What leads to an acquittal in a sexual assault case?

[Feo Takahari]

One possible backstory for Denise, a mentally disabled house-painter, involves her being the victim of some sort of sexual assault or coercion (not necessarily penetrative assault), and the perpetrator avoiding serious legal punishment. This takes place in an urban fantasy setting, so if I decide to use this backstory, it would be best to base the facts of the case on those of existing cases. What legal precedent exists, particularly in the U.S., by which the perpetrator might not be convicted?

Confirmed facts of the case:

* Michael, the perpetrator, is a very rich man who can afford expensive lawyers.
* Denise is borderline or very mildly disabled. She's married, co-raises a daughter, and can hold down a simple job. She's capable of identifying Michael, although a jury might not believe she can do so.
* Denise is not in love with Michael, but she finds him highly intimidating. She might or might not be intimidated out of testifying against him.
* If Denise was injured, her husband would have taken her to the hospital. Thus, if injury was dealt, an assault would have been confirmed, although the identity of the perpetrator might not have.

And one possible approach to the case, which may or may not be plausible:

* Denise was not severely injured in the assault, but was too scared to initially report it. However, when she did report it, the police believed her testimony, and readily assumed that Michael was the perpetrator. Michael's lawyer successfully argued that poor disabled Denise was too frightened and confused to remember who her attacker was, and that the police led her to accusing the innocent Michael.

(I have a habit of dropping alarming questions here, don't I? For what it's worth, I might not even use this backstory--it's easily the darkest thing in an otherwise idealistic story.)

 

[Steerpike]

There are a number of possibilities here.

Remember that in any criminal case, the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. "Reasonable doubt" has been defined in a number of ways. In one case, it was defined as a near certainty. Not beyond all possible doubt, but pretty close. So it could simply be that the prosecution didn't have the evidence to make the case stick.

Also, if there is no physical evidence it is basically her word versus his. When that's all you have, it might be hard to reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Even if the jury thinks it is pretty likely that he did it, they might still acquit. That's the standard.

There also might have been something about her testimony that they didn't find credible. In other words, they simply didn't believe her, or they had enough questions about her credibility that it created reasonable doubt.

If he testified (the defendant may do so, but doesn't have to), they may well have found his testimony credible and gave it more weight that hers. It doesn't mean he didn't commit the act, but simply that for whatever reason the jury believes him more than her.

If there are third-party witnesses on either side, the credibility of various competing witnesses also comes into play.

In rare circumstances, a jury might acquit when they feel a prosecution has charged a crime that is more severe than what can be supported by the evidence, or that there is some other reason that makes it unfair to convict. In the latter instance, it is called 'jury nullification.' Doesn't sound like that is the case here.

In general, an acquittal simply comes down to the prosecution not convincing the jury "beyond a reasonable doubt," and you can come up with a variety of reasons as to why and pick the ones you like: no physical evidence, no witnesses (he said v. she said), varying degrees of credibility among witnesses, and so on.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I agree with Steerpike completely, but add a couple more things - an alibi. Surely the perp being rich could have crafted for himself an alibi, you know, he was out playing polo with friends, all of whom will vouch for him.

And of course given the victim's psychological state, he could also have a team of experts explaining to the court how she is mentally unable to identify her attacker after all. It may all have been a psychotic break from reality.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[ALB2012]

Yeah I would agree with these scenarios. If the perp was a well thought of man, rich and whatever then likely he could bu silence or a dodgy lawyer. Also discrediting a witness- in this case the poor young lady- is she confused, mistaken, does she have a grudge? Could she have misunderstood his intentions? Could she simply be lying?
Was the assault actually a willing liason but now she thinks her husband will be angry?

Questions like that might be important. Sometimes a jury will acquit through sheer bloody-mindedness especially if the judge or prosecutor is acting unfairly or seen to be. if there is no physical evidence, or unclear physical evidence then it would one person's word against the other.

 

[Shockley]

Just a thought that might change your character too much: If she has episodes, she might have a history of accusing people of crimes - maybe, just maybe, this isn't the first time she's come running to the police about being assaulted, and the time beforte that she was being stalked, etc.

 

[Zokoke]

My question is, what state does this take place in? Different states have different laws in regards to their definitions of assault, sexual assault and coercion. For example, here are some links from the Ohio Revised Code on Assault and Felonious Assault: Lawriter - ORC - 2903.13 Assault. Lawriter - ORC - 2903.11 Felonious assault..

Also, what is the relationship between Denise and Michael? Are they related, is Michael Denise's boss? And how long was it before Denise reported the incident? If Denise was raped, then usually police officers want to have any articles of clothing she was wearing and, depending on the length of time between the assault and the reporting, she may be administered a rape kit. If there is little or no physical evidence, or Denise accidentally washed away evidence, the prosecution could have some difficulty proving that the assault was caused by Michael.

As a social worker/mental health professional, I would like to know what exactly Denise's condition is. You stated that she is borderline or mildly disabled. Perhaps naming a specific disorder could be beneficial. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, provides some explanations of various disorders and is considered the bible of mental health professionals. The most current version is the DSM IV-TR, however, the DSM-5 is scheduled to be released in May 2013 with some revisions from the previous version.

Along with her disorder, is she receiving treatment? Does she see a Psychologist, Psychiatrist or Social Worker? If she does, be sure to look at the differences between those three professions.

I hope some of the questions can help guide you in the direction you are looking for.

 

[Reaver]

One of our members, Frog, is a criminal law attorney and likely an excellent source of information.

 

[Feo Takahari]

My question is, what state does this take place in? Different states have different laws in regards to their definitions of assault, sexual assault and coercion. For example, here are some links from the Ohio Revised Code on Assault and Felonious Assault: Lawriter - ORC - 2903.13 Assault. Lawriter - ORC - 2903.11 Felonious assault..

Also, what is the relationship between Denise and Michael? Are they related, is Michael Denise's boss? And how long was it before Denise reported the incident? If Denise was raped, then usually police officers want to have any articles of clothing she was wearing and, depending on the length of time between the assault and the reporting, she may be administered a rape kit. If there is little or no physical evidence, or Denise accidentally washed away evidence, the prosecution could have some difficulty proving that the assault was caused by Michael.

As a social worker/mental health professional, I would like to know what exactly Denise's condition is. You stated that she is borderline or mildly disabled. Perhaps naming a specific disorder could be beneficial. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, provides some explanations of various disorders and is considered the bible of mental health professionals. The most current version is the DSM IV-TR, however, the DSM-5 is scheduled to be released in May 2013 with some revisions from the previous version.

Along with her disorder, is she receiving treatment? Does she see a Psychologist, Psychiatrist or Social Worker? If she does, be sure to look at the differences between those three professions.

I hope some of the questions can help guide you in the direction you are looking for.

In order:

This takes place somewhere in California.

Denise and Michael have known each other for a while, since they go to the same church. Michael isn't regularly Denise's employer, but shortly prior to this incident, he hired her to paint his house. (The assault itself may not have occurred at Michael's house, depending on how I decide to spin this.) It's plausible that Denise could have been intimidated into not initially reporting it--maybe the assault occurred on a Monday, and she didn't tell anyone about it until she talked to the pastor on Sunday. (Her denomination doesn't practice formal confession, but the pastor is available to talk to those who need to discuss something.)

I guess the euphemism treadmill has failed me. Denise is borderline or mildly retarded. She has no other mental disability or illness--she's just a little slow on the uptake, and sometimes has trouble with abstract thought. (I'm leaning towards "borderline" rather than "mild", since she and her husband chose to have and raise a child.)

Denise doesn't see a psychiatrist or a psychologist. She could see a social worker, but I don't think she'd need to--she's largely functional, and her husband helps her with the things she can't handle.