It was only a month and a half ago that cocktail party chatter was suddenly dominated by the sodomy and attempted rape accusations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Despite the case's inchoate posture, we quickly knew many of the supposed details. Thanks to a notoriously tabloid-like newspaper we learned that the accuser, a maid at the luxurious Sofitel hotel, was supposedly a young widow and single mother who lived with her daughter in housing reserved for HIV-positive adults. She was said to be from Guinea. Reporters went so far as to track down her relatives, who were said to be so unsophisticated and off-the-grid that strangers from the media could only attempt to explain to them the level of power enjoyed by the man who now stood accused by their niece and cousin.
Sadly, we have learned to take with a grain of salt the well-spun stories we are told by reporters who purport to know the human stories behind the news. This time around, though, story time wasn't coming only from the human-interest writers. The District Attorney's Office made sure the public received a specific version of events.
Immediately after his dramatic arrest from an airplane at JFK, they described a man in such a rush to flee the hotel that he managed to leave his cell phone behind. They stated without explanation or detail that they had heard from "more than one" other woman who also claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Strauss-Kahn. They summarily declared that the defendant had "a propensity for impulsive criminal conduct." News of a DNA match was leaked by law enforcement sources.
When defense attorneys teased that they had evidence that would "gravely undermine" the accuser's credibility, prosecutors vouched not only for her credibility but her character. Her version of events contained "powerful details" and had been "constant and unwavering." To suggest that sexual activity with this hardworking, conservative Muslim widow was consensual was utterly ridiculous.
That was a mere six weeks ago.
Now the cocktail parties are still abuzz about DSK but fueled by altogether different headlines. The case is "teetering." The defendant has been released.
And still the prosecutors are talking. In a letter to defense lawyers and the court, they detail the weaknesses of their own case. The complainant did not, as she said, wait in the hallway after the alleged attack; she cleaned two rooms (including the suspect's) before reporting the incident.
She lied in her application for asylum.
She lied about her income. She lied about the number of children she supported. She lied about the number of cell phones she has.
It has all made for a stunning turnaround -- good for the media, great for cocktail party chatter.
But we shouldn't know any of it. Here's the thing about criminal cases -- especially rape cases. You look at them from one angle, and the government has a slam dunk. You look from another, and reasonable doubt starts popping up. That's why we have juries and judges. Even in our rough and tumble system where the vast majority of cases don't go to trial, it's why we have discussions between counsel and plea negotiations.
Cy Vance and his assistants are saying they still believe they have evidence to back up the charges against Strauss-Kahn, but that recent discoveries could make the case difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That acknowledgment already got the defendant sprung from house arrest. More important, it's clearly a precursor to a dismissal of the case or a sweetheart plea agreement.
The prosecution probably blames the victim for the case's current predicament. But a flawed witness makes for a fairly typical sexual assault case. Seasoned prosecutors will tell you that rape cases are hard. Victims aren't perfect. They might have lied in the past. They might even lie about some of the details of the incident at issue if they think it's necessary to have their accusations treated seriously. They may have criminal records and unsavory friends. They may see money at the end of the tunnel. And sometimes the cases unravel so much that you conclude that the original charges cannot stand.
When I was a prosecutor, we were told never to try our cases in public. The rules of ethics prohibit a prosecutor from stating her personal beliefs about a defendant's guilt for a reason. Bland, neutral statements make for boring news, but that's sort of the point. Cases get resolved through plea or trial. The details can come out later.
If we had never been assured how strong the case was against Strauss-Kahn, we wouldn't be stunned by the most recent news. We might infer that the government's case had problems if the defendant's release status changed. We would learn the strength of the case at trial. Even at a guilty plea, a less formal hearing would give a preview of the state's evidence. An outright dismissal of charges in a high-profile case would likely be accompanied by a public explanation. This is how cases are handled, and shades of gray are typical in sexual offense cases.
But this case was never typical. The departing flight forced police to make an arrest earlier than they might have liked. Prosecutors successfully opposed bail, shortening their time line to seek an indictment. And now there has been an apparent change of heart: where prosecutors initially saw their victim as Mother Teresa, they now see her as a potential shakedown artist.
That may seem like a big deal. It is. But if prosecutors hadn't said so much in the beginning about how strong their case was, they wouldn't be scrambling to say so much now.
The "stunning reversals" in the Strauss-Kahn prosecution make for fascinating news, but we the chatting public never should have known about them.
Follow Alafair Burke on Twitter: www.twitter.com/alafairburke
It never ceases to amaze me how few people understand this. After all, prostitutes are raped frequently. The particular love affair with criminal trials in our media seems to have grown into a bread and circuses deal. Prosecutors can grandstand through it with hopes of one day becoming Governor. Defense attorneys can do it for book deals. "Reporters" can do it to have an easy story that can be milked for what may end up being years.
Trials in the media never work out for the better. It just allows for a lot of people to be manipulated, with a solid majority thinking they actually know the details and can render a fair judgement. This particular case is no exception since, despite what has been said or done by any of the parties involved, the public doesn't have any better knowledge that can answer whether or not a crime occurred as a result of the coverage.
Whenever I hear of crime and see subsequent flashing cameras I have a feeling of dread.
A fair trial is hardly possible, lives WILL BE ruined - for the suspected victim, the suspected perpetrator - and of course the families, etc. of both.
TMI is probably an understatement. Will the NY Bar be inclined get involved? It appears to me that ethics rules have been challenged. It will be interesting to see this unfold.
NOTE: Ms. Burke...so so so enjoy your novels as well as your father's.
It seems pretty clear that the information initially provided to the media by the District Attorney's office was designed to make any prospective juror inclined to convict DSK. The more recent releases of information appear to have the opposite intent. In either instance the release of that information at the very least was ill advised and might even have been sufficiently ethically improper to warrant discipline by the New York bar.
This whole thing has been a disaster in the making because there are so few restraints (self or otherwise) on anybody involved, including the public itself. What a mess.
Guilty or innocent, does the world really need another sleaze bag politician with questionable morals and appalling judgement? It needs leaders with foresight, not foreskin. Let's hope the French voters reject him.
So its ok to rape and sexually batter a women, safe in the knowledge that if she lied about her tax receipts she is fair game. What kind of judiciary is this. What kind of a corrupt judicial system is this where if your rich and powerful you can commit the most henious crimes and get off without even a trial.
However, after doing some research into their witness in order to build their case, the DA's office found this info about the accuser. They had to research her not only to build a case and also because the defense surely would. The goal is to prosecute cases successfully, so you must know who/what you're dealing w/. Why they chose to disclose what they found about her like they did, I have no idea but it doesn't seem likely that ANYONE knew what they now do initially.
Your post seems to be based on the idea that DSK somehow picked her specifically as his prey because he somehow knew that she had such a shady past. How would he have known this tho? DSK is a yutz for sure, but he's clearly NOT omniscient.
1) When confronted by prosecutors with her role as money handler for an interstate drug ring her lawyer kept her "unavailable" to prosecutors for ten straight days.
2) She originally gave one account of her activities in the hotel after the "incident". Then later she changed her story completely. But, unknown to her, prosecutors had not only the hallway security cameras but the key swipe card records showing a totally different pattern of her, and the supervisor's, movements.
Wouldn't you just LOVE to be the prosecutor going into trial not knowing if the last story she told you was going to be the last story she tells.
Yeah right.
If we gonna talk about lying cheating and deceiving, lets talk about the fat pasty head of imf who leaves a string of accusations of rape. This is the guy whose mission at the head of the imf is to bust every trade union and crush them, so that if some poor god fearing hotel maid is attacked by some fat pasty head of imf she would not have a leg to stand on.