LA D.A.'s Office - You Must Be Sex Crime Victim To Sit On Rape Trial Jury

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Jury Selection

Prosecuting an accused rapist can be very difficult, nearly impossible if you ask many of the victims. They oftentimes have the tables turned on them, becoming accused of causing the attack themselves-- they were coming on to the attacker, or dressing in a provocative way, or even "wanting it, asking for it, deserving it!" Humiliation by the system victimizes them all over again.

Yet when a rape victim does go to the police and files a complaint, she/he expects not only the police to act, but also the  justice system. At least they have a reasonable assumption that the authorities will act promptly and properly.

Not always so, according to a shocking HUFFPO report.

In May 2012, Tucker Reed sat in the office of Rouman Ebrahim, Los Angeles County deputy district attorney for the sex crimes division, listening to him explain why the man who had confessed to raping her would not face criminal charges.

Here's the twisted logic behind this case not going ahead. And it's a doozy. It has nothing to do with the accused or any tainted evidence. The accused man in this case had already confessed to raping Ms. Reed. This is what anyone with the slightest intelligence would call a slam dunk case. Open and shut.

Or so you'd think. But here's where logic and reasoning clash. And it's not really the justice system at fault here. It's the idiot, Rouman Ebrahim, the deputy D.A.

He explained that no one who had experienced a sex crime, or who had ever been accused of one, would end up sitting on the jury. So his job was to filter out cases in which 12 jurors, who "have no experience in any kind of sex crimes occurring in their life," would concur beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape had taken place.

Is he saying 12 reasonable adults couldn't understand a confession unless they had been victims of the same crime?

Evidently so. According to him, a juror who had "no experience in any kind of sex crimes" would be incapable of reaching a verdict. Is this D.A. crazy?

Take this one step further. Under that pocket rule of his, only a murder victim could sit on a murder trial jury. Ask yourself this, other than in the movie, The Devil And Daniel Webster, where are you going to find 12 dead men and women to serve on that panel? This is insane.

Is Deputy Asst. District Attorney Rouman Ebrahim crazy or is it me? I hope it's me or else there's no way to bring anyone to trial anymore unless they were victims of the same crime.

Nuts, isn't' it? Oh, and BTW, this cretin Ebrahim is still serving in the District Attorney's office as of today, just in case you were curious.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare
  • http://billsandiego.blogspot.com Bill H

    You need to actually read the article. It is not the DA who would prevent rape victime from being on the jury, but the defense which would do so, and not unreasonably so, since there is probable cause to suspect they would be prejudiced.

    And the so-called confession consisted of the rapist apologizing to her in a conversation which she recorded in violation of the law and which could not be presented in court. That left it as one person'r word against the other's and made it unproveable in court.

    What the DA was saying was that rape victims would believe her, but that anyone being as objective as the law requires them to be would say that a claim of rape with no supporting evidence is insufficient to convict. And so it should be. Otherwise people could be sent to jail on false charges any time they merely made someone else angry.

  • bpollen

    Translation: Unless it's a sure win, I gotta protect my stats. Actually having to work is HARD!