Supreme Court Rejects Rape Language Ban Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal involving a sexual assault case during which a Nebraska judge banned anyone from using the word "rape" in the courtroom.
When the man who Tory Bowen says raped her in October 2004 went on trial in Nebraska, Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront would not allow her to use the words "rape kit", "victim" or "rape" to describe what happened to her during her testimony.
During the trial of Pamir Safi, Judge Cheuvront granted a motion by his criminal defense lawyers and banned the words "rape", "sexual assault", "victim", "assailant" and "sexual assault kit" from being uttered during the trial. At the same time, Cheuvront allowed Safi's lawyers to describe the incident between Safi and Bowen as "sex" and "intercourse" during the trial.
Bowen says that Safi sexually assaulted her while she was too intoxicated to give consent. Safi has always said that the sex was consensual.
Tory Bowen's lawyers have argued that by restricting the language during the trial, Judge Cheuvront violated her constitutional rights.
Because of the powerful nature of language and the emotions conjured by the connotations associated with certain words, lawyers naturally choose their words wisely. Skilled lawyers weigh their words wisely to get the most impact from them in court.
It is important in every court case that all parties - and most especially jurors - completely understand the narrow legal definition of important terminology used during a trial. In the interest of providing Safi a constitutionally correct and fair trial, Judge Cheuvront ruled that certain words and phrases could not be used because they would be prejudicial.
As we all know, in the American criminal law system, all criminal defendants are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. With this cornerstone principle in mind, the judge decided that describing the alleged sexual assault as a sexual assault or rape during the criminal trial would prejudice the jury and wrongly influence the presumption of innocence in the case.
Safi's first trial ended in November 2006 with a mistrial after the jury deadlocked.
After the trial, Bowen went public and said she felt that the language ban in the courtroom negatively affected her testimony because, much like a lawyer, she had to weigh her words wisely. In her efforts to not violate the judge's order banning certain words, Bowen says she was not able to adequately describe the sexual assault.
In July 2007, Judge Cheuvront declared a second mistrial, this time citing extensive news coverage and public protests on behalf of Bowen. Prosecutors decided not to pursue a third trial.
After the second mistrial, Bowen sued Judge Cheuvront over the language ban. CNN reported that a federal judge later dismissed the lawsuit, finding that Bowen had failed to prove that he should intervene.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, saying that the federal court did not have jurisdiction in the case.
On October 20, the case was listed among those that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear.
