Skip to main content
Second day of a rape trial. 

Today (Tuesday) the trial centered on the testimony of two (alleged) victims from 2012 and two from 2018. They were all minors at the time, one is now about 18 years old.

After yesterday, a big difference was that the defendant, still representing himself, questioned each witness.

At least three were highly effective witnesses. They were consistent, calm, clear, and... under cross-examination, they spoke directly to the defendant, didn't flinch, and accused him of sexual abuse and violence. One witness was especially riveting and even inspiring, in her courage and power to confront him.

I believe that they way he did the questioning, though rather restrained and conversational at times, can only undermine his defense. For instance, he put himself into their narratives, which they repeated thru their answers, and they stood up to his challenges.

(An 11 year old was somewhat less effective, possibly confused by the sometimes repetitive and rapid-fire questions.)

After the jury left, the defendant was standing up, looked at me and asked who I was. Not surprising -- after all, it was a rather intimate space and I was the only member of the public. I'm sure he had seen me earlier. So I told him that I'm a professor from Miami University. He came across as relaxed and personable.

I chatted briefly with the prosecutor. Among other things, she mentioned that she's a Miami graduate.

https://www.facebook.com/hcgray/posts/10161749241145335

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Emotions and testimony If there's a "typical" rape trial, are victims steered to testify about the pain and feelings that they experienced? Or do prosecutors tend to downplay the emotional aspects? I'm observing a trial in Cincinnati. The victims were minors, ages 7-10 at the time, 2 girls and 2 boys. In their testimony, they said little about their emotions -- and the prosecutor didn't asked them about it IIRC. Perhaps with an adult victim of rape, the prosecutor has to show a lack of consent and thus might focus more on emotional and physical pain? Whereas when the victims are children, would the prosecution downplay emotions because they assume that jurors would imagine the worse, or would already see rape of children as intrinsically monstrous enough? Or because they want to (appear to) protect the survivors' from undue trauma? Or because a child's capability to testify is fragile, so they keep to the basic observable facts? We...
Post a Comment
Read more
First day of a rape trial in Cincinnati. Today I observed the beginning of a trial in Cincinnati's county court -- several counts of rape against minors. Defendant is representing himself but only repeats that he does not consent to trial. Jurors questioned (only by prosecution) and three were dismissed. The courtroom is fairly relaxed, which I sometimes found disconcerting. The assigned public defender moved to the public seats, near me. One juror dismissed presumably because wanted to know why case not pursued by a now retired detective circa 2012, as mentioned by prosecutor. The accused repeatedly cites the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), apparently claiming to be a “sovereign citizen” not subject to the state. Well, initially he argued w the judge about the type of trial, as if questioning whether it should be a bench or jury trial. But when the judge asked whether he wanted bench instead of jury trial, he didn’t respond directly. So she took that as a pass and ...
Post a Comment
Read more