Ms. Lithwick is right--this approach seems to skew the process too much in favor of the defence. It's perfectly appropriate to insist that the accused not be referred to as "rapist", "abuser", "murderer" during the trial. But if a woman is testifying that a defendant raped her, then she absolutely should be able to say "he raped me." Jurors understand that this is the accuser's / prosecution's version of events. They know that the use of such language is not the court taking sides. Trials ARE the presentations of competing narratives, and in order for the adversarial system to work, both sides need to be able to present their version of events. It's up to the judge to make sure that this happens in a fair manner. This judge blew it.

One caveat to Ms. Lithwick--I wouldn't go around using Wendy Murphy as a quotable source too much. She was a frequent commentator on numerous cable shows (including the execrable "Nancy Grace") during the Duke/Nifong fiasco, and made some statements and assertions about that case that were astonishingly wrong. Given these and other comments she's made about sexual crimes law in general, she seems to be a zealous champion of the prosecution's rights, but when it comes to those of the defense? Not so much.

More on Murphy at <link>.