Guilty Until Proven Innocent: The Power of Rape and Sexual Abuse Accusations in Illinois
One of the most important and difficult tasks as a Chicago criminal trial lawyer is getting the finder of fact, whether judge or jury, to keep a fair and open mind in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. In almost no type of case is this more difficult than in accusations of rape or sexual abuse. In too many cases, the mere accusation of date rape or sexual misconduct is seen by the general public, juries, and even judges, as proof of the accused's guilt.
I was reminded of this recently when Dominique Strauss-Kahn, (DSK), former head of the International Monetary Fund, (IMF), was accused of forcing a hotel maid to give him oral sex as she was cleaning his hotel room. Soon after he was charged with rape, sexual abuse, and false imprisonment, Time magazine ran a story titled "What Makes Powerful Men Act Like Pigs" featuring a full page picture of an unshaven DSK glaring out at the reader next to the headline "Men Behaving Badly." At a dinner party later that same day hosted at a friend's downtown Chicago condo, I heard a person I consider highly intelligent refer to DSK as "That guy who raped the hotel maid." While DSK may indeed turn out to be guilty, it is unjust and dangerous to presume his guilt without a search for the truth guided by the presumption of innocence. So, how does a person accused of rape or sexual abuse overcome the witch-hunt mentality surrounding sexual misconduct accusations?
One way is through aggressive and thorough preliminary investigation of the facts. I have personally seen accusations of rape made against my clients fall apart when time was taken to interview witnesses, track down video, and otherwise find out what actually happened. Take the example of the Duke lacrosse rape case. In 2006 Crystal Mangum falsely accused three Duke lacrosse players of raping her at a party. According to news reports, lawyers for the players conducted an investigation that revealed that Crystal Mangum was a convicted auto thief who took anti-psychotic medication. More importantly, however, defense lawyers were able to get the rape charges dismissed by obtaining time stamped photos, ATM receipts, cell phone records, 911 audio, and eye-witness statements that proved Mangum was lying.
After thoroughly investigating the circumstances surrounding the accusation, the next step is to use those facts to appeal to common sense. To illustrate, consider the DSK rape case. Was anyone in the vicinity of the hotel room during the time the accuser says she was being raped? If so, did they hear any screams? Was any attempt made to run away or escape from her alleged attacker? If so, why was it not successful? Was physical force used? If the alleged victim is claiming that physical force was used to restrain her, were there any marks or bruises left on the alleged victim? How long did the alleged forced oral sex last? Were the alleged victim's hands tied? If not, what was she doing with her hands while she was allegedly being forced to perform oral sex? All that is needed to be found not guilty under American law is "reasonable doubt." Some may find reasonable doubt that forced oral sex occurred if the alleged victim made no attempt to cry out or escape.
Next to forcible rape, few events are more tragic than imprisoning an innocent person and it happens too often. A recent innocence project called "Convicting the Innocent" revealed that 266 innocent people were exonerated by DNA evidence. 79% of these people were convicted based on mistaken eyewitness testimony, 57% were convicted on false forensic tests, and 18% were convicted based on dishonest informants. Our criminal justice system has built in safeguards such as the presumption of innocence for just this reason and they should be respected inside and outside of the courtroom.
