In my opinion, this evidentiary ruling, while novel, is truly forward-thinking and should be considered by courts and even legislators everywhere.

Testimony should state the facts and not legal conclusions. If she woke up and he was on top of her engaging in sexual intercourse with her, and she either never consented or was too incapacitated to consent, then that establishes the crime. Saying on the stand that she woke up to him "raping" her is conclusory and inflammatory. When you think about it, it's a wonder more judges have not recognized this and issued similar rulings.

As to the "murder" hypothetical in the article, if someone testified that they saw my client murder his victim, I would try to quash that as well and I hope this judge would come to the same conclusion. All an eyewitness can testify to is what happened: was there a fight, did my client walk up and stab the victim out of the blue, etc. "Murder" is a legal conclusion that implies that someone the witness has established the mens rea and determined that it was murder.

I do consider myself a feminist and I feel that rape - sexual intercourse without the victim's consent - is a horrible crime that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But I also think that there have been many, many men who have had their lives ruined by wrongful rape convictions. Innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial should be the standard for all crimes, including rape. Let's take the inflammatory language out of the debate, and the courts, and reinstate some fairness to defendants as well as victims.

The data on "Many" runs the other way. There are dozens if not hundreds of unreported sexual assaults for every LEGITIMATELY reported one.

For every false accusation there are many more legitimately reported ones.

So even if you use Ben Franklin's version of Blackstone's equation

Better that 100 guilty go free than a single innocent rot in jail

you still aren't close to it with the "many many men who have had their lives ruined"...Not by a long long shot.

I seriously doubt you are actually a lawyer. If you are then I cringe to think of what sort of diploma mill law school gave you such a skewed view of the justice system. The words "rape" and "murder" are not a "legal conclusion". It is a noun or a verb describing an action. You seem to want me to say you client held a gun to someone's head, pulled the trigger, and fired a bullet which entered their head and caused their death. Why not say murder? It is an accurate description. It is an accusation not a conclusion. Your point is absurd.

Degsme, I'm not sure I see the point of your post. One woman (or indeed man) raped is one too many. But is this a reason to do less than we can to protect the innocent? No. Because one innocent man convicted of rape is one too many also.

Society ought to be doing all that it can to protect its members from both rape and wrongful conviction. They are not mutually exclusive goals.

Or, are you arguing that putting innocent men in jail protects women from being raped?

I am indeed a lawyer and if you were one, you would realize there are all kinds of circumstances when someone can pull a trigger and it's not murder. Let's say my client and his wife are walking down the street and A emerges from the shadows, displays a knife and says, "Give me your wallet and purse or you both die." You the witness are standing to an angle behind A so that you can't see his knife, you just see my client pull out his gun and shoot the victim. You run off and get the police, never knowing that the shooting was in self-defense (and therefore legally justified). In the unlikely event this went to trial and you were a witness, would you say, "I saw the defendant murder A" or "I saw the defendant shoot A"? I am sure you see the difference and can possibly even understand the implications.

a lawyer, she is right in the legal sense of the words "rape" and "murder," which is the sense in which they're used in the courtroom.

In fact, if you want to know what the law of evidence has traditionally said in most areas, you need do nothing more than go back and re-read her post. I will only add that similar rules generally apply to conclusions like "he was speeding" or "she was drunk." They are conclusions. The witness is supposed to say "I was going 65, and when he passed me, he was going by quickly," or "she was slurring her speech, couldn't walk in a straight line, and kept posting on the Fray while smelling of alcohol."

You ask "why not say a murder?" Because it could have been self-defense; it could have been legally justified; or it could have been manslaughter. Murder is a very specific term which includes elements of intent and lack of legal defense or justification. All killings are homicides. But not all killings are murder.

Perhaps you should choose topics on which you are better informed before you wheel out the "Like Hell," "I cringe," "diploma mill" and "absurd" stuff.

Yeah. Sorry to burst TJA's bubble but I went to a top 10 school (actually top 6 last time I checked) and did pretty well. I'm not a practicing criminal attorney but I remember enough to get by.

Any I don't give a lot of credence to someone who would say that Run DMC is more important musically than the Beatles :-)... Just teasing you, TLA, but maybe you should try some of your opinions out on your friends and family before posting them to strangers!

TJA, you are not only mistaken, but so utterly mistaken that convincing you of just how wrong you are may be impossible; so wrong that it belies a degree of ignorance that is truly remarkable.

The words "rape" and "murder", while certainly verbs/nouns (potentially also adjectives - murderous), ARE, in the context of criminal trials, precisely LEGAL CONCLUSIONS.

Allow me to explain in terms perhaps even a rude s.o.b. like yourself might comprehend:
"Murder" is an unlawful killing, commonly with "malice aforethought".
This requires a number of things to be proven in court. First, that the accused commited the act (shooting, stabbing, pushing off a building, poisoning...whatever) that caused the death.
Second, that the killing was not lawful (self-defence, defence of another, soldiers in war...there are others). These are issues that would more commonly be raised by the defence (which is why we call them DEFENCES - get it?). There is no obligation of the prosecution to disprove a defence before it is raised.
Third, that the accused either knew their actions would, should have known, or intended to cause the death so caused (niggling distinctions between murder, manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death left aside).

In short, the mens rea (guilty mind) and actus rea (guilty act) must both be proven as matters of fact before the LEGAL CONCLUSION of "murder" may be drawn.

A witness can say "He shot my friend," but NOT, "He murdered my friend."
One is a statement regarding what the witness saw. The other is a LEGAL CONCLUSION beyond the knowledge of the witness.
In fact, that witness is not competent to state that the shooting killed the friend (even if it did)...there will be expert testimony from a pathologist as regards CAUSE OF DEATH.

And without traversing the same points on behalf of the charge of rape, I simply say again that you are WRONG, and sadly rude on top of that. You have no basis whatsoever to attack the previous poster (who, one might add, clearly has a much stronger grasp of the law AND the English language than you).

Moreover, one shudders to think that you are not alone and may well be sitting on juries. It's enough to make one want to eliminate the format altogether, if you're any indication of a citizen, good and true.

I went to Pitt Law sometime last century and have handled 2 or 3 criminal cases in the meantime. Pleased to meet ya.

I'm convinced. I should have done a little research before spouting off. Sorry guys. I still think it is absurd but leagally speaking I was wrong.

I STILL insist that Run DMC are as important as the Beatles though;-) 80% of young people list hip hop as their favorite genre of music and they are the Beatles of hip hop!

To me the big question is what is she supposed to say when the defense attorney asks her, "Did you have sex with my client, yes or no?"

Also, if someone stabbed me would I have to say, "This person forced a knife to go into my stomach without my permission?" Wait, I can't say "forced..."