a full trial in circuit court, but most prefer not to because they prefer two trials. I think those that “jury force” get a first tier appeal that those who take the two trials don’t, so it is a tradeoff.
As far as not having a record, in the military, summary court martial proceedings are not transcribed ever. And their appeals are very limited.
I just hope the trial happens soon–I’m thinking she’ll win in front of a jury, especially if the trial attorney calls some kind of psychiatric expert witness.
In all fairness. I grew up in Orange County, California, and while it’s in many ways a bizarre place, they have heard of court reporters there. And use them even. In every trial. Imagine.
Thank you for the explanation, Ismone. We don’t do it that way here in California.
Well, you in Oregon know best I guess. It sounds like a waste of taxpayer money (news flash: maintaining courts is not cheap) to have a preliminary “trial” which the defendant can then ignore and we can start all over.
Thought. Is this maybe like a “preliminary hearing” here? (Or do you have those too?)
To wit, before anyone can be charged in a criminal matter in California, the prosecutor needs an indictment, which he or she does not have the power to produce. An indictment is produced either at a “preliminary hearing” (before a judge) or by grand jury. The standard is not, “beyond a reasonable doubt” but rather just, is there enough evidence to justify a trial. (This is intended to weed out cases where the prosecution just doesn’t have anything much.)
If that’s what was going on, she wasn’t “convicted” at all of anything, just bound over for trial. But. It seems from the newspaper article that she could actually be sentenced on the basis of this hearing, which does NOT happen here.
Very odd from a California lawyer’s perpective, but different strokes and all that.
There’s an old saying: Military justice is to justice as military music is to music.
I have yet to see any compelling evidence that this woman is not a legitimate victim.
“Legitimate” victims will most certainly be deterred from reporting crimes, because obviously their own belief that they’re legitimate is not worth shit.
In my perhaps mechanical understanding of the charges against this young woman, it seems to me that the prosecutor now must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt,
– that she was not raped by the men involved, and
– that she made her charges with some evil motive.
Tough job, I would think. My guess is that the state will quietly give up at this point.
I personally think that unless the situation is truly outrageous, having the accused rapists get off scott free is enough. Turning around and making criminal charges against the victim?? Tell me this doesn’t discourage the reporting of crime. Come on.
If there wasn’t enough evidence to convict the young men of rape, how can there be enough evidence to convince the young woman of “lying” about it?
Susan:
The process is supposed to be mechanical in the sense that mean the word, but the elements of the crime that would need to be proved are:
– that she made a report to the police.
– that there was a substantive false statement in it.
– that the false statement was not made in good faith.
My elements 2 and 3 correspond roughly with yours, but showing the existance of a substantive false statement does not necessarily mean that they have to show that the rape did not happen, or that it wasn’t by the accused men. As a hypothetical example, consider a case in which the complainant alleges that she was raped, and that certain injuries she suffered were a result of the rape. If it could be proven that her injuries were self-inflicted, or otherwise significantly inconsistent with her testimony, then that would satisfy my element 2 without in any way proving that she wasn’t raped.
She’s an alledged victim. Calling her a ‘victim’ and expressing outrage that those accused (but not convicted) of raping her haven’t been punished is tantamount to presuming them guilty, your use of the word ‘accused’ notwithstanding. If we’ve seen little evidence – beyond the testimony of three men – that she made a false report, we’ve seen none at all – beyond the testimony of one woman – that they raped her.
Ismone:
There’s nothing in the fourteenth amendment which says that the state can’t call someone a rude name without due process.
They think that it’s Orange County out there.
That would be Lake Oswego.
Can someone help out an ignorant Brit here? “Orange” makes me think of Orangemen, the Orange Order, and the anti-Catholic bigotry prevalent in Ireland and parts of Scotland. What is “Orange County” supposed to mean?
Orange County is a wealthy and anomalously socially conservative area of southern California.