The judge probably did this because of the power those words in hold in the courtroom and the overall litigation process for the jury. The judge would not want an impartial jury to be swayed by the constant repetition of the words.
Aside from that, I really do not see the point. It is yet another story that has little backing and little to go on. Sorry.
Quote:
|
Bowen, 24, was fighting the ban, arguing that it hurt her testimony because she had to pause and make sure her words wouldn't violate the ban. She said: "I want the freedom to be able to point (to Safi) in court and say, 'That man raped me."'
|
See here: of course the 'victim' holds bias, and even blatantly admits that she would want to testify on that behalf. I'd gotta say I'd look like the biggest asshole in the deliberation area if I wasn't swayed by an outburst like that. It holds no relevance to use the words if the jury has already been briefed on the subject matter beforehand. I say the judge made the correct decision in exercising the rights he is entitled to in order to ensure a fair and just trial. Simple as that.