|
Assault on Rape Shield Law Puts Victims at Risk, Says NJCASA in State of New Jersey vs. Anderson Garron Decision
Posted on: 07/31/
TRENTON, N.J. -- "No" may no longer mean "No" in cases of sexual assault in New Jersey, if a victim has had a prior relationship with her assailant.
The July 24, 5-1 decision from the State Supreme Court in State of New Jersey vs. Anderson Garron declaring the amendments to the New Jersey Rape Shield law unconstitutional and making it easier for defendants charged with sexual assault to admit evidence of the victim's sexual history, may keep victims from reporting rape, notes the state's advocacy organization for victims of sexual violence.
"The Court's decision deals a serious blow to the protections afforded victims of sexual assault under the State's Rape Shield law. This case is going to have a chilling effect across the board -- not only on victims who will now be even more reluctant to report sexual assaults, but it will seriously impact how cases of sexual assault are investigated and ultimately prosecuted," says Deborah Shepherd, executive director of the New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
New Jersey's Rape Shield law restricts a defendant charged with sexual assault from introducing evidence as to a victim's prior sexual conduct. Intended to protect sexual assault victims from unwarranted intrusions into their private lives, Rape Shield laws prevent defendants charged with sexual assault from unfairly attacking the victim's morality in attempt to cast her as unchaste, not worthy of belief, or otherwise "having asked for it."
Victim advocates and those in law enforcement have long since recognized that allowing unlimited questioning about a victim's prior sexual history worked against not only the victim but the entire criminal justice system. Fear of being revictimized by debasing and humiliating cross-examination on their past discouraged victims from reporting and pursuing charges. In trial, the jury's attention is diverted away from the issue of the defendant's guilt (assaultive conduct) by putting the victim on trial for her "promiscuity." Without the protections afforded by Rape Shield laws fewer cases are reported, even fewer cases are prosecuted, and rapes and sexual assaults go unpunished.
New Jersey's Rape Shield law, recognized as one of the strongest of the 50 states with similar laws on the books, permits introduction of specific evidence of a victim's sexual conduct if, after a preliminary hearing outside the jury's presence, a judge rules the proffered evidence satisfies the legal criteria for admission.
It is difficult to argue that the danger of false charges is greater for sexual offenses, particularly rape, than for any other crime. If anything the statistics show just the opposite. Rape is one of the most underreported crimes. Moreover, sexual assault complaints and allegations are carefully screened in most instances to assure that only legitimate cases go to trial. No other category of crimes receives closer scrutiny by the police and prosecuting authorities.
At issue in State vs. Garron is the defendant's contention that sexual contact in this case was consensual and that evidence as to the victim's prior conduct toward him would support that defense. The Supreme Court vacated Garron's lower court conviction and ordered a new trial. In its ruling, the Supreme Court lowered the evidence standard set by the legislature. "In sum, the Supreme Court opened the door for admission of a broad range of evidence of prior interactions between individuals to prove consent on a subsequent occasion," says Shepherd.
"When it comes to sexual relations every person has the right not to be forced, coerced or intimidated. No means No -- at any time. The defense of consent requires a showing that the defendant reasonably believed that the victim affirmatively gave permission to the sexual contact at the time that contact occurred. The Supreme Court's decision now opens the door for juries to consider contacts taking place days, months even years before the alleged act of sexual assault to decide whether affirmative consent was given," she adds.
As noted by Justice Coleman in the one dissenting opinion, "Under the Court's holding today, it will be virtually impossible for a woman to prove that she was raped by a man whom she had previously expressed interest in, flirted with, or even dated, even if she never engaged in sex with him prior to the assault occurring. Today's decision essentially restricts our Rape Shield Law to sexual assaults between victim and violent strangers, which translates into about fifteen percent of rapes."
Source: New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault
12/19/
Korean Community Service Center Receives Grant to Offer Domestic Violence Workshops and Training
12/16/
New Domestic Violence Prevention Partnership Will Target Arab American Community
12/10/
Lutheran Settlement House and Philadelphia Police Launch Buddy Bears Campaign to Protect Child Witnesses of Violence
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency Approves Major Grant to Support Victim Services Training
12/08/
HAVEN Receives Grant From Computer Associates to Help Children and Families of Michigan
11/25/
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency Presents Governor's Victim Service Pathfinder Awards
11/19/
Grief Counseling Not Always Effective, New Report Concludes
More News
|
