The word will NOT be scrubbed from the room. One presumes that if it is present in the charging document, it will be read at the outset, and that the prosecutor is not barred from using that word in opening statements with regard to the conclusion expected to be proven by the evidence presented.

Further, there are plenty of ways to strike directly at the issues without utilizing the term itself:
"Did you consent to being penetrated?"
"Doctor, is that consistent with consensual sex?"

Given that myriad alternatives are available to present the jurors with all of the evidence required to convict, WITHOUT resorting to having witnesses use inflamatory words that draw factual conclusions, why NOT err on the side of presumption of innocence? One hopes that still applies, even in cases where the complainant has a conflicting view.

The judge is, quite properly in my view, preventing a witness from using a word in testimony that encompasses the very legal conclusion that is the purpose of the trial.

Ms. Lithwick points out that there is little or no evidence to suggest that the word rape is inflamatory, or results in juries making emotional rather than factual determinations. From where would such evidence come, given that the word has been so commonly employed? I submit that no empirical evidence is required to accept that the word rape is far more inflamatory than the word robbery, and that it illicits far more sympathy and a stronger desire for outright vengeance than almost any other term, perhaps even including murder.

I'm a fan of Ms. Lithwick's reportage. Rarely has a writer on the courts been so insicive and clear in analysis, as well as a thoughtful and talented writer in the presentation of same. However, in this case I must respectfully dissent.

Well since it is possible to be sexually assaulted without penetration, you still haven't come up with an alternative to rape. Furthermore you are assuming that it is reasonable for the accusing witness to be gagged in the words that can be used, but with no such stricture placed on the defendent.

After all, for this to be neutral, the defense should not be allowed to use the word "sex" or "intercourse" or "consent" either. Instead they should be limited to

Did my client penetrate you?

Did you explicitly tell my client it was ok to penetrate your vagina?

Yet I see no evidence of such restriction on the defense.

My thoughts exactly. There I can think of dozens of ways a complaintant could describe the act of forceable intercourse against her will, which is the definition of the crime of rape, without being allowed to use the term itself. Only a truly inept prosecuter would be unable to elicit testimony sufficient to establish the crime. Indeed, I would regard a prosecutor who used "rape" in a question as having comitted an ethical violation and possibly laying the grounds for a mistrial.

I really can't imagine any judge with a knowlege of the rules of evidence that would permit a witness to testify to what are clearly legal conclusions, such as "he raped me 2 time times," or "I woke up and I was being raped." I don't see grounds for a controversy in this regard, and I find the judge's ruling correct and unremarkable.

Yes, it is possible to be "sexually assaulted" without being penetrated. However, the word "rape" requires, by statutory definition, penetration.

However, while your objection fails on semantic grounds, it also fails logically. The two examples I provided (as regards the specific term rape) could equally well and quite easily be modified to suit:
"Did the defendant touch/kiss/fondle/ejaculate on/insert verb here you?"
"Did you consent to insert verb here with the defendant?"

Lastly, it is important to remember that the complainant and accused are NOT in equal positions, nor should the court attempt to treat them as such. The accused is on trial. The burden of proof falls to the prosecution. There is no possibility of the complainant being sentenced to prison, nor does the complainant require a presumption of innocence.
The concern is not to be "neutral", it is to ensure that the triers of fact are not needlessly, and possibly prejudicially, inflamed against the defendant by the mere language employed by a tearful and very sympathetic witness.

There is a very dangerous sympathy for complainants in these matters - one that often results in a severe erosion of the presumption of innocence as the courts do flips and twists to be gentle and sensitive to the "victim". The problem with that is that there is no victim until the crime has been established...and that comes at the end of the trial, not during.

Even if that were as all-encompassing as "rape," you shouldn't have to run around the truth like a politician trying to please everyone. If you believe you were raped, you should always be able to express that. Jurors aren't idiots -- they can handle it.

"Imagine how smart the average man is. Now realize that half the people are dumber than that." - George Carlin

Jurors let OJ go...anecdotal perhaps, but instructive.
I wonder if the system might get it right more often if, whatever the jury says, the verdict is the opposite. Sort of a Costanza jury system.

Next time you're walking down the street, look at the people you pass and ask yourself, "Would I want THAT person on MY jury?"
You can walk a long way before you seat a dozen...and challenges are limited (something to keep in mind as you dismiss one after another after another).