Here’s a new one for you.
It seems in some rape cases you have to actually act like a victim if you’ve been raped.
A judge from Georgia has overturned a jury’s guilty verdict against a rapist because the judge didn’t think the 24-year-old woman acted like a victim.
According to his ruling, Judge Christopher McFadden issued the ruling on a request for new trial after he had sentenced William Jeffrey Dumas to 25 years in prison for the alleged assault.
The judge claimed that a new trial was necessary because the unnamed victim waited a day before reporting the rape, and because she did not behave like a rape victim.
The victim, a 24-year old woman with Down Syndrome, had endured a trial that included testimony which established that Dumas’ semen was found on the bed on which the woman slept the night of the alleged attack and that a doctor who examined the woman had made findings that were consistent she had been forcibly raped.
The Judge however in his new ruling said that the ‘rapist’ did not “behave like someone who had recently perpetrated a series of violent crimes.”
District Attorney Scott Ballard told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he “had to go visit the Down syndrome woman who was the victim of the rape and tell her that even though a jury had convicted her assailant of the crime, the judge was giving the guy a new trial.”
“Her parents were, as you can imagine, outraged,” he said. “I just hope we can get some justice.”
We’re hopeful for that outcome too.
Top Comments
Building on some of what Hanon has said, I found this.
"In a statement issued Wednesday, McFadden said judicial ethics do not
allow him to give any public comments about a case that is pending
before him because they may affect the case’s outcome or could interfere
with a fair trial or hearing.
“I cannot go beyond my written orders,” McFadden said. “The Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits me from commenting further.”
In his ruling, McFadden said when the woman first complained about being
attacked the day after the alleged rape occurred, she did not behave
like a victim. “Nor did Mr. Dumas behave like someone who had recently
perpetrated a series of violent crimes,” McFadden wrote.
McFadden also cited discrepancies in other witnesses’ testimony. The
convictions, the judge added, “do not have the approval of the court’s
mind and conscience.”
The District Attorney’s Office has since filed a motion asking
McFadden to recuse himself from the case. The motion noted that trial
testimony established that Dumas’ semen was found on the bed on which
the woman slept the night of the alleged attack and that a doctor who
examined the woman had made findings that were consistent she had been
forcibly raped.
On Feb. 5, McFadden denied the prosecution’s motion and said he would remain on the case."
Archyspeaks - So I haven't seen all of the reasons given in the statement, but the part about judicial conduct does indicate there may be more he cannot speak about so as to avoid tainting the next trial. I do think he should step down though, especially with the public outrage and allow another judge to try the case. He feels the inconsistencies have tainted the trial.
A person with down syndrome though won't act like an able bodied person I would guess, even after trauma (an expert can correct me here please). If they are mentally like a child then physical appearance of adulthood may skew how the judge n jury perceive her actions, I am no expert but is it possible for people with such a condition to show emotions that in able-minded? (unsure of the correct term for people without the condition) people would look odd at the time such as maybe happiness or positive emotions?
I would hope that all of the things that corrupted that trial would be made accountable one day, guidelines set in place to avoid this in the future so that we only need one trial that is both just and fast enough to reduce trauma to the victim/s.
That said if the mental IQ of a person with down syndrome averages 50, which is meant to be around the mental age of a 8-9 year old child, how the F!@! can an able-minded adult have legal sex with them? Surely that means they cannot consent and that fact alone means rape has happened? And if there was also force then those charges need to be added on above a charge similar to statutory rape/child abuse of what her IQ is at (so for iq of 50, treat it like it was an 8-9 year old victim in the trial for sentencing).
Not only is the act of rape abhorrent, but to take advantage of someone with a disability is another layer of evil. Heads need to roll for this and policies need to be implemented to avoid such a major f-up in the future.
Sorry but your article contradicts itself. First you say that the girl "didn't behave like a rape victim" then further down it says "the rapist didn't behave like somebody who recently perpetrated a series of violent crimes". Obviously either way it's completely unacceptable.
The judge said both things. That neither party were behaving as if the event happened at all.