In case you thought the OJ trial was a farce - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Marvelous Marv · 02-10-2007, 08:20 AM

Here's one that in some respects puts OJ to shame:

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/il...park-ed/26661/

Quote:

An Irvine cop ejaculates on a motorist but escapes criminal liability
By R. SCOTT MOXLEY
Thursday, February 8, 2007 - 3:00 pm
No one disputes that an on-duty Irvine police officer got an erection and ejaculated on a motorist during an early-morning traffic stop in Laguna Beach. The female driver reported it, DNA testing confirmed it and officer David Alex Park finally admitted it.

When the case went to trial, however, defense attorney Al Stokke argued that Park wasn’t responsible for making sticky all over the woman’s sweater. He insisted that she made the married patrolman make the mess—after all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.

“She got what she wanted,” said Stokke. “She’s an overtly sexual person.”

A jury of one woman and 11 men—many white and in their 50s or 60s—agreed with Stokke. On Feb. 2, after a half-day of deliberations, they found Park not guilty of three felony charges that he’d used his badge to win sexual favors during the December 2004 traffic stop.

Park, 31, was red-faced and unable to control his twitching foot in the moments before the verdict was announced; if convicted, he would have faced prison. When he was found not guilty, he briefly embraced Stokke. In the public seating section, tears flowed from his gray-haired mother’s face. His father, a mechanic, closed his eyes and threw his head back. Outside the courtroom, surrounded by his family, a smiling Park said he felt vindicated.

Veteran sex crimes prosecutor Shaddi Kamiabipour—who’d called Park “a predator” during the nine-day trial—said she was disappointed with the verdicts. She also dismissed Stokke’s contention that the Orange County District Attorney’s office had overcharged the case. At stake, Kamiabipour said, was the principle that no one—not even a horny cop who’d once won honors for community service—is above the law.

“Park didn’t pick a housewife or a 17-year-old girl,” Kamiabipour said in her closing argument. “He picked a stripper. He picked the perfect victim.”

In the wee hours of Dec. 15, 2004, Lucy (only her first name was used during the trial) finished her final shift at Captain Cream in Lake Forest, not far from the Irvine Spectrum. Management had let her go after an incident involving a female customer in a bathroom stall. According to court records, there had been a small amount of cocaine, kissing and breast fondling.

Meanwhile, Park was on patrol in the southwest portion of Irvine. Prosecutors believe he was craving a sexual rendezvous, and so he watched for Lucy’s white BMW to leave the strip club parking lot, then tailed her, waiting for an excuse for a stop. Park insisted he’d been cruising on the 405 north and coincidentally saw Lucy’s vehicle weave and speed.

Kamiabipour, the prosecutor, shook her head in disbelief. She knew the facts—that the officer had waited at least eight or nine minutes before stopping the stripper on a secluded section of a highway that was out of his jurisdiction.

“He was stalking her,” she said.

Four months earlier, Park had stopped Lucy under similar circumstances. That time, he’d ignored a plastic drug baggie he’d found in her car and her suspended license. But the stop wasn’t a waste of time. After friendly chit-chat, the officer had scored Lucy’s phone number. Telephone records show that Park called the stripper the next morning. She told him she was too busy to meet.

On the witness stand, Park explained that he’d called Lucy out of concern for a citizen’s safety. He also shrugged his shoulders when Kamiabipour slowly listed the first names of nine Captain Cream female employees—Annette, Denise, Rashele, Marlia, Brandi, Andrea, Deborah, Laura and Shannon—whose license plates he’d run through the DMV computer in the weeks prior to his sexual encounter with Lucy. (Another coincidence, according to Stokke.) Jurors also learned that Irvine Police Sgt. Michael Hallinan had previously warned Park as they left work to stay away from the strippers.

Park, who works in construction nowadays, conceded that he’d been given the warning but claimed that he had no clue it was Lucy in the vehicle or that she had an invalid driver’s license, even as he approached her car window.

Kamiabipour believed she’d caught the 6-foot-3 cop in a lie. Records show he ran the bosomy, 5-foot, 110-pound dancer’s license plate before the stop, did not call for backup despite the potential for an arrest and failed to tell his supervisor or dispatch that he was leaving Irvine. Several Irvine officers testified that Park’s behavior that night was odd.

“[Park’s] testimony was just incredible,” said Kamiabipour. Irvine city officials must have doubted his story, too. After an exhaustive police internal affairs investigation, they felt it was prudent to give Lucy $400,000 to make her civil lawsuit go away—for fear a jury might give her much more.

In a secretly-recorded phone call to Laguna Beach police shortly after the incident, Lucy recalled that she’d told Park she had no license. Park began “rubbing himself up against me,” she said. “Then, he said, ‘What are we going to do here, Lucy?’”

Park unzipped his pants, took his penis out and got an erection, she explained. “Basically, the officer made me give [him] a freaking hand job and he let me go. I’m so freaked out about it.”

(Lucy also told police, prosecutors and the jury that Park had also fingered her vagina and fondled her breasts before he ejaculated on her.)

“I was confused,” she told the Laguna Beach dispatcher. “He called me afterwards. I’m scared, you know . . . What’s an Irvine cop doing hanging out at a strip club in Lake Forest?”

Telephone records prove that Park made a 19-minute call to Lucy shortly after their encounter. The officer—who told the woman he was “Joe Stephens,” an Orange County Sheriff’s Department deputy who had died months earlier—said it was a friendly call to make sure she’d arrived home safely. The stripper said he told her to keep her mouth shut.

And then Kamiabipour introduced the bombshell evidence from a high-ranking Irvine police officer: on the night Park tailed Lucy out of the city, the global positioning system in his patrol car had been disconnected without authorization.

“I checked and [the GPS] was not working,” said Lt. Henry Boggs.

An unexplainable coincidence, Park’s defense countered.

For all his boneheaded mistakes, Park madea sharp decision picking his legal counsel. Stokke (and John Barnett, Paul Myer and Jennifer Keller) is among the elite of the local defense bar. His fine suits and mastery of courtroom procedures compliment the folksy, grandfatherly style he uses to charm juries. And there was this unspoken advantage over the prosecution: longtime courthouse observers have no memory of an Orange County jury convicting a police officer of a felony.

It wasn’t a surprise that Stokke put the woman and her part-time occupation on trial. In his opening argument, he made it The Good Cop versus The Slutty Stripper. He pointed out that she’d once had a violent fight with a boyfriend in San Diego. He mocked her inability to keep a driver’s license. He accused her of purposefully “weakening” Park so that he became “a man,” not a cop during the traffic stop. He called her a liar angling for easy lawsuit cash. He called her a whore without saying the word.

“You dance around a pole, don’t you?” Stokke asked.

Superior Court Judge William Evans ruled the question irrelevant.

Stokke saw he was scoring points with the jury.

“Do you place a pole between your legs and go up and down?” he asked.

“No,” said Lucy before the judge interrupted.

“You do the dancing to get men to do what you what them to do,” said Stokke. “And the same thing happened out there on that highway [in Laguna Beach]. You wanted [Park] to take some sex!”

Lucy said, “No sir,” the sex wasn’t consensual. Stokke—usually a mellow fellow with a nasally, monotone voice—gripped his fists, stood upright, clenched his jaws and then thundered, “You had a buzz on [that night], didn’t you?”

As if watching a volley in tennis, the heads of the male-dominated jury spun from Stokke back to Lucy, who sat in the witness box. She said no, but it was hopeless. Jurors stared at her without a hint of sympathy.

In his closing argument, Stokke pounced. He called Lucy one of those “girls who have learned the art of the tease, getting what they want . . . they’ve learned to separate men from their money.”

Kamiabipour wasn’t amused. “Dancer or not, sexually promiscuous nor not, she had the right not to consent,” she told jurors. “[Park] doesn’t get a freebie just because of who she is . . . He used her like an object.”

Does everyone still have faith in our court system? Or am I the only one who thinks it's an abject failure?

On the other hand, law school is looking better. Getting wealthy from this kind of thing would be great, as long as you don't want to sleep at night.

tinfoil · 02-10-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Does everyone still have faith in our court system? Or am I the only one who thinks it's an abject failure?

I wouldn't say that the system itself is bad, it's just that a lawyer with very good social engineering skills played a hand-picked jury and played them to the best of his abilities. This is a truly horrible example of "justice" but a very good example of a seedy lawyer doing what he is best at: winning at all costs. Really, the jury made the decision. They were snowed by the lawyer and by their preconceived notions that just because a woman is a stripper, she is a whore and deserved what she got. It wasn't a winable case, IMO.

Val_1 · 02-10-2007, 10:02 AM

I think that the cop is a sexual predator and should not be allowed to stay on the police force. However, I also think that she should not have played along (she gave him a hand job and allowed him to finger her). That doesn't give her a strong case. If she didn't, he might have arrested her, true. But, that would have likely been the end of it. He coerceed her, but she played along.

Strange Famous · 02-10-2007, 10:34 AM

what an astonishing story... its hard to understand how the defence lawyer didnt get thrown in jail for contempt of court for those comments.

analog · 02-10-2007, 01:00 PM

As shitty as it sounds, her case was doomed- that's not to say that the guy was innocent, but they'd have been hard-pressed to get a guilty verdict on him. The woman was a stripper, which instantly loses you credibility points to a jury, she'd been fired for being found with another female and cocaine in the strip club bathroom (which shows she may also have been high), and it was a "coerced" act, not a forced act (as in, not forced rape- it was "do this or go to jail" coerced rape). She was screwed from the get-go, unfortunately.

And yeah, the justice system isn't perfect- but the lawyer convinced a jury that he was not guilty. Would you prefer that the pendulum swing the other way, and innocent people get guilty convictions? I'd honestly rather some guilty people go free on far-fetched tactics or technicalities than any innocent person get put in jail.

SirLance · 02-10-2007, 02:09 PM

It is a good system but it doesn't always work. Justice is not always served, in part because of protections afforded citizens stemming from the presumption of innocence. We should not give up that presumption, and as long as we do not, the price we pay is that the occasional guilty man goes free.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have been found guilty and punished, I'm saying it is more important that we have the protections we afford criminal defendants keep them from being railroaded (and even that happens, too!).

Willravel · 02-10-2007, 02:25 PM

Hero cop: 1
Stripper: 0
Justice -1

Who didn't see this coming?

Charlatan · 02-10-2007, 03:35 PM

Sounds like the DA didn't help to select a jury that would see this in any reasonable light.

The ex-cop sounds as guilty as charged. I don't care that she's a stripper. A cop (a person in authority) shouldn't abuse their power like that. He is a sexual predator I wouldn't be shocked to see him do something like this again. At least he is no longer a cop.

She would have won the civil suit if she hadn't settled.

Gilda · 02-10-2007, 04:33 PM

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see what her being a stripper has to do with what he did. How is her profession even relevant here, except as it pertains to why he chose her to assault rather than, say, a young college professor?

I understand that it apparently was, but I'm not sure why.

Val_1 · 02-10-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see what her being a stripper has to do with what he did.

Because it's a jury trial and thereby decided by their prejudices. Not fair, but that's the way it is.

Strange Famous · 02-11-2007, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see what her being a stripper has to do with what he did. How is her profession even relevant here, except as it pertains to why he chose her to assault rather than, say, a young college professor?

Thats what I meant. I dont really understand how the defence wasnt found in contempt of court for insinuating she "must have been asking for it" because of her vocation.

Toaster126 · 02-11-2007, 04:00 AM

Um, the court system has never been fair to everyone, just like things in life in general favor those with power. I'm not sure how this is surprising. Is it fair? Hell no. But all you can do is take it to court and hopefully sometimes something will actually be done...

Cynthetiq · 02-11-2007, 07:38 AM

The system works. It's not broken, it's not going to hell in a handbasket.

Reasonable doubt. That's it. That's the crux here. All the defense attorney has to do is create some reasonable doubt about something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see what her being a stripper has to do with what he did. How is her profession even relevant here, except as it pertains to why he chose her to assault rather than, say, a young college professor?

I understand that it apparently was, but I'm not sure why.

Again, reasonable doubt via credibility. Stripper is less credible than a young college professor.

KnifeMissile · 02-11-2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Again, reasonable doubt via credibility. Stripper is less credible than a young college professor.

You're basically talking about the Chewbacca defense.

None of the facts of the case were in dispute. Credibility was not an issue. She's a stripper and the jury felt that the police officer didn't deserve to go to jail for ejaculating on a stripper. That's what happened.

Everyone must admit that she had it cumming...
/ducks...

Cynthetiq · 02-11-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

You're basically talking about the Chewbacca defense.

None of the facts of the case were in dispute. Credibility was not an issue. She's a stripper and the jury felt that the police officer didn't deserve to go to jail for ejaculating on a stripper. That's what happened.

Everyone must admit that she had it cumming...
/ducks...

No I'm not referring to that. Gilda's question is why is it relevant, it may not be relevant. Lawyers do in fact, use people's lifestyles and livelihood to paint pictures toe play on the "stereotypes" that people have in their heads to help create or dissuade reasonable doubt.

KnifeMissile · 02-11-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

No I'm not referring to that. Gilda's question is why is it relevant, it may not be relevant. Lawyers do in fact, use people's lifestyles and livelihood to paint pictures toe play on the "stereotypes" that people have in their heads to help create or dissuade reasonable doubt.

Again, there's nothing to "reasonably doubt." The issue isn't whether the facts into evidence are true or not. They are not in dispute so there can't be any doubt, reasonable or otherwise. The only issue is whether the actions deserve a jail sentence and the jury decided no...

Just out of curiosity, to what were you "not" referring? The chewbacca defense? The "she had it cumming" joke?

Gilda · 02-11-2007, 06:15 PM

I guess it just seem counter intuitive to me.

Sex workers are significantly more likely to be assaulted in general and specifically sexually assaulted than the general population, and are victimized disproportionately by law enforcement personnel. In part, this is because there's a strongpower related association between sex workers and law enforcement that leads to this being a crime of opportunity for that minority of law enforcement personnel who have power and dominance issues. In my mind, this would, if anything, tend to make me a little more sympathetic, and makes the idea that he specifically targeted her because of her profession more credible, at least given the pattern of behavior shown here.

Cynthetiq · 02-11-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

Again, there's nothing to "reasonably doubt." The issue isn't whether the facts into evidence are true or not. They are not in dispute so there can't be any doubt, reasonable or otherwise. The only issue is whether the actions deserve a jail sentence and the jury decided no...

Just out of curiosity, to what were you "not" referring? The chewbacca defense? The "she had it cumming" joke?

I was not referring to Chewbacca defense, or any other kind of defense strategy. Only the concept that "reasonable doubt" is all that is required to get a not guilty response from the jury.

I'm missing where in the article the jury was responsible for stating the actions deserved a jail sentence and they decided no. The jury was there to give a guilty or not guilty verdict. They felt he wasn't guilty.

smooth · 02-12-2007, 03:27 AM

hmm, I guess he should have given "Lucy" what she wanted...a driving while suspended, no insurance, DUI and impounded her car. Nice lil possession of controlled substance as a cherry on top.

nah, she didn't want that, and that's why she sold herself out. she used her tricks of the trade to a cop she had history with. gave him enough rope to hang himself, and boy he sure did. but she is sittin pretty with half a mil, let no forget that fact. and she no longer dances, has no need to

retired in style, on might say. all for a teeny tiny handjob...which she gave freely and no so freely in times past. seems like a good deal for her...

probably pissed a bunch of people off, but meh. I personally know every single person "named" in this report, except for the pig. my friend knows him, and was surprised, but that's the extent of that. I'd prefer that this case not become the poster-child for sex workers being abused. it happens, but this isn't the one to hang your coat on by any stretch of the imagination.

and it is surprising to me that even the cleanest club like captains has rampant prostitution and drug use because, well, fuck, I never get prop'ed but I don't have any dough and the dancers know it

Frosstbyte · 02-12-2007, 03:58 AM

Re: her being a stripper and credibility. Here's what you're confusing, Knife. You're confusing facts with proof of a crime. It's absolutely true that no one disputes that she was stopped and that he gave her a hand job and that he ejaculated on her. What's in "dispute" from a legal perspective is whether or not the hand job was forced. The attorney put enough doubt in the jury's head about how much force the cop used to get the hand job that they were not willing to say he was guilty of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt. For better or for worse, being a stripper makes it easier for a jury to believe that if a cop pulled out his wang in front of you, you'd just give him a hand job instead of telling him to go fuck himself and get jailed or actually raped or whatever else might have happened.

analog hit the nail on the head with this one. In a case of sexual assault or rape, if a girl does just about anything but say "No" and any threat of force short of lethal/serious bodily injury occurs, it's VERY difficult to convict. A girl who says "I'm not sure" or "That's really creepy" when threatened with arrest doesn't have a strong case if she follows through. Yeah, that kind of makes my skin crawl, but my guess is that the prosecutor's shot for the highest penalty sexual assault crimes possible which carry a heavy burden of proof and a strong showing of forced sexual contact against the victim's will. If they'd gone with a lesser charge, I'm inclined to believe they would've had more luck.

This case is grotesque across the board. The "right" outcome would probably send them both to jail-her for reckless driving without a license and drug use/possession while driving and him for some variety of sexual assault and absue of his position. I don't think it's a farce in the same way the OJ trial was a farce, nor that it shows that the system is completely broken. It does show that sexual assault cases are horribly complicated and, no matter the physical evidence, always boil down to a he-said/she-said. In a hero cop v. high stripper who (without being explicitly forced) gives him a hand job, it's not surprising that the cop got off.

The_Jazz · 02-12-2007, 07:44 AM

Juries are stupid. That's the reason that I have a job, albeit because civil juries are even stupider than criminal ones.

My point is that jurors have to decide which version of the truth (prosecution or defense) is closest to what really happened. That's why the City didn't want the civil trial to go to a jury - there was no getting around the fact that the officer's DNA was on her sweater. There's also the unanimity requirement in criminal cases, so all 12 jurors here agreed, at least at some point in the deliberation. I didn't see a mention in the OP about how long they took, but I'll bet that it was more than a day on something like this with this kind of verdict.

Instead of wondering if all sex workers' credibility is questionable on the stand, I think that it's more accurate to wonder about this one's. It seems to me that the defense counsel thought she was his star witness.

02-10-2007, 10:02 AM	#3 (permalink)
Val_1 Addict Location: In a State of Denial	I think that the cop is a sexual predator and should not be allowed to stay on the police force. However, I also think that she should not have played along (she gave him a hand job and allowed him to finger her). That doesn't give her a strong case. If she didn't, he might have arrested her, true. But, that would have likely been the end of it. He coerceed her, but she played along. __________________ I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. -Frank Sinatra

02-10-2007, 10:34 AM	#4 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	what an astonishing story... its hard to understand how the defence lawyer didnt get thrown in jail for contempt of court for those comments. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-10-2007, 02:09 PM	#6 (permalink)
SirLance Junkie Location: In the middle of the desert.	It is a good system but it doesn't always work. Justice is not always served, in part because of protections afforded citizens stemming from the presumption of innocence. We should not give up that presumption, and as long as we do not, the price we pay is that the occasional guilty man goes free. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been found guilty and punished, I'm saying it is more important that we have the protections we afford criminal defendants keep them from being railroaded (and even that happens, too!). __________________ DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.

02-10-2007, 03:35 PM	#8 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Sounds like the DA didn't help to select a jury that would see this in any reasonable light. The ex-cop sounds as guilty as charged. I don't care that she's a stripper. A cop (a person in authority) shouldn't abuse their power like that. He is a sexual predator I wouldn't be shocked to see him do something like this again. At least he is no longer a cop. She would have won the civil suit if she hadn't settled. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-10-2007, 04:33 PM	#9 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see what her being a stripper has to do with what he did. How is her profession even relevant here, except as it pertains to why he chose her to assault rather than, say, a young college professor? I understand that it apparently was, but I'm not sure why. __________________ I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert

02-10-2007, 01:00 PM	#5 (permalink)
analog Banned	As shitty as it sounds, her case was doomed- that's not to say that the guy was innocent, but they'd have been hard-pressed to get a guilty verdict on him. The woman was a stripper, which instantly loses you credibility points to a jury, she'd been fired for being found with another female and cocaine in the strip club bathroom (which shows she may also have been high), and it was a "coerced" act, not a forced act (as in, not forced rape- it was "do this or go to jail" coerced rape). She was screwed from the get-go, unfortunately. And yeah, the justice system isn't perfect- but the lawyer convinced a jury that he was not guilty. Would you prefer that the pendulum swing the other way, and innocent people get guilty convictions? I'd honestly rather some guilty people go free on far-fetched tactics or technicalities than any innocent person get put in jail.

02-10-2007, 02:25 PM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Hero cop: 1 Stripper: 0 Justice -1 Who didn't see this coming?

02-11-2007, 04:00 AM	#12 (permalink)
Toaster126 Extreme moderation Location: Kansas City, yo.	Um, the court system has never been fair to everyone, just like things in life in general favor those with power. I'm not sure how this is surprising. Is it fair? Hell no. But all you can do is take it to court and hopefully sometimes something will actually be done... __________________ "The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand) "The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

02-11-2007, 06:15 PM	#17 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	I guess it just seem counter intuitive to me. Sex workers are significantly more likely to be assaulted in general and specifically sexually assaulted than the general population, and are victimized disproportionately by law enforcement personnel. In part, this is because there's a strongpower related association between sex workers and law enforcement that leads to this being a crime of opportunity for that minority of law enforcement personnel who have power and dominance issues. In my mind, this would, if anything, tend to make me a little more sympathetic, and makes the idea that he specifically targeted her because of her profession more credible, at least given the pattern of behavior shown here. __________________ I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert

02-12-2007, 03:27 AM	#19 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	hmm, I guess he should have given "Lucy" what she wanted...a driving while suspended, no insurance, DUI and impounded her car. Nice lil possession of controlled substance as a cherry on top. nah, she didn't want that, and that's why she sold herself out. she used her tricks of the trade to a cop she had history with. gave him enough rope to hang himself, and boy he sure did. but she is sittin pretty with half a mil, let no forget that fact. and she no longer dances, has no need to retired in style, on might say. all for a teeny tiny handjob...which she gave freely and no so freely in times past. seems like a good deal for her... probably pissed a bunch of people off, but meh. I personally know every single person "named" in this report, except for the pig. my friend knows him, and was surprised, but that's the extent of that. I'd prefer that this case not become the poster-child for sex workers being abused. it happens, but this isn't the one to hang your coat on by any stretch of the imagination. and it is surprising to me that even the cleanest club like captains has rampant prostitution and drug use because, well, fuck, I never get prop'ed but I don't have any dough and the dancers know it __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

02-12-2007, 03:58 AM	#20 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	Re: her being a stripper and credibility. Here's what you're confusing, Knife. You're confusing facts with proof of a crime. It's absolutely true that no one disputes that she was stopped and that he gave her a hand job and that he ejaculated on her. What's in "dispute" from a legal perspective is whether or not the hand job was forced. The attorney put enough doubt in the jury's head about how much force the cop used to get the hand job that they were not willing to say he was guilty of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt. For better or for worse, being a stripper makes it easier for a jury to believe that if a cop pulled out his wang in front of you, you'd just give him a hand job instead of telling him to go fuck himself and get jailed or actually raped or whatever else might have happened. analog hit the nail on the head with this one. In a case of sexual assault or rape, if a girl does just about anything but say "No" and any threat of force short of lethal/serious bodily injury occurs, it's VERY difficult to convict. A girl who says "I'm not sure" or "That's really creepy" when threatened with arrest doesn't have a strong case if she follows through. Yeah, that kind of makes my skin crawl, but my guess is that the prosecutor's shot for the highest penalty sexual assault crimes possible which carry a heavy burden of proof and a strong showing of forced sexual contact against the victim's will. If they'd gone with a lesser charge, I'm inclined to believe they would've had more luck. This case is grotesque across the board. The "right" outcome would probably send them both to jail-her for reckless driving without a license and drug use/possession while driving and him for some variety of sexual assault and absue of his position. I don't think it's a farce in the same way the OJ trial was a farce, nor that it shows that the system is completely broken. It does show that sexual assault cases are horribly complicated and, no matter the physical evidence, always boil down to a he-said/she-said. In a hero cop v. high stripper who (without being explicitly forced) gives him a hand job, it's not surprising that the cop got off.

02-12-2007, 07:44 AM	#21 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Juries are stupid. That's the reason that I have a job, albeit because civil juries are even stupider than criminal ones. My point is that jurors have to decide which version of the truth (prosecution or defense) is closest to what really happened. That's why the City didn't want the civil trial to go to a jury - there was no getting around the fact that the officer's DNA was on her sweater. There's also the unanimity requirement in criminal cases, so all 12 jurors here agreed, at least at some point in the deliberation. I didn't see a mention in the OP about how long they took, but I'll bet that it was more than a day on something like this with this kind of verdict. Instead of wondering if all sex workers' credibility is questionable on the stand, I think that it's more accurate to wonder about this one's. It seems to me that the defense counsel thought she was his star witness. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo