17 year-old California girl detained after twice failing to appear at the trial of the man who allegedly raped her.
The prosecutors say that testimony from the teenager, who twice ran away from a foster home before scheduled court appearances, is critical in the upcoming trial against a man who has a long criminal record and is also suspected of raping at least one other woman. But the teenager’s lawyer and victims’ advocates say that the detention would discourage others, especially those who have been sexually assaulted, from coming forward. They described the move as a setback in a state with some of the country’s strongest laws protecting victims.
The teen has been detained until the trial of Frank William Rackley, which is set for April 23rd. The victim identified Rackley by a swastika tattoo on his body. Rackley was also linked to the victim through biological material found on the victim’s body.
Although this detention seems extreme, apparently it isn’t that unusual:
“This is something that has existed for a long time and exists almost everywhere, but almost nobody uses it very much,” said Floyd F. Feeney, a criminal law expert at the University of California, Davis. “But if you had a juvenile who’s flitting back and forth and got lots of problems and is the key witness in a case against a really bad actor, I wouldn’t think it would be that unusual for the D.A.’s office to consider holding her as a material witness.”
The article goes on to to explain why victim’s rights groups are up in arms over this:
“[Victims] may become reluctant to seek assistance if they feel this will trigger the criminal justice system and lead to them being forced to testify,” said Sandra Henriquez, executive director of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault in Sacramento.
What do you think? Are there circumstances in which victims should be forced to testify?
Is it wrong to detain a teenager in order to force testimony, or is it a necessary evil in order to make society a safer place for all?
Photo of Jail cells in a city facility located in the southern United States courtesy of Shutterstock.
About The Good Feed Blog Editors
It won’t make society safer, because fewer people will come forwards.
I’ve long thought that the “right to face your accuser,” part of our Constitution was outdated. I understand why it was put in there, and I understand the need for transparency in court proceedings. But I think it places too much pressure on the victim of a crime (any violent crime, not just sexual assault), to ‘suck it up’ and be the better person.
I again think this is an example of our society being so behind the times. We have technology that could satisfy the need for transparency without actually forcing a victim to sit in the same room as the aggressor. We’ve got video conference calls, for crying out loud. Heck man, it could even be done for free over Skype, at no cost to the tax payer! I mean, really now.
It’s not just about facing your accuser, it’s about the ability to question their story.
I understand that a conference call could be used (as I understand they are in cases involving children) but from the point of view of the jury it assumes the victimhood of the accuser.
Maybe if both parties were offered the option? (along with everything else including anonymity and their past crimes not being introducable as evidence).
The phrase “facing your accuser” is a sort of U.S. thing. But yeah, when I mentioned transparency, I was also taking about being able to be cross examined. But see…that’s the beauty of modern technology…you can be cross examined from an entirely different country…so long as the courts get their act together and make it admissible. And yeah, I think it could be offered to the defendant too. Makes sense to me. As for anonymity…well for one thing I’ve always thought that the press announcing the names of people who are accused of crimes, particularly sexual assault, was absolutely irresponsible. Did we learn nothing about the way the press can screw up an investigation from OJ or Michael Jackson?
This is one of the few instances where I think freedom of the press needs to be limited. Court cases can’t be behind closed doors, obviously, but similarly they can’t be the 24/7 circus that high profile cases become. Anyway, yes I think that the defendant needs to be protected too.
I think maybe a better solution would be for the accuser to be in the court-room and the accused to watch (but not have a return loop so the accused’s face can be seen in the court-room).
I think it is important for the accused’s attorney to be able to confront the accuser w/questions live, and for the jury to see the accuser live. I think the primary consideration for the accused is to see the due diligence for his rights are done, not necessarily to have them in the same room.
There is a higher level of composure needed when you have a defensive attorney trying to pick holes in your story when they are right before you. I also think the jury need the full live monty so-to-speak to see clues like body language.
So, I would actually call for the reverse (reverse-reverse! hop two times! Sliiiiide to the left! Sliiiiiide to the right!). I think the accuser needs to be in the court-room live, while the accused can watch the proceedings in another room by cctv.
when I talk about a higher level of composure needed the idea behind this is to catch somebody who is giving false testimony in a lie, obviously, not to make a true victim feel threatened.
It’s not the accused’s right to face the accuser per se that is the issue, but a diligent serious cross-examination on the accused’s behalf that is the primary concern.
John D: ” I think the accuser needs to be in the court-room live, while the accused can watch the proceedings in another room by cctv.”
A couple of problems with this:
1. It is the right of the accused to be present at every hearing;
2. Your method might deprive the right of the accused to counsel (or, to put it another way, counsel’s ability to confer with the accused during the testimony;
3. Those situations where the accused represents himself/herself create a problem;
4. “Confront” may be quite an operative word; if you are going to accuse me of a crime, you better be able to do it to my face. It is easier to lie behind someone’s back than to their face.
-Jut
Hey Jut,
Good points all. I was stating that this would be a better half-way solution to meet everybody’s needs over the accuser’s recorded testimony, or live 2way video conferencing.
IN a rape case things are going to come down to how valid the accusers testimony will be. That is why I think she should be in the court-room, rather than the accused if we are going to start making changes.
In order of your points:
1. I agree. In a strictly legal sense you’re absolutely right. However, it seems we are already trending to placing the alleged accuser’s comfort over the accused rights anyway. That being the case if changes ARE to be made (sacrificing accused’s rights in rape trials) then I would rather have the accuser in the courtroom.
2. this could be solved with some kind of earbud that the accused’s counsel could have so that if the accuser brings up items that contradict evidence or his remembrance, the accused’ counsel could bring it up.
3.agreed. In that case I would side with the accused’s legal rights to be present. In fact, I would support that in every case, but since things seem to be changing to sacrificing the accused’s protected rights for the accusers comfort anyway (like I said) I would rather reverse the solution.
4. That is why (if courts are going to sacrifice accused’s rights ANYWAY) I suggest the accuser being in court in public (and the accused watching) rather than the accuser taping testimony or doing video conferencing. At least the accuser will be lying live in front of the full court–which I would presume is much harder.
Great points.
Except that things like body language are important when watching the reaction to someone’s testimony too. So yeah, like I said, I think it could go both ways. And I definitely think the jury should have access to any video of the accused and accuser in a trial.
I sympathize with the idea that it’s traumatic for a victim to be forced to be in the same room with the attacker.
However, that’s jumping the gun quite a bit. Before the verdict comes in, we’re still talking about an _alleged_ victim and an _alleged_ attacker. Being an accuser is not necessarily the same thing as being a victim. One of the things to be determined in the courtroom is to what degree the accuser is actually a victim.
Looking it as a victim trying to avoid the trauma is one way to look at it. From the standpoint of the presumption of innocence, it is an accuser failing to show up to a court process initiated on behalf of the accuser.
Yes, which is why I think that the current system doesn’t work. If the only two options it provides is either 1. lock the accuser up and compel them to testify, or 2. allow them to make an accusation then not be cross examined in a courtroom, then the problem is the system we have. Those shouldn’t be the only two options.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that our criminal justice system is woefully out of date with regards to a lot of things, and this is just one of them.
The right to face your accuser must be absolute.
Skype can hide all kinds of misbehavior, including attorney-coached testimony.
If you have ever seen the difference between a video-taped deposition and an actual in-court cross examination, they are like night and day. The fact of the matter is that no amount of technology can replicate a real cross-examination.
If having the accused in the room (cute calling them “aggressor” by the way, I suppose “presumption of innocence” is also outdated?) is such a problem, why not simply have them leave the room and allow their attorney to carry on a public cross examination?
The answer is that this isn’t really about being in the room with the accused, this is about presumption of innocence and its precarious place in our justice system. As soon as we allow the nature of the crime to define the way testimony is taken, we are losing the presumption which our entire system of justice is based upon.
“Why not simply have them leave the room and allow their attorney to carry on a public cross examination?”
That could work to. My point is that the way it the system is set up now is problematic. And no, presumption of innocence isn’t outdated. Our system isn’t perfect, and it’s old…so I think it’s time to take re-examine it.
The right to confront your accuser is an essential element of the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” The only reason to abandon it would be if we presumed that every accused rapist was actually guilty… and one way to indicate that attitude is to constantly refer to his accuser as a “victim” rather than a “plaintiff.”
A rape case is not a license to reverse the normal procedures of justice. You, the plaintiff, still have to prove your claim–and part of that is showing up to face the person you’re accusing of a crime. The question of whether minors are credible witnesses is a separate one, which the courts already have procedures for handling.
“You, the plaintiff, still have to prove your claim–and part of that is showing up to face the person you’re accusing of a crime.”
Except this is criminal court, not civil, so there is no plaintiff. The party who is bringing the charges against the defence isn’t an individual, it’s the state. All criminal cases are the state (or the U.S.) against an individual. It’s set up this way partly so that if a victim recants his/her story, charges can still be brought against someone. And this goes for all criminal cases, not just sexual assault. The accuser is, technically, the state…the burden of proof lies on the state. In fact, if you watch a criminal trial, you’ll notice that the two parties are the defendant and his lawyer, and the DA or ADA…but the victim doesn’t sit with the ADA, because they aren’t part of the party that is levelling charges against the defence.
I’m not sure about the rules about having a victim testify or be present at the court case. I know they don’t always testify, though it’s always good for the prosecution to have a sympathetic victim to tell a sad story. (Again, everything I’ve been talking about is with regards to all criminal cases, not just sexual assault).
The problem with sexual assault, is that often there isn’t much other evidence, so it’s left to two people telling a different version of events. So the apparent victim is a…crap I can’t remember the term…necessary witness, important witness…but damnit it’s got a technical term that is escaping me. Anyway, the point is the apparent victim can be subpoenaed to testify because s/he is a really-freaking-important witness (yes that’s the term, I’m sure, lol). That’s where the potential for jail time exists, for not testifying after being subpoenaed.
At least, that’s my understanding of it as a curious child of a DA Investigator. Anyway, even with all of that, I think we have technology enough to keep the process transparent, without forcing a potential victim to sit in the same room as a potential aggressor.
“the burden of proof lies on the state”
Actually I gather the burden of proof is on the defendant in Washington state, which is really f***ing scary to me
.
If the only (or nearly only) evidence that rape occurred (as opposed to sex) is the testimony of the accuser then the ability to cross examine them is damned important.
“Actually I gather the burden of proof is on the defendant in Washington state, which is really f***ing scary to me.”
I was talking about in criminal cases, in general and about how it’s supposed to work. Now whether our current media culture allows that to actually be the case, is another story.
And yeah cross examination is important…but like I said, technology man.
HeatherN:
I think the term you are looking for is “material witness.”
But, measures like these are necessary when you have “no-drop” laws. Prosecutors used to have better discretion to handle these cases. So, a lot of them got dropped because they would be hard to prove. So, people pressured the State NOT to drop these sorts of cases.
Now, the State has few other options when dealing with an uncooperative witness. If she makes the accusation, and the State has to prosecute, she has to testify.
That is the double-edged sword when you implement policy: it gets used against you.
-Jut
Yes! That is totally the term I was looking for!
As for the rest of your comment, California’s got the same problem with gang related violence, at the moment. Or at least, Monterey County had that same problem. If the suspect was part of a gang there was huge pressure to actually prosecute and guilt was almost always assumed. This is why I’m saying, I think it’s outdated and needs to be reworked to be better able to deal with the realities of the world we’re living in.
” This is why I’m saying, I think it’s outdated and needs to be reworked to be better able to deal with the realities of the world we’re living in.”
Sorry Heather, but this sounds an awful lot like “we’re not getting the results we want, we need to rework it so we do.”…
The right to confront your accuser isn’t outdated, it’s just unpleasant for some, while a protection for others. By claiming it’s outdated and should be eliminated, you are putting the comfort of one group over the freedoms of another, and this is what a lot of gender feminist double standards are turning out to be Reproductive rights, domestic violence laws, rape laws, custody, child support, workplace social and advancement policies, etc.)
Firstly, I’m not saying that current system needs to be eliminated, just re-examined. Also, I’m not saying the accuser should be protected but the accused shouldn’t. In the media-frenzied, 24-hour-news cycle world we live in, announcing the identities of either party can turn a trial into a circus. Also, I’m not just talking about sexual assault cases, but all cases. Juries need that information, and the ability to cross examine witnesses is essential.
But our current system doesn’t just provide that…it also potentially drags the names of innocent people through the mud. It also potentially forces a victim to be in the same room as his/her attacker. I’m saying that with our current technology, there are ways to allow for cross examination, and allow for a fair trial, that could better avoid either of those circumstances.
It is possible to prove a heinous crime was committed without testimony. If that’s the case, then I think the potential victim’s comfort should be paramount. If the case is based primarily on testimony, or is severely weakened without it, then I think you either got to compel the witness to speak or dismiss the charge outright.
Do you think testimony should be admissable if the person giving it isn’t available to be cross examined? If they’re lying and there’s holes in their testimony, how do the defence show this to the jury, or otherwise question the evidence being presented?
That clarifies a very important point. This is really about getting evidence to decide a case, period – and hopefully in the most human way possible.
Proving rape depends on lack of consent, and it is often difficult to prove that element without the victim’s direct testimony. Not impossible, but difficult.
This came up in a similar case in Ireland, a woman accused three men of raping her but didn’t show up in court. The judge warranted her arrest and detainment until the retrial and the Gardai eventually found her in hospital.
I can see how it must be a pretty harrowing experience to face your attacker like that, but I also think it’s important that victims of false accusations be able to cross examine their accuser. Particularly in cases based only on an accusation (as I gather is possible in the US) showing the gaps in their story might be their only chance to exhonorate themselves.
Keep in mind that an accuser doesn’t have to make an accusation, but the accused has to defend themselves.
If their words are used as evidence then it should be presented under oath and be subject to cross examination with no exceptions.
Which is why I have never, and will never, bring charges against the man who raped me.
Tha’s a very reasonable choice.
I can see some compromise being possible. The accuser would not have to be in the same room as the defendant and would not have to see the defendant in order to be cross-examined. Just because the defense has the right of cross-examination doesn’t mean that the accused gets to literally confront the accuser face-to-face. Closed-circuit TV could be used. Not an ideal solution, but it may be possible to protect an alleged victim and still allow cross-examination.
As cruel as this sounds, the defense should have the right to call the accuser as a witness. This is a person who claims to have first-hand information about what happened. The accuser’s testimony could have exculpatory evidence for the defendant.
Imagine a woman on trial, accused by a man who says that she assaulted him. Doesn’t her defense deserve the chance of a fair trial?
There’s nothing cruel about it. The best-possible defense for the defendant HAS to be the top priority in any criminal trial; all other considerations are (and should be) secondary, to avoid wrongful conviction.
“Imagine a woman on trial, accused by a man who says that she assaulted him.”
My imagination isn’t so good as to be able to imagine a rape trial of a woman accused of raping a man. It would never happen, or if it did, it would become a circus.
Ideally, nobody should be forced to testify in any case. In this case, if the accuser does not testify and her testimony is not cross examined by defendant’s lawyers, the whole case would not stand in the court and the securing conviction would be really very difficult.
Would these requirements be for all cases? In the cases of a man accusing a woman of raping him, would he also be compelled to stand trial? Or man on man rape? Would this hinder actual victims from coming forward?
I’d prefer to see anonymity for both victim and accused until such time as a definitive verdict is reached. I think that counsel should have access to pertinent evidence.
I do think that people who are raped often do experience deep trauma not only from the rape, but from trial and the cultures view of assault. I also don’t think it’s fair to besmirch someone’s name and character with media when they need to remain innocent until proven guilty.
The situation is fraught enough without that level of exposure.
Julie,
Why is anonymity the solution? Having public trials is one of the most important safeguards against corruption.
The problem is that the media in the US self-regulates and usually does not report the identity of accusers. There was a minor flap relating to this when one of Rupert Murdoch’s organizations revealed the name of one of Herman Cain’s accusers a few months back, prompting cries of politicization.
The point is, withholding the name of the accuser is not a legal requirement: it is something journalists choose to do on their own.
Wouldn’t it be better for everyone if journalists simply reported the facts without filtering them? Just as the constitution guarantees public trials?
Once we begin to decide what should and should not be reported, how different are we from countries that hold trials behind closed doors?
I have a feeling my comment is going to sound way harsh…
I believe, firmly, that people have the right to face their accusers. Having been falsely accused of rape — but I did not go to court, thankfully — I appreciate the protections under the law which serve to safeguard the accused as much as the accuser. We give people enormous power to take others to court for crimes, but when the time comes to prove your case against the presumption of innocence you refuse? I find that cowardly, even for someone who’s been victimized. It tells me that you either don’t believe in your own allegations, or you don’t care enough to pursue the justice you instigated. However, I understand it can be traumatic, depending on the crime, to face someone who’s raped you/beaten you/abused you for days/weeks/months/years. And I do sympathize with those circumstances where the accuser is genuinely afraid to face the accused because of the nature of how they were victimized. But I also know the flip side whereby the accused has been blatantly shoveled down the line of justice with barely a flicker of concern towards the veracity of the accusations against them until their day in court — and then suddenly the person who’s put them through all this hell won’t even be there so they can confront them?
Black Yoda mentioned above that in cases where testimony is crucial should required the accuser to be present in court to face the accused. I agree, and moreover I believe due process requires that those who accuse someone of a crime be confronted by the accused. This is harsh, no doubt about it, but the alternatives I think are worse. More importantly, it helps to reinforce the already fragile presumption of innocence provided to the accused.
However these are my public ideals — my view on how things should be in the judicial system. They don’t preclude me from condemning others before a trial has even begun based on my own conclusions. Just wanted to note that.
Anyhoo, good article.
I can’t believe the people here that are coming out against the right to face your accuser. When someone says something that off the board, it affects the way I view everything else they’ve ever said and every will say.
there’s something very rotten in the character of our country today, where seemingly reasonable people can be this eager to throw away one of the bedrocks of civilization because they think it’s too quaint for the modern world. It’s the same thing that makes so many people rush out to embrace torture, or the execution of children. or prison rape as ‘ok’ because those folks ‘had it coming’. It’s sick and it’s wrong, and that kind of opinion shouldn’t be treated like they’re just expressing a fondness for one TV show over another.
There isn’t even any point in responding to comments like that. People didn’t reason themselves into barbarism, and they won’t be reasoned out of it. But it’s always wise to keep the words of Maya Angelou in mind: When people show you who they really are, believe them.
As a man who was raped, I find your characterizations of those who are concerned about the rights of those who really are victims (there are some, you know) highly offensive. To equate a rape victim with someone who supports prison rape is reprehensible.
The right to confront witnesses is part of the 6th Amendment, along with the rights to a speedy and public trial, the right to counsel, the right to call favorable witnesses, and the right to an impartial jury. I’m not in favor of rapists going free, but these are fundamental rights essential to the fairness of criminal justice.