Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post
Newsgroups: americast.wpost
From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com
Organization: American Cybercasting
Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com
Subject: She Said No and She Meant It=
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 92 08:47:18 EST
Message-ID: <33.1992Oct31.084718@AmeriCast.com>

She Said No and She Meant It=

 CONSENT IS a defense against rape. It is often a successful de-
fense when the parties know each other well, or have been dating,
and the facts of the case leave a jury uncertain about what what
was said, implied or misunderstood about the conduct in question.
But that's not the kind of case that was presented to an Austin,
Tex., grand jury last month.  What is alleged to have happened to
a 25-year-old woman in that city in the early morning hours of
Sept. 16 is the worst kind of nightmare, the kind of violent rape
by a complete stranger that fits even the most narrow definition
of that crime. Yet the grand jury refused to indict because the
victim was able to persuade her assailant to wear a condom and he
was able to convince the grand jury that that act demonstrated
her consent.

 The woman told police that she came home at 3 a.m. after a party
and found a man she had never seen in her life who had broken in
while she was away and hidden in the bathroom. He came down the
hall with a knife. She screamed and ran to her bedroom, but he
forced the door open as she was trying to lock it. With a knife
at her throat, she begged him to wear a condom before he assault-
ed her, and he agreed. The attack continued for 45 minutes, but
she finally escaped with the knife, running naked to a neighbor's
apartment to call the police.  Does any of this sound remotely
like consent?

 An informant told police that a man named Joel Rene Valdez had
been bragging about his exploits that night.  When arrested, Mr.
Valdez admitted that he had broken into the apartment, that he
did not know the victim and that he had assaulted her with a
knife and had sexual intercourse with her. But the condom, he
said, proved that she agreed to the act. When a grand jury be-
lieved him and refused to indict, Austin residents reacted
strongly with picketing, protests and sympathetic support for the
woman. The district attorney presented the case to a new grand
jury - an unusual but not unprecedented step - and on Tuesday,
Mr. Valdez was finally indicted.

 While the crime of rape has ancient roots, this case has partic-
ularly modern aspects. The specter of AIDS arises even in cir-
cumstances of extreme stress and panic. Women always run the risk
of pregnancy or infection after rape, but now they worry about
death too. The victim here seems to us not only wise to bargain
for protection but assertive even as she was being assaulted. The
community response was also positive. The consent defense, which
might have been accepted with a shrug 10 or 20 years ago, was re-
jected outright by a public increasingly impatient with even the
more plausible defendants who invoke it. Mr. Valdez has yet to be
tried. But neither he nor any other rape defendant should count
on any jury sympathy because a courageous victim managed to stay
alive through the ordeal and to protect herself from a greater
catastrophe later.<02:27 10-31C9999-----

Copyright 1992, The Washington Post.  This story is from the
Washington Post's Capitol Edition On-Line and is not to be ar-
chived or redistributed.

For more information, send-email to American Cybercasting Cor-
poration (usa@AmeriCast.COM)