No Respect for the Jury Process in Nebraska

State law in Nebraska (and other states for that matter) allows judges to ban words which they think may influence the thinking of the jury, and ultimately their convictions. CNN reports that Judge Jeffre Cheuvront has done just that in a rape case that has already been tried once, where the jury was unable to reach a verdict. So on the second go-round, Cheuvront banned the use of the words "rape" and "victim."

We will not, however, be able to see how such a trial would play out just yet, due to the fact that Cheuvront has declared a mistrial before it had ever gotten started. His reasoning for the mistrial? Apparently the alleged victim, Ms. Tory Bowen, publicly petitioned the court via a website and encouraged supporters to gather outside the courthouse in protest of the word ban.

So they have quite the muddled mess on their hands out in Lincoln, Nebraska. The trial itself seems like a farce to me. Apparently Ms. Bowen got so drunk one night in 2004 that she could not fight off the advances of the accused, Mr. Pamir Safi, who admittedly had sexual relations with Ms. Bowen, under conditions that Mr. Safi claims was consensual.

At issue, first and foremost it would seem, is the very definition of "rape." Ms. Bowen claims she was raped because Mr. Safi, she says, knew she was too drunk to make any sort of consensual decision. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Safi acted dishonorably, but criminally? That, evidently, is the question. But before they even get into that question, there needs to be the freedom to discuss it. That freedom is precisely what Judge Cheuvront has taken away, as well as the right to protest peacefully for that right.

It is a jury's duty to hear testimony and decide for themselves if what they hear is true, and if it warrants a declaration of guilt for the accused. If a judge is permitted ban the use of words the witnesses can use, it seems to me that the judge is potentially obstructing true testimony. If it is the testimony of the accused that she was raped, then she ought to have the freedom to say just that. She should be granted the right to point to the accused in a court of law, before a jury of her peers, and state very clearly "That man raped me." It is then the jury's job to decide if she really was raped, based on the representation of the attorneys and the consideration of the evidence.

To deny the jury its right and duty to decide based on the actual testimonies is simply injustice, as well as disrespect for jury process and the individual jurors themselves.