March 1, 2006
Private: Judge Orders Victim to Watch Videotape of Her Rape
The Chicago Tribune reports that an alleged rape victim who was ordered by the judge in her rape trial to watch video footage of the rape could be in contempt of the court and face jail time if she does not change her mind by today.
The Tribune explains:
The woman was 16 years old when she allegedly was assaulted and videotaped four years ago at a party...[She] answered questions from prosecution and defense attorneys for about an hour. But when the defendant's attorney, Patrick Campanelli, placed a video monitor in front of her and said he was going to play segments of the 20-minute videotape as he questioned her, she stated emphatically "I don't want to see it."
After the judge warned the woman that she was expected to testify Wednesday, Campanelli quickly asked that the criminal case against his client be dismissed.
"Your honor, my client has a constitutional right to confrontation of a witness," he said.
Assistant State's Atty. Michael Deno argued against dismissal. "This witness has testified to every other question, and she has testified that she doesn't have any recollection or memory of the videotape incident at all," he said.
[The judge] declined to rule on the dismissal request until after the trial resumes Wednesday....[but did say to the victim]: "I am ordering you to answer these questions...The consequences are that you would be held in contempt of court, with incarceration possible. Are you still refusing?"
George Acosta, the attorney representing the woman in a civil case against the defendant's family, said she has never viewed the video and has stated repeatedly that she did not want to.
Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money weighs in on the issue here:
Sixth Amendment rights are not absolute--defendants are legally prevented from presenting types of evidence in any number of ways. While it is in the self-interest of the defense to grasp at every conceivable straw, it's the judge's role to consider the other rights and interests at stake as well. And in this case, I just can't agree that the balance of interests is even particularly close. The defense has been allowed to confront the witness--the only question is the very narrow one of whether she should be compelled to watch the tape, and I just can't see what value this would have that would outweigh the obvious intention to intimidate the victim.
He adds:
Moreover, I think it's worth noting that rape is not like any other crime, and since Tennessee (like 48 other states) has a rape shield law this concept is embedded within public policy...In a historical vacuum, perhaps the judge's decision is defensible; once the broader context of sexual assault is considered, I believe the judge's decision is every bit as outrageous as it appears on first glance. The defendant should not be compelled to watch the tape of her assault, and that she might end up on jail while her attacked goes free is utterly unconscionable.