View Single Post
Old 16 November 2018, 11:05 PM
Steve Steve is offline
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,906

Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post

It does, however, read as if the accused wasn't claiming that whatever specific act he was accused of hadn't occurred, but that it had occurred but was consensual: and the evidence being brought for its being consensual was the underwear.
From what I can tell, the underwear was only brought out during closing arguments, so if an argument was made during the trial that the sex was consensual, it must have rested on something more than the thong.
If there was other good reason to think that it was consensual, why bring out the underwear?
I've only been forced onto, I mean, served on one jury in my life, but from what I can tell defense attorneys tend to throw lots of evidence, good, bad or indifferent at the wall ans hope something sticks. For all we know, mentioning the thong may have repulsed the jury, but they may have found other reasons to find not guilty.
And, if the defendant actually thinks that wearing thong underwear means consent, that raises for me a strong implication that the defendant has no idea what consent actually is, and therefore is likely to ignore the lack of it.
How do we know what the defended thinks of thongs? I doubt that lawyers go over every sentence of their closing arguments with their clients.
Reply With Quote