This is just my opinion, but it would be better if she could remain stoic and slightly teary eyed, and not surrounded by family and her friend.
If the jury perceives that she becomes unglued frequently and easily, they may start discounting her testimony. Yes, I completely understand that she was traumatized. But when she runs out while a FB posting from before the event is being discussed, I have to wonder if the prosecutor should even have her in the courtroom.
Consolation, you have to realize it’s a lose-lose for her. If she sits stone faced, and does not react, it’s bad for the prosecution, because she isn’t showing signs of trauma. (insert sarc tag.)
I am unclear as to what is Approved Rape Victim Behavior.
@Consolation, I think it’s particularly because she ran out when Labrie was reading their email/ message/ text exchange leading up to their encounter. Her crying may suggest that she’s upset that she may appear as interested in the meet-up as Labrie was, or that she regrets doing this. And that regret may be why she accused him of raping her. That email/texting exchange may suggest to the jury that she knew full well that the senior salute was about some sort of sexual encounter and she willingly went along. Ofc, even if she did, and even if her friend who testified that the girl told her that she was willing to go a certain sexual distance with Labrie is telling the truth, that doesn’t mean that she agreed to intercourse. Still, the jury may read her as a willing participant who didn’t give Labrie enough indication that she didn’t want to go all the way, as my generation would have described it.
@periwinkle There is no such concept as Approved Rape Victim Behavior. This trial turns solely on the veracity of the victim, and the veracity of the defendant. The jurors will be using every experience they have ever had with people in order to try to determine whose version is believable beyond a reasonable doubt. They are looking at every cue, every tic, every hesitation in answering a question, or in reacting to an answered question. They are looking at the defendant’s red cheeks, and at the interactions between the victim and her father. Everything.
I still can’t believe it’s mostly men on that jury. How did that happen?
I don’t know the jury selection procedures for NH, but most likely it is a combination of factors. Potential jurors in a pool are usually randomly assigned a number, say 1 through 100. It’s possible that it was a fluke that a lot of men happened to get the low numbers. Then, one by one each juror is examined on voir dire as to whether or not they can be impartial. Typically, each side gets a certain number of peremptory challenges–meaning you can get keep a juror off the panel for any reason. For example, if a man says “my wife is a police officer but I am sure that I can be impartial” the defense might use a peremptory challenge on that person.
A challenge for cause is when there is an understandable reason to keep a person off a jury, such as “I testified in a criminal trial last month and I still can’t believe the jury acquitted because all defendants are guilty or they wouldn’t be in court.”
Once all the challenges are gone through, you sometimes end up with lopsided results, such as here.
I suspect that each juror in this case was asked some variation of the question “Has anyone ever sexually assaulted or attempted to sexually assault you?” If someone says yes, they are off the jury. I would hazard a guess that more women than men say yes. Again, I’m GUESSING…I don’t know.
If prospective jurors were asked if any close friend was the victim of a sexual assault and said yes, they’d also be off. I think more women who have been raped tell other women than tell men. Again, would result in more women off the jury.
I’d like to know the ages of these men. Presumably anyone whose S or D has been sexually assaulted would also be off.
Somewhere on this thread someone post a link to a national news broadcast. In it, the news anchor asked an attorney about the lopsided jury. The attorney replied that research has shown that in a rape case men are more open minded than women, and more likely to believe a female accuser than women will. It seemed odd to me, but that’s what was claimed.
I think the NYT’s midday piece provides some good coverage: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/owen-labrie-st-pauls-student-accused-of-rape-takes-the-stand.html?smid=tw-share
He’s going to have to be the world’s most persuasive witness for this to have been a good idea.
Were the defendant (and his parents) engaging in magical thinking? I cannot imagine how bad the cross exam is going to make him look…for the prosecutor it’s almost like shooting fish in a barrel.
I wonder what the plea bargain he turned down looked like.
A reporter’s tweet: " Now Labrie is helping w/technical advice/instructions on how to project Facebook messages on the screen in his own rape trial."
What? Is this for real?
So far, the various twitter feeds state that’s he’s calm, speaking clearly and answered no firmly regarding questions concerning oral sex and penetration (either digital or penile). Sounds like he was at least well coached by his counsel to navigate such awkward questions in a confident manner.
I’m sure these are all questions he’s been prepped for and that he’s practiced more than once. The kid is not a dummy and has plenty of experience speaking with adults.
The few video clips I’ve seen of him testifying bother me. It comes across as fond reminiscing and seems strange to me.
The real test will be cross exam. That will determine his case.
The bravado!
reporter tweet: Labrie says returned from Maine fishing trip to answer police q’s; met at cafe, offered to buy cops coffee. They declined.
IMHO, she’s reliving every choice she made that led up to the rape. She has mentioned that she “didn’t want to seem like a baby” when she was dealing with his advances. And being shoved into a closet.
Either you break down and cry or you are stoic. Crying a little is more unusual to me.
Also the idea that someone can “conduct themselves maturely and civilly” in a courtroom when your experience with them was horrible, that really hurts a person.
My experience with a relative’s trial for rape was that the accused was laughing and giggling with his wife during the trial. I cannot imagine how the victim held together through that (and also there was a restraining order that he violated more than once after he was out on bail before the trial).
Already being cross-examined.
Victim is still watching…but from the overflow viewing room where Labrie can’t watch her. Wonder if jury knows that? Probably not.
@jonri and @MidwestDad3 - Is there a strategy with the defense using the Asst Prosecutor to cross examine? Guy questioning guy thing? Or some other nuance?
It takes a massive effort to prepare a case like this. Defendant is now the 17th witness. They probably split up the work. Or, perhaps the asst is better at cross.
I doubt that it is a gender thing, though.