re: #32 goddamnedfrank

Reliving this has me pissed off all over again.

[Embedded content]

I sat on a jury four years ago and I wish it was as cut and dry as that case. Ours was a rape charge involving two teens at a house party, which ended up devolving into a “he said/she said” case because of a major snafu by the prosecutor. It was stereotypical in practically every way: The country-fried defense attorney whose whole theory of the case was “She wants daddy’s attention,” both parties admitting they were inebriated (yet he was clear-headed enough to remember a condom), the “she wanted it til she didn’t” defense, etc.

The lynchpin of the prosecution’s case was the medical exam performed the morning after, with the expert they brought having certification in several fields…except the one necessary to speak as an expert on the tell-tale vaginal tearing seen in rape cases. The defense immediately jumped on that and the female prosecutor looked like she wanted to drop through the floor. And props to her, she did make an effort to thread the needle by having the expert talk about the tearing and the other results of the rape exam. But without that judgment that the tears were indicative of rape, my fellow jurors looked at the young white guy sitting at the defense table and came to the stereotypical conclusion: “I don’t want to destroy his life over a ‘mistake.’”