Steubenville rape trial: Ridiculous lawyers argue that unconscious victim "didn't say no"
The Steubenville, Ohio rape trial starts today and it seems as if the already-controversial case is only going to get uglier. The victim, a 16-year-old girl who was allegedly raped by two high school footballers while intoxicated, is now expected to testify (despite an earlier ruling that prevented her from doing so). Taking the stand against your own attackers would be painful and potentially traumatic for anyone, but it's especially so when the defense attorneys will be claiming that the sexual interaction was consensual.
Yup, you read that right! The lawyers defending Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond, the two accused players, are actually planning on arguing that the teen gave her consent before engaging in sexual activity--even though she passed out at some point and couldn't stand up, let alone speak.
According to authorities, the teen doesn't remember anything that happened after leaving the first party of the night. However, reports have made it clear that she was so heavily intoxicated that she threw up on herself and needed help from others to get up and walk. But apparently that doesn't mean jack to the DA.
"Defense attorneys believe the girl, who lived across the river in Weirton, West Virginia, made a decision to excessively drink and--against her friends' wishes--to leave with the boys," The Plain Dealer recently wrote in an article about the case. "They assert that she consented to sex."
One of the attorneys, Walter Madison, even pointed out that the girl chose to drink and party with a group of kids that included Richmond and Mays, as if that makes a difference. What does that even have to do with anything? Are they seriously trying to imply she brought this on herself because she attending a party? How in the hell does that equate to her consenting to sex? So she drank in the presence of these guys. That doesn't mean she gave them permission to assault her!
Read more ¿Qué más?: Steubenville rape trial: Why are the defendants complaining
"There's an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices," Madison maintained. "She didn't affirmatively say no." Could that be because she was UNCONSCIOUS? How are you supposed to say no when you're passed out? Or are they going to argue that she consented silently next?
Ugh, I know this is a defense attorney's job and all, but I really don't know how these guys can sleep at night. The fact that they're defending two people who so clearly took advantage of someone with these totally invalid and half-assed arguments is just disgusting.This case has changed this girl's life. And now she has to take a stand in a highly publicized trial, all while these lawyers attempted to break down her word and essentially call her a liar and a slut. It makes me sick to think about.
All I can hope is that the judge overseeing this trial doesn't fall for this completely manipulated "he said, she said" (or more accurately, he said, she didn't say) BS these attorneys are trying to use to justify their client's unforgivable actions.
Image via Thinkstock