Rape Victim Faces Jail

I am just stunned by this judge's order. :(


Alleged rape victim threatened with jail

By Art Barnum
Tribune staff reporter
Published February 28, 2006, 10:21 PM CST


A Naperville woman who on Tuesday refused a judge's order to view a videotape of her alleged rape could be jailed on a contempt of court charge if she does not change her mind Wednesday, and the judge is considering a request to drop sexual assault charges against the Burr Ridge man on trial.

"I am ordering you to answer these questions," Judge Kerry Kennedy told the woman after an hourlong recess to discuss her refusal. "The consequences are that you would be held in contempt of court, with incarceration possible. Are you still refusing?"

"Yes," she responded.

"I will give you overnight to think about this," Kennedy said. "Tomorrow, I will ask you again."

The woman was 16 years old when she allegedly was assaulted and videotaped four years ago at a party in the Burr Ridge home of Adrian Missbrenner, 20. He was one of four men charged in connection with the incident, and his trial on charges of aggravated criminal sexual assault and child pornography began Tuesday in Cook County Circuit Court in Bridgeview. He faces 6 to 30 years in prison if convicted.

The woman answered questions from prosecution and defense attorneys for about an hour. But when Missbrenner's attorney, Patrick Campanelli, placed a video monitor in front of her and said he was going to play segments of the 20-minute videotape as he questioned her, she stated emphatically "I don't want to see it."

After the judge warned the woman that she was expected to testify Wednesday, Campanelli quickly asked that the criminal case against Missbrenner be dismissed.

"Your honor, my client has a constitutional right to confrontation of a witness," he said.

Assistant State's Atty. Michael Deno argued against dismissal. "This witness has testified to every other question, and she has testified that she doesn't have any recollection or memory of the videotape incident at all," he said.

Kennedy declined to rule on the dismissal request until after the trial resumes Wednesday.

George Acosta, the attorney representing the woman in a civil case against Missbrenner's family, said she has never viewed the video and has stated repeatedly that she did not want to.

The woman has said she did not know Missbrenner before going to his home with a girlfriend in the early morning hours of Dec. 7, 2002.

In opening remarks, Deno said the woman "made two mistakes: she got drunk and placed herself in the hands of the wrong people."

She and one of Missbrenner's friends began a drinking contest, which caused her to vomit, Deno said. "That's the last thing she remembers," he said.

Campanelli argued that the sex was consensual.

"One-night stands happen all the time, and in the morning you regret it," he said, adding that he thinks the witness' answers to questions while viewing the videotape would "strongly help Adrian's case."

The woman testified that she woke up in Missbrenner's house the next morning, naked from the waist down with vulgar words written on her legs with a marker.

She said she went home and cried, and learned later that she had been videotaped. Accompanied by several friends, she went back to the Burr Ridge home and asked for the tape, but Missbrenner denied it existed, she said.

Her parents then took her to a hospital, and police were called.

Several days later, Cook County police obtained the videotape from a friend of Missbrenner's, who said Missbrenner had given it to him.

Campanelli said Missbrenner was concerned the girl was going to claim that the sex was not consensual so he gave the tape to the friend to save, if needed, to support his claim.

The videotape was viewed in the March 2005 trial of Christopher Robbins of Brookfield, who was acquitted of sex charges after arguing she consented to sex with him in an incident that wasn't videotaped. Robbins allegedly is seen on one segment of the tape, but not engaging in sex with the woman.

Prosecutors allege that the videotape first shows another defendant, Burim Berezi of Brookfield, having sex with the woman, then it shows Missbrenner. They say the tape shows her unconscious as people spit on her and write derogatory words on her naked legs and abdomen.

Berezi fled the country after being charged and remains at large. Missbrenner also fled but returned from Europe in May 2005. A jury convicted him of violating his bail bond, and he was sentenced to six months in jail, which has been served while he was being held without bail on the sex charges.

The fourth defendant, Sonny Smith, 20, of Brookfield, who operated the camera, pleaded guilty to child pornography and was sentenced to the Illinois Department of Corrections boot camp.



[email protected]

I can understand why she wouldn´t want the tape to be shown, it would be like being raped again. I hope this man gets the maximum sentencing.

Ahh that makes me so MAD :mad: Seeing that tape could affect her mental condition and victimize her all over again.

Quote:

---

In opening remarks, Deno said the woman "made two mistakes: she got drunk and placed herself in the hands of the wrong people."

---

And this quote makes me steam - NO ONE asks to be raped!! :mad:

Right on JenBKR!!!!

Quote:

---

In opening remarks, Deno said the woman "made two mistakes: she got drunk and placed herself in the hands of the wrong people.

---

I think that statement is completely true. What she did was incredibly stupid, but no one deserves what happened to her. I hope that story educates young girls what can happen with binge drinking.

The statement that she made mistakes by getting drunk and putting herself in a situation where she could be raped may or may not be true - however, what is true is by saying it and saying it in such a manner, the defense was placing the blame on the girl, not the guy.

A woman has the right to act and dress and associate with whomever she choose; she also has a right NOT to be violated in any manner. Many people say a woman 'asked to be raped' because she wearing tight or revealing clothing (I don't know if that was part of this case or not) but that's completely untrue. The victim - female OR male - never asked to be raped despite of any other details of the case.

Yes, we all make stupid mistakes and have regrets. Those mistakes, however, are not our fault and should have no bearing on the guilt of her rapists.

If the tape shows her unconcious and being touched sexually, how can it be anything but sexual assault at the very least? Getting drunk to the point of unconciousness does not imply consent to anything being done to you.

If I was forced to watch such a tape, I'd make sure to vomit in the judge's lap - because that would be a natural reaction to having to relive it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lizzie

If the tape shows her unconcious and being touched sexually, how can it be anything but sexual assault at the very least? Getting drunk to the point of unconciousness does not imply consent to anything being done to you.

If I was forced to watch such a tape, I'd make sure to vomit in the judge's lap - because that would be a natural reaction to having to relive it all.

---

I think the judge is a sadist. :mad: What if it was his mother, sister, or
daughter? It seems this case is drawing a lot of free legal help for her if
she is jailed over this.

That is really stupid. REALLY STUPID of the judge. How can he be so awful as to make her relive what happened to her?!? Just awful.... :mad:

I read this story tonight and I was stunned that the judge would threaten her with contempt of court for refusing to watch a tape of her own alledged sexual assault. I've never heard of such a thing and frankly it makes me suspicious of the judge's motives. I'm sorry, but that's the way I feel and it makes me sad. The judge's order would probably not hold up under appeal, but I suspect that the purpose is to make her drop the whole thing and so it wouldn't make any difference. Many rape victims cannot take the trauma of a court case and I suspect someone's pushing her to the max. :mad:

Just read a Fox news story, the judge has withdrawn the demand evidently after much pressure from the state AG.

Lady's Human:the judge has withdrawn the demand evidently after much pressure from the state AG. >>>>>>>>

Thank Goodness! I was hoping the negative publicity of public outcry would cause
the judge to change his mind. I am appalled that he needed outrage from
the public in the first place. I would not want that judge on
my case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

Just read a Fox news story, the judge has withdrawn the demand evidently after much pressure from the state AG.

---

Oh I am so glad - what a relief!

Good!! I'm glad they ruled NOT to make her watch it. That stupid judge is nothing but a dirty old man in a robe on a bench, who was looking for a free "peep show". UGH!!! :mad:

I also think they were trying to make her drop her case. Glad she stood her ground.

The judicial system needs to stop making the VICTIMS the bad guys in rape cases and concentrate on what's important...putting disgusting criminals who commit the crimes behind bars!!

A couple of things. Rape is not about sex, but, about power/conquest. So, when someone says the person deserved, or was asking to be raped, they aren't understanding the psychology of the crime. If rape was about sex, and people 'asking' to be raped by their apparel (or lack thereof), why are completely clothed people raped?

However, I imagine we are missing a significant part of the story as it relates to the Judge's order. If the prosecutor thought introduction of the video tape was necessary for a conviction, I can't think of any other way to get it into evidence unless the victim 'authenticated' it, "yes, that is me on the tape". (The defendant can't be ordered to testify against himself..so, he won't be authenticating it).

In rape/assualt cases, it often comes down to one person's word against another's word, and since the prosecution must prevail beyond reasonable doubt (something we often say is in the 95% range), and sometimes victim's testimony can't stand on its own, I can see how the viewing of the tape could be critical, and where the Judge might be coming from.

I guess if it were me, and I wanted to be sure of a conviciton, I would view the tape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataholic

However, I imagine we are missing a significant part of the story as it relates to the Judge's order. If the prosecutor thought introduction of the video tape was necessary for a conviction, I can't think of any other way to get it into evidence unless the victim 'authenticated' it, "yes, that is me on the tape". (The defendant can't be ordered to testify against himself..so, he won't be authenticating it).

In rape/assualt cases, it often comes down to one person's word against another's word, and since the prosecution must prevail beyond reasonable doubt (something we often say is in the 95% range), and sometimes victim's testimony can't stand on its own, I can see how the viewing of the tape could be critical, and where the Judge might be coming from.

I guess if it were me, and I wanted to be sure of a conviciton, I would view the tape.

---

No it was an effort on the Defense side to compel the victim to watch the
tape as he asked questions. The judge sided with the defense.The story
was covered by the Chicago Tribune.

No one was disputing that it was her in the tape. She had already testified that she had no recollection of the rape and the taping because she was unconscious. Prior testimony had already focused on how drunk she was prior to the incident.

No one said that the jury couldn't see the evidence. They have now viewed it.

The reasoning from the defense to make the complaining witness view it in court and answer questions was that the defendent had the right to confront his accuser.

"If the government is using this tape, then the defense has every right to ask the complaining witness to view it and to talk about it."

In other words, he wanted to point out specific actions in the tape and say "doesn't that look like you were enjoying it?" What else would he ask her? That was no point in saying "can you confirm that's you?"

However, the defense can still review the tape with jurors and say "doesn't that look like she was enjoying it?" without making her view it too. If she claims to be unconscious and she's not, they should be able to tell. His rights to protect himself against false claims is preserved.

BTW, a second defendent has already pled guilty and a third has fled the country. I think the defense for this defendent was desperate.

BTW, The Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses act says the privacy and dignity of crime victims should be protected throughout the trial.

Lizbud,
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't follow the story at all, I don't read/watch much news these days.

From the defense perspective, I can see how pointing out she was enjoying it, participating in it, etc., would weaken the prosecution's case. If she was comatose, she was comatose. If she was a willing participant, she was a willing participant.

Like someone else said, it certainly pinpoints the dangers of binge drinking. It totally clouds your judgment.

In any event, lest someone jump to some conclusion about me- I am in total support of victim's rights, and do think people should be punished for their crimes. I just wanted to highlight WHY the Judge might have ruled how he did, not just have some knee jerk reaction to his order.

I remember seeing part of this case on TV awhile back. A clip of the tape was shown. The clip was hard to distinquish between her "enjoying it" and being unconscious. From what I saw on the tape there was "movement" on her part that indicated she was atleast "semi-conscious". She had acted more "drunk" than drugged up. :(
I think the victim's fear was that it would portray her as a "willing participant" due to the fact that she was NOT fully unconscious. However, I do believe at one point she did "pass out" with one of the aggressors. Which would convolute the situation even more. That point was already addressed with one of the charges.
As a victim of a possible "date rape" myself, it is difficult because you know your own actions led you to the point of the attack. I never said anything about my incident because I knew it was partly my fault. The guy would NEVER get the concept even if confronted and deny it. Your word against his and you the victim were a participant willing or unwilling. It is that constant reminder that you lost control of a situation and allowed yourself to fall into a bad situation you can't get over the most.
I later figured out the guy was a serial date rapist. I knew something was wrong but could never put my finger on it. It was when he approached two of my friends at a bar I went to that I finally was able to see it. :mad: I could see the psychology to his thinking and it is more scary than being approached in a dark alley by a stranger! :eek:
A nice guy, with money, buying drinks, and willing to walk you to your car. What a great guy! However, if a man gives you enough alcohol to get you drunk and your NOT a regular drinker. RUN!!! Drink to your comfortable limit and STOP!!! That is my word of advice to women here! :)
As for the case, I kind of felt the girl was a participant to some degree. I am sure she didn't want her parents to see the tape. That would allow her parents to see she wasn't a "sweet angel" and showed her binge drinking. However, saying she was a "willing participant" to some degree does NOT say she wasn't raped. I believe she was raped 100%. It was just the point of where exactly and who was exactly the rapist with that many participants. Once she fell unconscious fully, that was the comittment of rape for sure. The aggressor should have recognized this and stopped. I think she may have agreed to one of the participators but NOT to the rest of them. That is when she got upset and that is when she got violated.

I doubt you saw this 13 minute video on TV, as it's a prime piece
of evidence in this ongoing criminal case.

Not guilty in videotape rape case

By Art Barnum
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 3, 2006, 5:45 PM CST


UPDATE: The jury found Missbrenner not guilty on all counts.

A Cook County jury today is deciding the fate of a Burr Ridge man accused of the videotaped rape of a 16-year-old Naperville girl during a night of drinking and partying at his home in 2002.

The jury of seven women and five men began deliberating early this afternoon the case of Adrian Missbrenner, 20, charged with sexual assault and child pornography. He faces 6 to 30 years in prison if convicted.

The trial drew national attention and scorn from victims' advocates and the governor after Judge Kerry Kennedy on Tuesday ordered the man's accuser to watch the tape under questioning or face possible jail time for contempt of court.

The tape, which was shown to the jury a number of times, shows Missbrenner having sex with the alleged victim. When the accuser, who claims never to have viewed the tape, refused Tuesday to watch it, Kennedy gave her the ultimatum. He gave her until the following day to respond, but rescinded the order on Wednesday.

During closing arguments today in the Bridgeview courthouse, Assistant State's Atty. Cheryl Shroeder said the defense tried to sully the alleged victim's reputation and blame her for being raped.

"Adrian's defense is that she is a slut, a whore, and she deserves what happened. He tried to dirty her up," Schroeder said. "He is trying to say she deserves this. But (the victim) had no friends that night. She was the lamb brought to the slaughter."

"He claims the tape exonerates him, but then why did he flee the country?" Schroeder said, citing the defendant's nine months on the run. "For once in his life, hold this kid, Mr. Burr Ridge, responsible."

Referring to the victim's assertion she was unconscious -- passed out because of all the alcohol she had consumed -- when she was assaulted, the prosecutor said Missbrenner and his accomplices "treated her worse than you treat a dead dog in the middle of the street. She had no idea what went on."

Defense attorney Patrick Campanelli argued the case was not rape, but a youthful incident that got out of hand.

Acknowledging the victim "isn't a bad girl. She just made mistakes," he told jurors, "This case should be in a counseling building, not in a criminal court…. This was an insult, not an assault. My client was morally wrong, but so was everyone else."

The defense attorney insisted that his client's accuser "was responsible for what she drank. This was a moral issue, not a legal issue. In his state of mind, he had consent."

"These kids are all children," Campanelli said, pointing at his client. "These kids were ahead of their years. Society pumps them full of this stuff. There's advertising all over the place, with boys and girls holding hands, touching."

"Adrian regrets every day that night," Campanelli said. "But he's a boy. Do you want to label him a rapist?"

Directly addressing the jury, Campanelli said, "If you say he's not guilty, that doesn't mean you approve of what happened."

Prosecutors have said Missbrenner was one of two young men on the videotape having sex with the victim. He was 17 at the time.

After his arrest and while free on bail, Missbrenner fled the country for Europe in 2004. He surrendered to authorities in Belgrade, Serbia-Montenegro, after nine months. The defendant was returned to the United States, convicted last year of violating his bail bond and sentenced to 6 months in jail. He has been in custody ever since.

The other man who prosecutors say appeared in the tape, Burim Bezeri of Lyons, was charged with similar crimes. He is believed to have fled the county about the same time as Missbrenner and remains at large.

Sonny Smith of Brookfield, who operated the video camera, was convicted of child pornography and sentenced to the Illinois Department of Corrections boot camp.

Quote:

---

So the only action he will get is from his cell mate

---

You mean "Bubba" don't you??