Results 1 to 5 of 5
08-11-09, 12:13 AM #1
Judge Reportedly Questioned Whether Woman Was Raped Because She Was "On Top"
Newly elected judge Kevin Fine isn't your typical jurist -- he's been frank and outspoken about his missteps in life, which include a cocaine addiction.
Now he finds himself dealing with another alleged misstep -- accusations that he told a rape victim in his court that he didn't believe she was raped because she was "on top" during the act.
There are no transcripts yet to the July 31 hearing, which came after the defendant was convicted and before he was sentenced. Transcripts are being prepared for appeals. But observers in the courtroom have spread word of the alleged comment, and it will likely come up in the appellate process.
A woman can't be raped if she's on top? That will be difficult to explain away.
Fine tells Hair Balls he can't comment on the case because it's still pending, but he did offer a general take on events. He said the method he used in questioning some of the evidence was "incorrect," and it seems from his answer that his doubts were based on more than just the "on top" issue.
We'll print his response here in full.
The manner in which I went about garnering answers to my questions that I had, and that I needed answered prior to assessing appropriate punishment for the defendant, was incorrect. I should not have gone about it in the manner in which I went about it.As to whether the concerns included the woman being on top, as others in the courtroom have alleged, Fine said he couldn't comment.
In other words, I should not -- probably the better method would have been to call counsel into chambers and express my concerns directly to them, demonstrating all of the physical evidence that I was looking at that did not match what the complainant had to say during [the] guilt/innocence and during [the] punishment [phases of the trial].
And then let them flesh it out with the witness, rather than me question the witness, because of the appearance that I didn't believe the witness, or was picking on the witness, which I don't think a judge should do. Although in certain circumstances maybe it's appropriate.
I think in light of the nature of the offense the better means would have been to call counsel for both sides into chambers, express my concerns, explain my concerns based on the evidence I had in front of me -- and by that I mean the physical evidence -- and then let them flesh it out.
That will be answered whenever the transcripts are released; still, it's clear that something unusual went on that day.
The defendant was reportedly sentenced to 25 years, which seems to indicate Fine considered his doubts addressed. (The defendant's newly appointed appellate attorney tells Hair Balls the 25 years "sounds right," in terms of being what Fine assessed, but he hasn't had time to look at the case.)
08-11-09, 05:43 AM #2Chief Wheaties PisserVerified LEO
- Join Date
- Just outside Latteland
- Rep Power
Huh? A coke head as a judge?
08-11-09, 05:53 AM #3
And not one, but two free tubs of OxyClean with every sentencing! Bailiffs are standing by!
Originally Posted by Herzen
08-11-09, 11:27 AM #4
Thanks Judge, why didn't you just say that she was asking for it for the way she dressed?
Sidenote: The reporting media is called Hair Balls?\\` ` ` ` < ` )___/\
`` ` ` ` (3--(____)
"...but to forget your duck, of course, means you're really screwed." - Gary Larson
08-11-09, 12:43 PM #5'Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a
delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly
promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which
holds forth the proposition that it is entirely
possible to pick up a turd by the clean end!'
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” Sigmund Freud
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)