I’m sure that many of you remember or have been following the case of the woman who was banned from using the word “rape” at her own rape trial. Earlier this month, she filed a lawsuit against the judge who had this insanely insulting idea, and received some interesting responses as a result.
Personally, I thought that it was a brilliant and necessary move to protect victims’ rights in the courtroom.
Astonishingly enough, though, judges look out for each other. Yesterday, a judge threw out the lawsuit declaring that there was a failure to produce enough evidence that the suit was not frivolous.
I know that civil and criminal courts have different rules and procedures. But is it actually the plaintiff’s job to prove that a suit is not frivolous, instead of the defendant’s job to prove that it is? I mean, is “is your lawsuit frivolous?” a question regularly asked in courtrooms, because I can’t imagine that it is. Please all you lawyers out there, clear this one up.
Even if it it somehow the plaintiff’s job to prove that a suit is not frivolous, it seems pretty damn absurd that someone might argue that it’s frivolous to fight for a woman’s right to give honest testimony in a criminal trial. I know that this argument has been made. But it’s still absurd.
Apparently the judge was also concerned that the victim was simply trying to get a new judge assigned to her case, after he has declared two mistrials and violated her Constitutional rights (both to free speech and a fair trial). In which case, uh, can you blame her? And Christ, shouldn’t a new judge maybe been assigned already, if he couldn’t handle it well enough the first two times around?
Appeals are being considered. But I somehow doubt that the world is going to become less shitty by the time any appeal reaches court. Sigh.
{ 3 comments }
In most states, the rules of civil procedure require the party filing papers with the court to state that their legal claims are warranted by existing law or that they’re arguing for a non-frivolous extension of the law.
I’m a little confused as to why the judge wants a showing on this point. She’s raising a first amendment issue which (if a bit novel) doesn’t seem outside the bounds of what I know about 1st Amendment law.
Also, I find this comment: “there is something profoundly disturbing about the notion that a federal judge has the power to tell a state judge how to do his job,” to be hilarious.
What does he think the Supreme Court does every time they review a state case?
What does he think the Supreme Court does every time they review a state case?
I thought they just make gentle suggestions and hope that the states feel like complying. It’s not like the Supreme Court is a major part of the three branches or anything.
absurd is the perfect word for this cara. i mean, how DARE this victim be persecuted by a judge and want to fight back? shame on her. in other news, senator chambers is a prick.
Comments on this entry are closed.