Fictional Court Case! Give your input!

[Keymik]

So I was just talking with a bunch of random people in the world of warcraft trade chat on Argent Dawn. The talking eventually lead to a scenario involving rape charges and videotapes. I thought I might take this scenario to the escapist to see your thoughts on it so without further explanation i'll give you the scenario.

You are a guy. You meet a girl and the two of you go back to your place for some consensual sex. One month after the encounter the girl claims you raped her and you go to court. However you SECRETLY videotaped the consensual sex and show this video to court to get free from the rape charges. However the girl is now sueing you for the videotape because she didn't consent to being filmed.

Extra facts to consider:
The videotape hasn't been spread to the internet, only you have seen it before the court.
The case about not consenting to being filmed is handled by another jury and judge.
And to help on the laws surrounding the whole thing we would be located in California
so California laws and everything count into the equation.

Let me make this clear aswell. THIS ISN'T A REAL CASE! IT'S A WHAT IF SCENARIO! Good? Good.

So what are your thoughts? What would you do in this situation? Who do you think is the worse offender? Give me your thoughts on the whole thing ^^

PS: Please don't turn this into a rape thread guys. That's not the point of it.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

As far as I am aware, in California there are no laws that say you have to have a person's permission to film them within your own home, since they have no expectation of privacy within your house.

So I would say there is nothing illegal about what you did, especially since you only used the video tape for your own defense in court. The girl has no case and can go fuck herself for trying to screw you over.

 

[Caiphus]

My knowledge of privacy law is weak at best. I think Dirty Hipsters mostly has the right of it.

She would have a case if the man attempted to leak the footage to her family or friends in order to shame her, possibly.

But generally there is no option to sue unless you have suffered damage or loss. In this case, there isn't much. Again, my knowledge of American law is slim, that's how it usually operates in English law.

But no, she wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. And besides, the man would have a better argument for malicious prosecution, perjury, defamation etc..

 

[Keoul]

I don't think she'd want to sue you outside of court.
Lying to the courts and suing someone for a rape that didn't happen would be a felony, not sure which though, I'm guessing either fraud or perjury (if you do go to court), heck it might even be both.

Not very fluent with law lingo but I'm pretty sure a case of recording someone having sex without consent would give a lesser punishment than a felony. Either way you could counter-sue for defamation or stress and get your money back from the "recording without consent" dealio.

 

[an annoyed writer]

I'd say the film, having not been spread throughout the internet, generally qualifies as surveillance footage, and there's no law saying that you require consent to be filmed on someone else's private property, whether it be a school, store, or a person's home. She consented right as she walked through the door, so she has nothing to stand on. Now if you did it in her home? That is a grey area.

 

[Esotera]

I don't think making a film without another person's permission is illegal in the UK, if it's in a public place or at your property.

Anyway, it would sort of depend on what was in the video. Even if the sex was consensual it might not be seen that way in the court. I'd probably defend myself first and if I win the case absolutely, start criminal proceedings against her for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Although my gut feeling is that more evidence would be needed than just a tape.

 

[Henkie36]

Well, this is a difficult one. Coming back a month later, she is almost guaranteed to lose that case, and here's why: rape is extremely difficult to prove. I don't know exactly how the law in California works, but here in the Netherlands you are innocent until proven guilty. The disadvantage about this system is that rapists can walk free, because while sex is easy to prove, whether or not it's forced is more a case of her word against his.

The same is true for this fictional case. More then a month after the incident, forensic evidence of sexual activity between the two is gone, so the entire case is already hanging on her word. So it would be just as easy to deny the whole thing and walk away without even mentioning the video. If however, she can find proof that you had sex together, God knows how, the judge, police and jury would immediatley start to question her about why she would wait a month with the accusation. While this happens, the police would question her until the point where she breaks. Because something like a white lie is easy, but remembering every lie you tell for hours would require an extraordinary mind. (This has happened, Albert Speer, one of Hitler's top Nazi's, had a memory that was good enough to lie and remember everything, bailing him out of quite a lot of jailtime in the Trials of Neurenberg.) What is most likely to happen is that she would get tangled is the web of her own lies, the police would see through it and she would end up with a case of false accusation, giving you the initiative to either get a fat bonus out of it, or just leaving it be a make her promise never to speak of it again. It would most likely never see court.

Let's say she can clear that hurdle. Again, with forensic evidence gone, it's her word against yours. If she manages to convince police, judge and jury, when you break out that tape, her case is as good as dead. That would be the point where she would break out the privacy argument, but as stated, that would be a different case, hence she would miserably lose.

 

[MiskWisk]

Snip

Well said, however the rape in this hypothetical has already been disproved and now it is her sueing for the sex being filmed.

On-Topic: I agree with Dirty Hipsters sentiment. You used it for defence, didn't distribute and there are no laws in California (as far as I know) that say you must ask permission. So long as you could pass it off as surveillance it should be fine.

Off-topic again: Little specific OP, not telling us something

 

[puff ball]

what i would due is counter sue her for slander and defamation of character its an open and shut case really she claimed you did something horrible which you clearly didn't do and have evidence to prove such, emotional grievances out the wazoo.

as to who is morally in the wrong that is both of you but slightly more so her but not as much as you would like to think.i shudder to think how this freak occurrence would be used to justify this fictional characters decision to film his partners unawares.

 

[Guffe]

In Finland this has actually happened except the man asked if he could film them
She said no
He put down the phone but didn't turn the filming off, all noise could be heard but camera was faced downwards, and based on that the judge didn't think it was rape
Her only comment afterwards had been "smart bastard"
So not here, and if it's in the mans home he can film anything he wants

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

From http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/647.html:

Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other person.

So basically, since I think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, it actually is illegal to record someone else in your house. But in this case, I'd see how far her rape accusation takes her before I had to produce the tape. Somehow I don't think it would be that easy to prove a rape that didn't happen.

...unless the purpose was not to view the body/undergarments and instead for some other reason, which could be a thing in court. But the tape probably wouldn't be needed.

 

[Doclector]

I don't have much knowledge of california law, but honestly, if it was strictly a private video up until the point it had to be used as evidence, then the girl shouldn't have a leg to stand on, legally. It shouldn't even be a problem, and although it's a different court, you can bet the rape accusation will come into things from the defense, and that will greatly affect the jury's opinion of the girl.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

From http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/647.html:

Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other person.

So basically, since I think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, it actually is illegal to record someone else in your house. But in this case, I'd see how far her rape accusation takes her before I had to produce the tape. Somehow I don't think it would be that easy to prove a rape that didn't happen.

...unless the purpose was not to view the body/undergarments and instead for some other reason, which could be a thing in court. But the tape probably wouldn't be needed.

The bolded part is really important in that law. The only person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home is you. If you video tape her in her own bedroom, then it's illegal since she has a high expectation of privacy in her house. In a public place, or in the house of someone else, there is no expectation of privacy.

 

[norashepard]

I'd ask her why she thinks I raped her first. I mean, if I'm the kind of guy who films people without consent, I'm also probably the kind of guy who doesn't completely understand (or care about) consent in the first place.

Of course, she would have no proof of any rape anyway beyond her word. A month later is too late to do a rape kit, and assuming she wasn't blind drunk, she has no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she was raped. Even if there were a million witnesses that saw us together, she would still have no case. If she was drunk in public though, I'm boned!

Either way, I wouldn't use the video. It's sleazy. If I didn't rape her, there should accordingly be no evidence of rape so I'm in no danger, and if I did in fact rape her without knowing it, it would force her to relive it, which would be rude as hell.

 

[Domogo]

...snip... If she was drunk in public though, I'm boned!

Either way, I wouldn't use the video. It's sleazy. If I didn't rape her, there should accordingly be no evidence of rape so I'm in no danger, and if I did in fact rape her without knowing it, it would force her to relive it, which would be rude as hell.

This is my least favorite part of the grey area around rape, I hate that if one party is drunk and agrees that the other party is in full law sueable for rape. If you consent while drunk you are still consenting, you shouldn't go out and get so hammered that you begin sexing with strangers blindly, and then profit from it.


OT: I took a law class in high school (so helpful right?) and if I remember correctly this case would never make it to trial, even if it was a new judge (there are safeties put in place for this sort of thing), at this point she had clearly attempted to abuse law and even more so is now trying to use evidence from a different case to slander and deface you. Libel and slander are very hard to sue for successfully but in this case you could easily CRUSH her under it, especially in front of a jury.

 

[Towels]

I don't think she'd want to sue you outside of court.
Lying to the courts and suing someone for a rape that didn't happen would be a felony, not sure which though, I'm guessing either fraud or perjury (if you do go to court), heck it might even be both.

Actually Perjury seems unlikely. She would have to make some really bold claims in her testimony during the Criminal trial to contradict herself in the Civil hearing. Something like "He kidnapped me from my home with a gun and threatened to kill me if I didn't let him rape me" to "After we were finished at the bar, I agreed to let him sleep with me." It would be pretty unlikely she made claims so wildly different, but even then she could explain the inconsistencies through being under duress at the time of the criminal accusation. (Also, perjury only applies to court testimony under oath. It doesn't apply to whatever she said to the police.)

She could either insist that he raped her in the civil hearing, or say she overreacted with the accusations.

It wouldn't really be seen as fraud because the very existence of the criminal trial would bring attention to the fact that the Civil case is a retaliatory action, not something new.

Although her case would be damaged by contradicting testimony, I don't think it
would scuttle her Civil case alone. The guy in the criminal case should welcome a chance to have her testify in civil court if the video evidence wasn't good enough (which sounds unnecessary anyways). At worst, he would have to pay restitution for the privacy invasion, but anything she says in the Civil hearing would almost certainly be useful in the Criminal trial. There's always a defamation/slander counter case if you really want...

 

[Saelune]

Should get off the hook for rape charges, but should be found guilty for invasion/violation of privacy. Tape should be destroyed, and he should be fined, but not jailed. Much better than getting jailed for rape.

 

[Towels]

Either way, I wouldn't use the video. It's sleazy. If I didn't rape her, there should accordingly be no evidence of rape so I'm in no danger, and if I did in fact rape her without knowing it, it would force her to relive it, which would be rude as hell.

Rude is an understatement. I'm glad you brought this up. Attacking someone's character in court (especially like that) has very serious emotional consequences that you will feel. Court is not a sport where people forget about all the pregame trash talk. I strongly advise never doing this in any case if you can avoid it. You're not just burning bridges down that can be rebuilt later; you're nuking them into radioactive wastelands.

To be honest, I'm no longer convinced that showing the video is gauranteed to exonerate you anymore. If the guy got her drunk and did indeed date rape her, then all the video will show is a woman not resisting. In fact I'm starting to think that showing the video would actually HURT his case in that situation, because of how sleazy it would be.

 

[IRBaboon]

From http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/647.html:

Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other person.

So basically, since I think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, it actually is illegal to record someone else in your house. But in this case, I'd see how far her rape accusation takes her before I had to produce the tape. Somehow I don't think it would be that easy to prove a rape that didn't happen.

...unless the purpose was not to view the body/undergarments and instead for some other reason, which could be a thing in court. But the tape probably wouldn't be needed.

The bolded part is really important in that law. The only person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home is you. If you video tape her in her own bedroom, then it's illegal since she has a high expectation of privacy in her house. In a public place, or in the house of someone else, there is no expectation of privacy.

(B) Neither of the following is a defense to the crime specified
in this paragraph:
(i) The defendant was a cohabitant, landlord, tenant, cotenant,
employer, employee, or business partner or associate of the victim,
or an agent of any of these.

She was at least for the night a cohabitant and therefore had a reasonable expectation of privacy

 

[Caiphus]

(B) Neither of the following is a defense to the crime specified
in this paragraph:
(i) The defendant was a cohabitant, landlord, tenant, cotenant,
employer, employee, or business partner or associate of the victim,
or an agent of any of these.

She was at least for the night a cohabitant and therefore had a reasonable expectation of privacy

She is not the defendant in this circumstance though; she is the plaintiff.

That particular section applies if the man went to the woman's house and filmed her. He would then not be allowed to claim to have been a co-habitant for the night.

Unless I'm sorely mistaken, of course.

Edit: It's nice that three people jumped on you within fifteen minutes.