Baltimore Man Acquitted on Fourth Sexual Assault Charge in Two Years

[jimmy olsen]

So Beeb, what's your strategy when you're accused is confident and his victims are traumatized and consequently don't look as good on the stand?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/10/29/nelson_bernard_clifford_baltimore_man_acquitted_on_fourth_sexual_assault.html

Baltimore Man Acquitted on Fourth Sexual Assault Charge in Two Years

Last week I wrote about Nelson Bernard Clifford, a Baltimore man who had been acquitted on three separate sexual assault charges since 2011, and was about to stand trial on a fourth. Each time, the state had DNA evidence linking Clifford to the crime scene, and victims who claimed that Clifford had attacked them in their homes; each time, Clifford took the stand and claimed that the sexual contact was consensual. Clifford appeared confident and poised on the witness stand. His accusers did not, and that apparently made all the difference. In my piece, I noted that the same tactics that helped Clifford beat the rap on the earlier cases could well work to his advantage in this latest trial.

I was right. The Baltimore Sun reports that, on Friday, Clifford was acquitted yet again. As with the other cases, Clifford claimed that the so-called assault had been consensual, and the jury apparently believed him—much to the chagrin and exasperation of the city, which must be wondering exactly what it needs to do to get a conviction. "When evidence is there, Juries need to convict," the Baltimore police union wrote on Twitter. They'll have an opportunity to try again: The state's attorney has refiled charges against Clifford for two alleged sexual assaults from 2007.

[Ideologue]

Tim, why do you hate the burden of proof demanded by our constitution?

Just because a guy is able to (probably) rape people and his victims have insufficient evidence to prove that they did not consent does not mean we need to start locking people up willy-nilly.  It just means we need to film everything and wire every room for sound, like they do in the UK.

[Barrister]

So Beeb, what's your strategy when you're accused is confident and his victims are traumatized and consequently don't look as good on the stand?

Spend lots of time prepping your witnesses.

We had a debate here about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of 'demeanour' evidence.  This goes to show you - it aint worth much.

Plus at some point the state can start looking at calling similar fact evidence on this guy.

[DGuller]

How much does this guy spend on defense lawyers?  Wouldn't it be cheaper to hire sex prostitutes instead?

[Eddie Teach]

But then he might go to prison.

[Ideologue]

He should go to the sex farm for sex prostitutes.

[Neil]

Tim, why do you hate the burden of proof demanded by our constitution?

Because written constitutions are immoral?

[The Minsky Moment]

ust because a guy is able to (probably) rape people and his victims have insufficient evidence to prove that they did not consent does not mean we need to start locking people up willy-nilly. 

The article seems to suggest that the problem is not lack of evidentiary sufficiency, but rather that jurors may be relying too heavily upon and drawing misleading conclusions from their perceptions of witness demeanor.
A witness who testifies confidently or forthrightly could be telling the truth, but alternatively they could just be very well prepared or they could be a sociopath or pathological liar.
A witness who appears hesitant could be prevaricating, or alternatively they could be ill-prepared, nervous about confronting a violent attacker in person, or traumatized.