Rape Victim Faces Jail

[lizbud]

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.

[AbbyMom]

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.

[Cataholic]

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.

[Scooby4]

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. I could see the psychology to his thinking and it is more scary than being approached in a dark alley by a stranger!
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.

[lizbud]

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

[lizbud]

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.

[moosmom]

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

You mean "Bubba" don't you??