OK, some lawyers SHOULD be shot.

[Relbeek Einre]

http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/04/35/moxley-exclusive.php

[Partha]

Vigorous defence. Adversarial system. Yadda yadda yadda.

If he loses, he should get a pool cue stuck up HIS ass.

[Syeni Soulslasher MK6]

Umm wow.

She might have consented to the gang bang but I doubt she woulda went with it if she knew they would take a pool queue to her while she is passed out... Who cares if she shaves there, my wife does to0 but don't mean she wants 3 guys jamming pool sticks in her ass...

They definatly need to do some time.... For if nothing else just being complete utter assholes about it...

[Ddrak]

Isn't the lawyer just doing his job, or do you believe that defendants should get the best possible defense? After all, the *only* defense in a rape trial where the act is not in doubt is to show consent existed.

Should the defendants be proven guilty, they should get the book thrown at them. Multiple times. However, until then, if you actually believe in America and American values you have to take the presumption of innocence no matter how bad the evidence looks and allow them their day in court.

Dd

[Relbeek Einre]

I think that demolishing the character of the victim by calling her a "slut" in open court goes way beyond providing a vigorous defense.

[Ddrak]

Well, it *is* a case based on the character of the victim. If that comment is over the line then the judge should have put the lawyer in contempt of court.

Do you have any objection to the prosecution calling the defendants "rapists"?

Dd

[Relbeek Einre]

Since that's what they're being charged with, no.

Since the victim was UNCONSCIOUS during the entire rape, calling her a slut doesn't exonerate the defendants. It's just mean, punishing the victim for coming forward.

[Akhbarali]

I think that demolishing the character of the victim by calling her a "slut" in open court goes way beyond providing a vigorous defense.

Then it is probably a good thing you are not an criminal defense attorney. Using extremely harsh langauge to describe the accusor in a rape trial is a very common tactic. It is the modern incarnation of the "she was asking for it" defense.

Akhbar

[Dith]

They shouldn't be called rapists until they are convicted (and they should be from what I have read) but calling them alleged rapists is certainly fair game.

[Ddrak]

Since the victim was UNCONSCIOUS

Clearly you need to read the article better. The defense is disputing that point - saying the accuser told the defendants she "wanted to be a porn star" and was faking it.

Note that in CA, having sex with an unconscious person is rape so the defense has to dispute this claim to give their clients a fair trial.

I don't believe the alleged victim came forward either. Isn't this case based on the video tape?

For the record, I'm pretty sure they are guilty as hell given Haidl's criminal record. However, I do not and never would expect a defense attorney to pull punches in any case. To advocate anything less is to abandon the freedoms America is founded on.

Dd

[Aabe]

They shouldn't be called rapists until they are convicted (and they should be from what I have read) but calling them alleged rapists is certainly fair game.

How bout disgusting, reprobate, moronic, scum sucking alleged rapists??

[Syeni Soulslasher MK6]

I agree with Aabe... Now excuse me while I bleach my mouth....

And agree with Ddrak if she wasnt out cold, she should be hired up by hollywood to play a dead pearson she damn sure does it better then anyone...

[ZanypherCocoapuffs]

Saw this on an episode of Law & Order: SVU. In fact, it was virtually the same circumstance: Rape vs. Slut. Those same contentions were thrown around in the court case and inevitably the 12 still found the defendants guilty of rape.

But that didn't mean that the slut defense was an inappropriate one. You have to remember, that character assassination is nothing new to courtrooms. You're just trying to act the Big Man Protecting Women again, Keebler. Leave the lawyer alone, he did his job. You don't have to like it, but quit taking a moral indignation to it.

[Syeni Soulslasher MK6]

I think Character assasination is not going to work here simply becouse they have no character them selves so if they can degrade her to there level they still loose...

Character fight might have been there friend if they didn't high 5 each other every time they abused her...

There case does not hold any watter I pridict a very short deliberation and they will wish they took the 29 year deal..... twice.....

[Narith]

I'm sorry but in a rape case the character of the victim has no business being brought up. Even if she was a prostitute does not change the fact that it was not consented to, it is rape. A woman could go and be with 20 men at one time but if she tells the 21st man no and he forces himself on her or waits til she passes out he is guilty of a crime period. NO means NO, there is a reason for that and waiting til a woman passes out does not make an automatic yes for sex.

This is the same defense men have been using forever, oh she was wearing a mini skirt she was asking to be raped, oh she teased me and passed out you know she wanted it, portraying a passed out woman who was raped as the one who wanted it is sick and disgusting and any lawyer who uses these kind of tactics should be disbared for lack or legal ethics and morals.

In just his opening statement, a pacing, finger-pointing Cavallo told the jury that the girl—next to the tape itself, the prosecution’s star witness--is "a nut," "a pathological liar," "a cheater," an "out-of-control girl," "the aggressor," a wanna-be "porn star," "a troubled young lady," "a tease--that’s what she is!" "a mess," a "master manipulator," a "little opportunist," "a compulsive liar," "a cheat--that’s what she is" and a "callous" drug addict and alcoholic who trimmed her pubic hair, bragged about liking group sex and once drank a beer in a car.

She once drank beer in a car... oh yeah that constitutes a yes.

She trimmed her pubic hair... oh that must mean that she wants every man who passes her on the street to have thier way with her.

She bragged about liking group sex... if the men who did this admit to liking anal does that mean that they wont mind being prison raped when they are convicted?

It is sick what these men did to her, most likely used GHB according to the police, deffinatly got her wasted so they could have thier way with her. It was rape pure and simple and though like every sick disgusting criminal deserve defense, a defense like the one thier lawyer presented saying the victim was the criminal needs to have the lawyer disbared. There was enough psycologial and emotional damage done by the crime the lawyer is emotionally abusing her further with a defense like that.

[Chants Evensong]

Waht about the rape shield laws?

Rape shield laws limit the types of evidence, mostly the victim's past sexual history, which can be admittied against the complainant in a rape trial. These rape shield laws -- which vary from jurisdiction to juridiction -- were passed in response to what was percieved to be widespread abuses in rape cases, where the victims were placed on trial as well as the perpetrator.

California falls under the "Evidentiary Purpose" category of rape shield laws. In California, sexual history of the victim is inadmissable if it is offered to show consent. It is admissible, however, to erode the credibility of the victim. Interestingly, in Washington state, another "Evidentiary Purpose" state, it is just the opposite: Evidence of the complainant's sexual past is admissible to show consent, but not admissible if offered to erode credibility.

It's a fascinating modern age we live in.

[Syeni Soulslasher MK6]

The chick is not that one persueing the case... The State is... IMO the chicks credibility is not on trail she is not the one that filed the charges... The case here is that she is under age (leagaly unable to provide consent anyways) and the fact she was out cold and thus why the defence will loose...

I think its sad the defence has to mear her she probably didn't report it becouse of that very reasion..

[superwalrus]

lol what a slut.

Walrus

[Eidolon Faer]

She's almost as bad as that trailer-trash whore, Paula Jones.

[Ddrak]

Here's the problem which the prosecution faces that the defense is latching on to:

The prosecution has to either:
1. Prove she said "No".
or
2. Prove she wasn't just faking unsconsciosness.

In addition there's the question of whether the defendants had reason to know she was underage, but that's separate.

Since the only unbiased "witness" is the video tape you really don't have a lot to go on as the prosecution. Yes, the tape shows all sorts of deviant behavior but (at least in CA) none of that is illegal if consentual. Proving consent was not given *does* come down to the character of the alleged victim because there is simply no other way to look at it.

What is on trial is (as is common in rape cases) the veracity of the alleged victem vs the veracity of the defendants. Given the assumption of innocence, the defence only has to cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of the alleged victim to win the case, where the prosecution has to show the defendant's veracity is blown beyond ALL reasonable doubt to win. So it is very much the alleged victim's veracity that is on trial - if she has exhibited "sluttish" behavior in the past, if she has expressed a desire to perform those acts in front of a camera, if she did want to be a "porn star" then is there reasonable doubt that consent was not given?

The presumption of innocence is a huge issue in rape cases because there are generally no real witnesses and therefore it's one person's word against another. That's a huge obsticle to overcome if you want to prove guilt.

So, prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that consent was not given. If you can do that you've won the prosecution's case. Nothing Narith said proved it. That just proved there was reasonable suspicion but not suspicion beyond reasonable doubt. The defense lawyer is absolutely jusitifed in bringing up her history and making character attacks - there is the reasonable doubt.

Dd