I don't understand the problem with forbidding legally conclusory language from a witness.

e.g., "He robbed me." And, "He held a gun to my head and asked for money." Or, "She embezzled from me." Versus, "She wrote checks to her boyfriend out of my account and passed them off as my payments to the building subcontractors."

Because witnesses for the most part aren't lawyers. And if you want the witness to actually honestly level an accusation - for which the courts have been envisioned as the proper realm - you need to allow the witness to speak in terms that make sense to them.

What if the victim in this case had an IQ of 80- who understood that non-consensual sex was wrong, but didn't have the language to say that. Would the judge then ban this witness from saying

"He was doing nasty things to me down there?

Given the reasoning of this judge, I suspect he would because "nasty" in this context is "inflammatory".

The court IS for accusations by witnesses. It IS an adversarial proceding. Setting rules that preclude one or the other set of witnesses from using their own language stultifies the process to the point where only coached witnesses will have any impact.

And I think the LAST thing we want is an increase in the amount of witness "practice" that is engaged in

A key issue is whether the words were banned because they (1) are inflammatory or because (2) they imply a premature legal conclusion. The word rape has become so ingrained in our societal vocabulary, that I it probably should not be excluded on the grounds of (1). But (2) is a serious concern, and one which I can only think has been downplayed in the article. The goal is to determine whether or not a rape or sexual assault has actually occured. Thus to act as though the question has already been decided is improper. Else, why the trial?