Kobe Bryant

[axebahia]

Any thoughts on the demise of the rape shield law since the advent of the Internet? Here's his accuser - http://jedimaster.net/kobe_bryant.htm.

 

Also, rumor has it that he did her up the butt or tried to, and that's why the wife did not go to court with him last week! Reactions?

[AaronScottDC]

>Any thoughts on the demise of the rape shield law since the

>advent of the Internet? Here's his accuser -

>http://jedimaster.net/kobe_bryant.htm.

>

>Also, rumor has it that he did her up the butt or tried to,

>and that's why the wife did not go to court with him last

>week! Reactions?

 

Well, all I have to say is that if Kobe wanted to do somebody up the butt, all he had to do was give me a call!!! }( You can't rape the willing!!!! }( :9

 

Aaron Scott DC

http://www.erados.com/AaronScottDC

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/aaronscottdc.html

[Guest need2Btopped]

The "rape shield law" actually applies in court and generally renders inadmissible evidence concerning the victim's prior sexual history. It has nothing to do with keeping the identity of rape accusers secret; that's just a self-imposed rule of the media.

 

That being said, I have no problem with the name of a rape accuser being published. Why is it only the rape defendant should be exposed to the glare of the media?

[Guest ncm2169]

Axe, what am I missing on that site? Where does it mention the accuser?

[Guest ncm2169]

P.S. That link brought up pop-ups long after I exited the site and I finally had to reboot. BEWARE! x(

[J-Man]

I just want to know what she told all her friends about the size of his endowment, as several publications have reported. And any chance she tooks some snapshots? :-)

[+ glutes]

I think she took one look at his African Anaconda, screamed, and headed for the door (which he blocked). He then gave her the ol' Rump Pump needing no glove, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" could be used...

[Guest ncm2169]

DUH! So, is there any real info on this site?

[Guest]

You need some popup-blocking software, dude...;-)

[Guest]

>The "rape shield law" actually applies in court and generally

>renders inadmissible evidence concerning the victim's prior

>sexual history.

 

Pardon my French, but what a massive crock of shit that is! The ALLEGED victim's prior sexual history is obviously incredibly relevant in a rape case. Is this really the law in most states? Since when in this country is an accuser's rights more important than a defendant's right to a fair trial, and possibly putting an innocent man in jail? What weight, if any, to put on the accuser's past sexual history should clearly be up to the jury. If the case relies on credibility, whether the supposed victim is a whore or a cloistered nun goes directly to her credibility. And if the issue is not one of credibility, then the accuser's prior sexual history shouldn't be an issue. If jurors cannot hear pertinent information, then there should be a bench trial in the interest of justice.

I'll say it a million times. The U.S. legal system is a god-damned joke. Although it espouses "innocent until proven guilty," it's all about judges, DA's, and sheriffs getting convictions and winning elections. I'd rather live with a system in which the guilty occasionally go free than put up with our crappy system which keeps throwing innocent people in the slammer (or the execution chamber) because of politically expedient rules like this "rape shield law."

Isn't it interesting that the person to whose post I'm responding stated that the law "renders inadmissible evidence concerning the victim's prior sexual history," and not "the ALLEGED vicitim's prior sexual history"? He's following the true pattern of the U.S. legal system: guilty until proven innocent. After all, if someone accuses a man of rape, of course she's a victim. Why bother letting facts come out at trial? Why have a trial in the first place? The judge and DA will only let the jury hear the evidence they want the jury to hear, so the verdict is pre-determined...

[axebahia]

>DUH! So, is there any real info on this site?

 

Didn't you consider her name and picture to be real info?

[axebahia]

>Axe, what am I missing on that site? Where does it mention

>the accuser?

 

I tried it again and it worked. Are you not seeing her name and picture?

[Doug69]

>Pardon my French, but what a massive crock of shit that is!

>The ALLEGED victim's prior sexual history is obviously

>incredibly relevant in a rape case. Is this really the law in

>most states?

 

Yes, it is. And you're absoultely right. It's simply outrageous that a defendant charged with the crime of rape -- i.e., a crime that may send him to jail for 50 years or more - is prohobited from introudcing patently obvious evidence regarding the alleged victim's prior sexual conduct.

 

>Since when in this country is an accuser's

>rights more important than a defendant's right to a fair

>trial, and possibly putting an innocent man in jail?

 

Since politicians started to be captive to feminist groups who think that any woman who yells "RAPE": (a) is automatically telling the truth and should not be questioned or challenged and (b) has the right to yell RAPE and simultaneously be protected from questioning regarding her prior conduct.

 

Usually, the types of politicians which support feminist groups are ones who think that every criminal defendant is innocent and shouldn't be punished. Suddenly, when it comes to rape, all the rules change, and they believe that any man accused of rape should be tossed in jail and have the keys thrown away without even having an opportunity to introduce evidence directly bearing on the credibility of the accusation.

 

What

>weight, if any, to put on the accuser's past sexual history

>should clearly be up to the jury. If the case relies on

>credibility, whether the supposed victim is a whore or a

>cloistered nun goes directly to her credibility.

 

Yes, exactly - but feminist dogma (men are violent rapists and women are their victims who shouldn't "get raped a second time by being questioned") outweighs the need for fair trials. Don't you know that?

[VaHawk]

>Pardon my French, but what a massive crock of shit that is!

>The ALLEGED victim's prior sexual history is obviously

>incredibly relevant in a rape case. Is this really the law in

>most states? Since when in this country is an accuser's

>rights more important than a defendant's right to a fair

>trial, and possibly putting an innocent man in jail? What

>weight, if any, to put on the accuser's past sexual history

>should clearly be up to the jury. If the case relies on

>credibility, whether the supposed victim is a whore or a

>cloistered nun goes directly to her credibility. And if the

>issue is not one of credibility, then the accuser's prior

>sexual history shouldn't be an issue. If jurors cannot hear

>pertinent information, then there should be a bench trial in

>the interest of justice.

 

To begin with rape is an act of violence not sex! Second, getting a rapist convicted is probably one of the most difficult things to do, even if he is a serial rapist. Why? Because of the masculine bullshit attitudes, that the "alleged victim" was asking for it because of the way she was dressed, the way she led him on via teasing, and her prior sexual history. Her prior sexual history should in NO WAY be part of the proceedings. Do you really think that if she was a cock tease or God forbid a prostitute, that she can't be the victim of the violent crime of rape?

 

Don't like the rape shield law? Well as I said a bullshit, totally typical male attitude from a male dominant society. And before this law it was okay for the defense attorneys to publicly humiliate an "alledged rape" victim by legally harrassing her about the most innocent sexual episodes in her life in trying to show that indeed she is just a cock teasing, asking for it slutty, bitch and how could his poor client just stop after he is all hot and bothered and turned on, damn it! How dare the fucking bitch make him walk away with a major case of blue balls! After all, given this scenario, isn't it the defendent that is really the "alledged" victim?

 

Well just what part of NO do you not understand? Doesn't matter if the alleged victim is under the influence, the so called "biggest slut" in town or a paid prostitute, when she says stop, then damnit that means stop, and proceeding further against her will is rape, plain and simple. Just ask Mike Tyson.

 

Picture this scenario: you're a gay man, who has hired escorts, engaged in T room sex with multiple partners, have had many one night stands with a different partner every time. You're walking down the street and a group of 4 homophobic men start calling you names, jump you, beat the shit out of you and all of them take turns raping you bareback. Does your past sex experiences make it less of an act of violent rape? Should the defense attorney be able to drag all your previous partners into court and be able to portray you a cock loving faggot that loves to have it shoved up his butt?

 

>I'll say it a million times. The U.S. legal system is a

>god-damned joke.

 

As compared to who's? Want to ask those in other countries, if they would like to swap their legal system for ours?

 

>He's following the

>true pattern of the U.S. legal system: guilty until proven

>innocent.

 

Well, excuse my French, but what a total crock of bullshit on your part! If anything the justice system in this country, imo, is way, way, way slanted towards the rights of the accused at the expense of the "alledged" victims. Why else does it take years and years of motions and appeals to move from conviction to execution of murderers that are overwhelmingly obvious of being guilty.

 

>Why bother letting facts come out at

>trial?

 

That works both ways. Why are they having not only a trial, but a change of venue, for both of the accused in the DC area sniper case from last year. Does everyone know they are guilty, well DUH! Since everyone knows they're guilty, then let's just gets some rope find a tree and string both of them up. But a fair trial is a basic Constitutional right, and without it we would live in anarchy.

[taylorky]

The U.S. legal system is a

>god-damned joke. Although it espouses "innocent until proven

>guilty,"

>

 

 

 

innocent until proven indigent is more accurate.

[Flower]

Very good post Hawk--shows a lot of insight, sensitivity and intelligence.

 

You are right on the mark as to the fact that our legal system, while not perfect, simply has nothing close world wide. It's easy for people to tear down and poke holes at any system, but building one? Leave that to someone else--easier to just complain and criticise.

 

Likewise, your comment about our system being overly protective of the alleged perpatrator rather than the victim. As you pointed out, before such a shield, victims of rape refused to come forward but suffered in silence and more victims were then raped by the accussed--as a prosecutor early on in my career, I've pled with rape victims to testify re some really brutal assaults but many wouldn't for fear of further assault on the witness stand.

 

What a lot of people don't realize, is that most jurisdictions would allow testimony as to prior allegations of rape under some circumstances, like if the "victim" had an MO of makeing false allegations, but the law would not allow mindless fishing expeditions into sexual history and conduct--and for good reason. Being promiscuous, or GLT, for instance, has NO relevance to rape, which as you point out is usually a crime of violence over sex.

 

Anyway, glad we can agree on a few

[Guest]

>To begin with rape is an act of violence not sex! Second,

>getting a rapist convicted is probably one of the most

>difficult things to do, even if he is a serial rapist.

 

I'm just as against "shielding" a jury of a serial rapist's prior rape convictions as I am of shielding them of other relevant evidence. I really doubt that a rapist has the privilege of preventing the prosecutors from introducing prior rape convictions as evidence. (If he did, I would agree that this would be outrageous!)

 

>Why?

>Because of the masculine bullshit attitudes, that the "alleged

>victim" was asking for it because of the way she was dressed,

>the way she led him on via teasing, and her prior sexual

>history. Her prior sexual history should in NO WAY be part of

>the proceedings. Do you really think that if she was a cock

>tease or God forbid a prostitute, that she can't be the victim

>of the violent crime of rape?

 

I never said that, and you know it. However, in a case in which credibility is important, the sexual history is obviously relevant, and the jury should decide what weight to give it in any particular case. The degree of relevance, of course, would depend on what other evidence is presented. If the people in the hotel room next door testify that they heard the accuser say "What are you doing? Stop! You're hurting me!", then the sexual history would have little relevance. In fact, bringing it up might just anger the jury.

 

>Don't like the rape shield law? Well as I said a bullshit,

>totally typical male attitude from a male dominant society.

>And before this law it was okay for the defense attorneys to

>publicly humiliate an "alledged rape" victim by legally

>harrassing her about the most innocent sexual episodes in her

>life in trying to show that indeed she is just a cock teasing,

>asking for it slutty, bitch and how could his poor client just

>stop after he is all hot and bothered and turned on, damn it!

>How dare the fucking bitch make him walk away with a major

>case of blue balls! After all, given this scenario, isn't

>it the defendent that is really the "alledged" victim?

 

Only the accuser and Kobe know for sure. If she's bullshitting, then, yes, Kobe's the victim. If she's telling the truth, she's the victim. Just because someone is accused doesn't make him guilty.

 

>Well just what part of NO do you not understand? Doesn't

>matter if the alleged victim is under the influence, the so

>called "biggest slut" in town or a paid prostitute, when she

>says stop, then damnit that means stop, and proceeding further

>against her will is rape, plain and simple. Just ask Mike

>Tyson.

 

I didn't hear her say "no." Did you? Have you talked to someone who heard her say "no"? What evidence do you have that she said no? There you go again! You only want to believe what you want to believe. Let's not hear the facts!! It's up to the accuser to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt; it's not up to Kobe to prove he's innocent (although with our current system, especially with jurors like you, the reality is more like the defendant having to prove his innocence). I haven't heard any of the evidence in the Mike Tyson case, but I remember some Kennedy relative who was accused of rape many years back. Although the case was simply one of her word against his (well, plus some dirt in her skirt), the guy eventually had to prove his innocence. Because of his vast financial resources, he was able to prove that his accuser was lying in that the dirt in her skirt didn't come from where she said he had thrown her on the ground (through lab analyses). I have no doubt but that if he didn't have the $$ to hire a forensic expert, he'd be a convicted "rapist."

 

>Picture this scenario: you're a gay man, who has hired

>escorts, engaged in T room sex with multiple partners, have

>had many one night stands with a different partner every time.

> You're walking down the street and a group of 4 homophobic

>men start calling you names, jump you, beat the shit out of

>you and all of them take turns raping you bareback. Does your

>past sex experiences make it less of an act of violent rape?

>Should the defense attorney be able to drag all your previous

>partners into court and be able to portray you a cock loving

>faggot that loves to have it shoved up his butt?

 

Well, not that I fit that description, but if we were to take your premise, the multiple partners and escorts have little to do with being jumped on, having the shit beaten out of oneself, and being forcibly raped bareback. Nevertheless, if I had a pattern of hiring a group of guys to beat me up and ride me bareback, and they could make a legitimate claim of being escorts I hired, then, yes, I think it would be entirely appropriate for them to subpoena escorts I'd hired in the past for this type of scene, as well as friends and co-workers to testify about all the times they saw me similarly bruised up previously.

 

>>I'll say it a million times. The U.S. legal system is a

>>god-damned joke.

>

>As compared to who's? Want to ask those in other countries,

>if they would like to swap their legal system for ours?

>

I travel all the time, and the U.S. legal system is constantly the brunt of jokes. Yes, there are places with no legal system at all, in which the military can just cause people to "disappear" on the slightest suspicion. Nevertheless, I can't think of a country which truly has a legal system, whose system is worse than ours (maybe you can name one?).

 

>>He's following the

>>true pattern of the U.S. legal system: guilty until proven

>>innocent.

>

>Well, excuse my French, but what a total crock of bullshit on

>your part! If anything the justice system in this country,

>imo, is way, way, way slanted towards the rights of the

>accused at the expense of the "alledged" victims. Why else

>does it take years and years of motions and appeals to move

>from conviction to execution of murderers that are

>overwhelmingly obvious of being guilty.

 

It's rather incredible that you would use capital murder as an example, since anyone who hasn't been in a cave, or hiding his head in a bucket for the last ten years, knows about the massive number of people who have been completely proven innocent by DNA evidence after being sentenced to death. In fact, as I would hope you would know (unless you're totally out of touch with reality), large numbers of these cases involve old rape/murder cases in which, fortunately for the so-called "rapist/murderer," the semen samples were preserved and conclusively ruled out as coming from the convict. The Governor of Illinois made front page news when he stopped executions after discovering that more people were being exonerated than executed! Maybe you didn't hear??

One would think that in capital murder, of all cases, jurors and the legal system would have the strictest standards for convicting only when the case is truly proven beyond reasonable doubt. And, of course, the only reasons these judicial fuck-ups are discovered is because of the extensive review and resources devoted to these cases. Just think of all the innocent people convicted and forgotten on lesser charges!

Why does our legal system completely fail? There are many reasons leading to this failiure. First, the jurors don't represent society at large. In capital cases in particular, only supporters of capital punishment are allowed on the jury. More to the point, juries tend to be composed of rabid "law and order" types such as yourself, who believe that if someone makes it to court, then they MUST be guilty. The fact of the matter is that 90% of criminal cases result in convictions. Other reasons I have alluded to previously. Judges and DA's filter the evidence that jurors can hear because they need to look tough so they can get re-elected (please note that in very few if any other countries are judges and DA's elected by a popularity contest). Also, defendants seldom have the resources available to the state such as forensic labs (unless they're a Kennedy relative).

Being falsely accused is something that could happen to anyone. If you ever find yourself falsely accused of a crime, you'd better pray that you don't get a jury full of people like yourself who assume that accusation=truth. And, better yet, you'd better have a lot of $$ to defend yourself.

[Flower]

>Yes, it is. And you're absoultely right. It's simply

>outrageous that a defendant charged with the crime of rape --

>i.e., a crime that may send him to jail for 50 years or more -

>is prohobited from introudcing patently obvious evidence

>regarding the alleged victim's prior sexual conduct.

 

Would you be so kind as to explain what that relevance is for those of us who don't quite see the "patent obviousness" and are less sophisticated in these matters than you?

>>Since when in this country is an accuser's

>>rights more important than a defendant's right to a fair

>>trial, and possibly putting an innocent man in jail?

>

>Since politicians started to be captive to feminist groups who

>think that any woman who yells "RAPE": (a) is automatically

>telling the truth and should not be questioned or challenged

>and (b) has the right to yell RAPE and simultaneously be

>protected from questioning regarding her prior conduct.

 

 

Well obviously, you are a politically savvy person, so please help me out with some examples of how "feminist groups" have done so and who these scoundrels are?

>Usually, the types of politicians which support feminist

>groups are ones who think that every criminal defendant is

>innocent and shouldn't be punished. Suddenly, when it comes

>to rape, all the rules change, and they believe that any man

>accused of rape should be tossed in jail and have the keys

>thrown away without even having an opportunity to introduce

>evidence directly bearing on the credibility of the

>accusation.

Again, you must have uncanny insight--far better than I, so are there any examples of specific politicians who have forsaken the far more influential male vote in favor of the significant yet less influential female vote AND as a result of what specific groups? I'm sure such dogmatic statements come from research and personal knowledge rather than supposition.

> What weight, if any, to put on the accuser's past sexual history

>>should clearly be up to the jury. If the case relies on

>>credibility, whether the supposed victim is a whore or a

>>cloistered nun goes directly to her credibility.

>

>Yes, exactly - but feminist dogma (men are violent rapists and

>women are their victims who shouldn't "get raped a second time

>by being questioned") outweighs the need for fair trials.

>Don't you know that?

Well, actually a few of us aren't so enlightened--I didn't know that at all, so if you have a basis for those statements, please share it.

 

If on the other hand, this is just mere supposition and your usuall rhetorical masterbation, remain silent or start calling names and take on your favorite tactic, best desribed as the "best defense for ignorance is a loud mouthed and vile offense" :+

[Guest]

>You are right on the mark as to the fact that our legal

>system, while not perfect, simply has nothing close world

>wide.

I agree, ours is the most asinine system world-wide and nothing comes close. I would take the system of any other civilized country over ours. You cannot name one civilized country whose system I wouldn't replace ours with (no, you can't name Uganda under Idi Amin or Chile under August Pinochet). I can name at least 50--and probably more like 100--countries whose legal system I would take over ours.

[Flower]

interesting, but probably true to a big extent, unfortunately:)

 

As a side note, you changed you style dude:+

[Flower]

I can name at least 50--and probably more like

>100--countries whose legal system I would take over ours.

That may be, but that in no way means they are better:+

[Flower]

>I'm just as against "shielding" a jury of a serial rapist's

>prior rape convictions as I am of shielding them of other

>relevant evidence. I really doubt that a rapist has the

>privilege of preventing the prosecutors from introducing prior

>rape convictions as evidence. (If he did, I would agree that

>this would be outrageous!)

Well you are partially correct--usually the prior convictions would come in, for instance if they could be used to impeach the defendent's direct statements on the witness stand, his credibility ("no, I've never been convicted"), special knowlege or asserting exactly the same defense as before, or denying facts that admission of the prior proves, or to show modus operendi, like a special technique or ritual used in the prior(s) being the same or substantially similar to the present offense being tried.

 

The issue is hotly contested in many jurisdictions and some allow ANY felony conviction to come in as general imeachment regardless of connection to the crime on trial. The legal theorist say in defense of keeping out priors, that to know the defendant has done the same act before would be SO influenctial on a jury so as to cause them to decide based on a prior rather than independantly evaluate the evidence in the case they are trying. Most jurisdictions don't allow prior convictions to become evidence to the jury if the defendant doesn't take the stand.

 

It is still much, much easier for the DA to get a conviction than for the defendant to get off, as you have pointed out, so maybe affording the defendant these protections isn't so bad--maybe it's not enough.

 

Likewise, if the "victim" has yelled rape before then that may very well come in and would be very relevant--much more so than general sexual history. Sexual history can still come in if the defense can show a definate relationship to a defense theory and not just to prejudice the jury, similar to the use of priors. The point being, that both must be admitted very carefully so the jury doesn't cnvict or acquit soley based on the prior conduct rather than the case at hand which should be proven by "beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

You make some good points, however. And it is a shame that in a criminal case in the USA, it often is a question of "how much justice can you afford?"

[woodlawn]

>>I'm just as against "shielding" a jury of a serial rapist's

>>prior rape convictions as I am of shielding them of other

>>relevant evidence. I really doubt that a rapist has the

>>privilege of preventing the prosecutors from introducing

>prior rape convictions as evidence. (If he did, I would agree

>that

>>this would be outrageous!)

 

 

>Well you are partially correct--usually the prior convictions

>would come in,

 

 

I'm not sure what part of Unicorn's post is the "correct" part. The general rule is that the defendant's prior convictions do NOT come in unless one of the exceptions you listed applies, which rarely happens.

 

The reasoning behind the rape shield law and the exclusion of the defendant's prior convictions is more or less the same. The object of the trial is to get the jury to decide what happened in the case that is before them. We don't want them to convict the defendant on this charge simply because he was convicted on another charge in the past, nor do we want the defendant to be acquitted simply because the complainant slept with a lot of men in the past and the jury thinks that such a "loose woman" shouldn't be allowed to cry rape.

 

One thing I must say is that it's mighty odd to see anyone who hires a lot of escorts suggesting that a promiscuous sexual history is evidence that bears on the complainant's credibility. For anyone who thinks it is, I'd ask whether your promiscuous lifestyle makes you less than credible.

[Doug69]

>One thing I must say is that it's mighty odd to see anyone who

>hires a lot of escorts suggesting that a promiscuous sexual

>history is evidence that bears on the complainant's

>credibility. For anyone who thinks it is, I'd ask whether

>your promiscuous lifestyle makes you less than credible.

 

This makes no sense, because you have manipulated everyone's point in order to make yours.

 

Nobody is saying that a woman's prior sexual history bears generally on her credibility, regardless of the issue being assessed. The fact that a woman has fucked 10,000 guys in the past would not make her statements regarding, say, her stock trading any more or less credible. This prior sexual conduct could, however, be quite relevant -- relevant, that is, not dispositive -- in assessing the credibility of her claim that sex which she claims she had was nonconsensual.

 

Similarly, the fact that someone hires lots of escorts wouldn't reflect generally on their credibility. Such conduct would not, for instance, be relevant to the person's claims regarding a whole host of unrelated issues. If, however, the person were charged with soliciting a prostitute, and the person denied it, it would certainly be relevant to most people to know that the person in question has hired 10,000 escorts previously. Clearly, most rational people would think this fact relevant in determining whether the person actually did solicit a prostitute in this case.

 

The idea isn't that prior sexual conduct is relevant to the person's credibility generally. It's that the person's prior sexual conduct is relevant in assessing their current sexual conduct, and is relevant in assessing the credibility of their claims about that conduct.

 

Claiming that prior sexual conduct is totally irrelevant in assessing a claim of rape requires complete intellectual dishonesty. If you were trying to figure out whether a claim of rape was true or not, are you actually prepared to say that it wouldn't matter to you at all -- not one whit -- if the alleged "victim" were Mother Theresa as opposed to a porn actress who has fucked thousands of guys both on and off camera. That fact would make no difference to you at all?

[Guest Merlin]

One of the problems with "date rape" cases is that the possible sentence to the defendant often seems to be wildly disproportionate to the injury. In the Kobe case, for instance, the alleged victim sustained some minor bruising and perhaps some psychological damage-or not-, but if found guilty, Kobe's life may be ruined. It is said that the potential sentence could be life in prison. Logically, it would seem that evidence of the victim's prior sexual history should be admitted on the question of sentence at some point in the trial or sentencing. Obviously the psychological damage to a young virgin could be expected to be more severe than that to a sexually experience woman. The other problem with date rape is that the existence of the crime is very often a matter of "he says, she says" with little or no unequivocal supporting evidence. Even a little bruising can be consistent with consensual sex and cannot absolutely be attributed to the defendant. But even the consent or lack thereof is often a subjective matter. She may say no, but the in actuality, warm to it and consent with her actions if not her words. A simple solution to the problem would seem to be that few date rape cases can logically meet the standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"--which the Supreme Court has said is a due process requirement under the Constitution. No case of "she says, he says" can meet that standard, and that result could not be changed by a litte unequivocal bruising or other conclusive evidence. Indeed reasonable doubt standard may not be appropriate in rape cases. Possibly as a result, the prosecutors, courts, and juries often ignore that standard. particularly in date rape cases. Prosecutors often bring cases which cannot possibly meet the standard, and juries appear to decide cases on a proponderance of the evidence basis.