Feo Takahari
Auror
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.)
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.)