I understand that the accused has a right to a fair trial -- but for a court to order that the terms "rape" and 'sexual assault" not be used during the course of a trial on sexual assault charges is beyond absurd -- it makes it absolutely impossible to discuss the events that led to the charges. And since the victim wouldn't consent to this travesty of justice, the judge has declared a mistrial in the case.

A Lancaster County district judge has declared a mistrial in a sex-assault case in which he had barred the words "rape" and "victim" among others, and both the defense and alleged victim are asking for a shot at a fair trial.

Judge Jeffre Cheuvront said publicity surrounding the rape case against Pamir Safi, 33, would have made it too difficult for jurors to render an impartial verdict.

The mistrial came a day after Cheuvront deemed that the alleged victim in the case would not have to sign his order barring witnesses from certain words. The judge had warned Tory Bowen, 24, at a hearing on Wednesday that he would have little patience if she used the forbidden language when testifying against Safi.

Among the words and phrases Cheuvront barred were: rape, victim, assailant and sex-assault kit.

I'm sorry, but banning such words and phrases would have made it utterly impossible to actually discuss the events in question and the evidence int he case. As it was, the judge had indicated he might jail the victim if she did not abide by his order -- but instead he decided to rape her (and Lady Justice) again by declaring a mistrial due to what he described as too much publicity and attempts to intimidate the court brought about by those who objected to the order -- including the victim, who refused to stay silent.

Even more despicable is the response of the defendant and his shyster, who had previously attempted to ban the Tory Bowen from testifying about the events that led to the charges in the first place.

"The problem this creates, of course, is the taxpayers of Lancaster County are going to carry the burden for this misconduct," said Safi's attorney, Clarence Mock. "All Mr. Safi wanted was an opportunity to have was a fair trial in front of an impartial jury, and due to the misconduct -- reprehensible conduct -- of the complaining witness and her supporters, he was deprived of that opportunity."

The reprehensible conduct of the complaining witness? What reprehensible conduct? Demanding to be able to actually say what happened to her on the night in question? Demanding the opportunity to be heard by a jury without these absurd censorship rules put in place by a judge who clearly seems more sympathetic to rapists than their victims?

I don't know about you, but it appears that Judge Jeffre Cheuvont needs to be removed from the bench in the most expeditious manner possible -- or at least reassigned to hearing nothing more serious than parking tickets.

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 513 words, total size 3 kb.