THS ComMedia

This Blog has been specifically created for Mr. MacArthur's ComMedia Class at Tolland High School for the Spring Semester, 2006. We will be following the big stories of the next few months and how they're covered (or not covered) in the media (MsM and Alt!).

Name:
Location: Tolland, Connecticut, United States

A child of the 60's, graduate of Tolland High School, the University of Connecticut, and Wesleyan University, ready to begin his 34th year teaching -- all at Tolland High.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Rape Tape Trial

We were talking about this story in class today. (If you need to log in, try USER NAME: double@mailinator.com, PASSWORD 123456. Thanks, Bugmenot.com.) This is one of those cases where the law has to catch up with changes in technology. A "strict constructionist" feels that the Constituion should be interpreted exactly of the Founding Fathers would have. What would they have made of this case?

A Cook County judge backed off Wednesday after triggering a furor with a warning that he might lock up a woman for refusing to watch a videotape showing her alleged 2002 rape in a Burr Ridge home.
I hadn't had time to read it for class, so here's a little bit more.

Adrian Missbrenner, 20, is on trial this week on charges of aggravated criminal sexual assault and child pornography. He is one of four men charged with sex crimes in the alleged attack of the woman on Dec. 7, 2002, in Missbrenner's home. One man has been acquitted, one pleaded guilty to videotaping the incident and a third has fled prosecution.

In arguing that the woman should be forced to watch the videotape, his attorneys said Missbrenner had a right to confront his accuser.

Other defense attorneys agreed Wednesday that every defendant has a 6th Amendment right to confront the accuser, as well as to pursue any inconsistencies in testimony during cross-examination. But they disagreed on how that right applied in this case.
The sixth amendment. (Offer valid only in the USA; may not be available in your area). I consider myself a good and informed citizen, but I couldn't have told you what the sixth amendment was.

Ronald J. Allen, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law who specializes in criminal law, said the defense did have the opportunity to confront the accuser face-to-face, so the defendant was not deprived of his constitutional rights.

"There is no requirement that you can make witnesses go through ordeals in order to facilitate that cross-examination," Allen said.
That's what rape counselors are worried about.

Angela Exson, director of advocacy services at the Chicago offices of Rape Victim Advocates, said it takes on average eight years for a person to go through the different stages of rape trauma syndrome, and some events can cause the person to relive the experience or regress in healing.

Simply providing testimony can be traumatizing for the victim, Exson said, "but to have to watch ... the videotape?"

So, I know you're wondering: What's on the videotape?

The videotape was viewed in the March 2005 sexual assault trial of Christopher Robbins of Brookfield, who was acquitted. He admitted having sex with the woman but said it was consensual; that incident was not seen on the videotape.

Prosecutors allege that the video first shows another defendant, Burim Bezeri of Lyons, having sex with the woman and that Missbrenner is then shown having sex with her. Bezeri is believed to have fled the country. Prosecutors say the tape shows her unconscious as people spit on her and write derogatory words on her naked legs and abdomen.

Missbrenner, who faces 6 to 30 years in prison if convicted, maintains that the sex was consensual. Prosecutors contend the men exploited a 16-year-old girl by plying her with alcohol.
Getting a 16 year-old girl so drunk that she blacks out -- maybe I need a new dictionary, but I don't find that under the defintion for "consensual." But for those of you who like to blame the victim -- and you know who you are -- you're probably wondering what the defendant was doing there getting plied with liquor. Why, one of her friends brought her, of course!

The video was followed by testimony from Mary Widner, 19, of Downers Grove, who called Missbrenner "one of my best friends." Widner took the accuser to Missbrenner's house the night of the party and stated that the accuser was "flirtatious" and consented to sexual relations with the young men.

Widner added, however, that the woman was unresponsive when she tried to talk with her after the alleged attacks.

The trial is set to continue at 10 a.m. Thursday and is expected to end Friday.
At which time, Adrian Missbrenner may be learning a new definition of "consensual".

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know that the defendant has his 6th ammendment right to confront the accuser, I learned that in criminology, but showing the videotape might be riding the line too much...

Thats a tough one to call, no opinion.

Myles

11:04 AM  
Blogger Will said...

I think that if the victim doesn't remember the incident, there's no point in making her watch it...She was fortunate enough to not be traumatized by it in the first place, so why would you want to give her another opportunity to be affected by it?

12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the video was going to be used for the defense, so the court should deffinetly watch the video to prove what really happened that night. If the girl doesnt want to watch it then she shouldnt have to, but it should be shown to the court.

Ryan Watson, Ryan Osgood

8:37 AM  
Blogger Mr. Mac said...

It turned out to be good for the defense. They defendants walked. (The only one who ended up going to jail was the guy taking the videos. Because she was only 16, it was "child pornography".

8:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home