Lawyer tells rape trial jury women are 'good' at lying

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Lawyer tells rape trial jury women are 'good' at lying
Updated 5:10 pm, Friday, April 21, 2017





MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — A defense lawyer is being criticized for telling a Tennessee jury that women are "especially good" at lying "because they're the weaker sex."

The Commercial Appeal in Memphis reports (http://memne.ws/2pmNhN3) a jury Friday found wealthy businessman Mark Giannini not guilty of three counts of rape. The newspaper said the woman he was accused of raping left crying and screaming.

 
Attorney Steve Farese made the comments during closing arguments in the case. Giannini had been accused of raping the woman when she came to his house for a job interview. Farese maintains that the sex was consensual and has questioned the woman's credibility.

Memphis Area Women's Council executive director Deborah Clubb calls Farese's comments "absolutely despicable."

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Lawyer-tells-rape-trial-jury-women-are-good-at-11088945.php

[Shrike47]

1. While you might be disgusted by the argument, the lawyer's client was acquitted.

The lawyer apparently read his jury.

[SunSeeker]

6. It doesn't take a genius to "read" a jury's favoring rape culture arguments.

It just takes an immoral scumbag to play to it.


Much like appealing to a jury's racism to acquit a white man for the murder of a black man. It doesn't take a genius, it just takes a scumbag.

[oldcynic]

2. RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE

[Judi Lynn]

3. Defense Lawyer In Millionaires Rape Trial Says Women Can Be Especially Good At Lying (UPDATE)

04/21/2017 06:27 pm ET

A jury acquitted the tech mogul of rape.
By David Lohr


UPDATE: 6:33 p.m. ― Tennessee tech mogul Mark Giannini was found not guilty on Friday of raping a woman who had applied for a housekeeping job at his Memphis mansion.

Previously:

A 28-year-old mother of four says a wealthy Tennessee tech mogul raped and choked her during a 2014 job interview at his Memphis mansion.

The millionaire’s lawyer says she wasn’t raped — she’s a woman and “women can be especially good at lying.”

. . .

Detectives who went to Giannini’s gated home on June 23, 2014, said he refused to allow them onto the property. When he later presented himself to investigators, he was “perspiring profusely and had fresh cuts and scratches on his legs,” according to a detective’s sworn statement.

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/millionaire-rape-trial-women-lying_us_58fa6480e4b06b9cb916ca13?section=us_crime

[shenmue]

4. What a piece of shit

!!!!!

[NastyRiffraff]

5. Sadly, this is not unheard of

or even unusual, even now. We're not that far from the days when a man accused of rape could parade a few of his friends in the courtroom and have them testify that they'd all have sex with the woman.

I guess men are also "good at lying."

And they wonder why women are angry.

[SunSeeker]

7. Steve Farese should be disbarred. nt

[Jim Lane]

11. It's called zealous representation and it's not grounds for disbarment.

The idea of the adversary system is that each side goes all-out to present its case. It's for the judge and the jury, not the lawyers, to arrive at the truth of the matter.

There are limits, such as suborning perjury. But making arguments that are logically weak is not something that's prohibited.

So, no, under current rules of ethics this lawyer won't be disbarred. It's open to question, though, whether he made the best choice for his client. Yes, he got the acquittal, but I would think that particular comment would have done more harm than good.

[SunSeeker]

12. A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court.

Resorting to racism or sexism is akin to suborning perjury. It also denies the victim her constitutional rights.

We have let far too much misbehavior pass as "zealous advocacy."

[Jim Lane]

13. Current standards of legal ethics are not in accord with your interpretation.

Suborning perjury is a crime. Making sexist or racist remarks is not. The lawyer's zealous advocacy must be within the bounds of the law, a restriction that rules out subornation of perjury but not arguments like the one made here.

There is no constitutional right to never be accused of lying. The defendant in a criminal case, on the other hand, does have a constitutional right to counsel and to confront the witnesses against him, which means that his lawyer is entitled to argue that a witness is lying.

I referred to "current rules of ethics" because arguments have been made for changes, but they wouldn't be retroactive. This lawyer won't (and shouldn't) be disbarred for conduct that was permissible when he did it.

[SunSeeker]

16. There is a constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Every accuser is in essence accused of lying by the defense. This was more than that. She was accused of lying BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN, not because her story made no sense or was contradicted by the facts. In her case, her story did make sense and was thoroughly supported by the facts, witnesses and other evidence. The defense lawyer, judge and jury, determined that the victim is not to be believed BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN. She was denied equal treatment under the law because of her sex.

[Jim Lane]

17. Your accusation against the jury goes far beyond the facts in the linked article

You write:

In her case, her story did make sense and was thoroughly supported by the facts, witnesses and other evidence. The defense lawyer, judge and jury, determined that the victim is not to be believed BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN.

In a case where the issue is consent, it often comes down to a he-said-versus-she-said situation, with a paucity of other evidence to help a jury decide what the truth is. For this case, I clicked through to read the linked article and there's very little information in it about the other evidence. Unless you have additional information, you can't assume that the jurors (most of whom were women) disbelieved her just because she's a woman.

In fact, you can't even assume that the jurors disbelieved her. The judge presumably charged them about the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. If a juror concluded, "I think it's more likely than not that she's telling the truth but I do have some doubts about it," then that juror should vote to acquit. How often jurors actually follow such an instruction is, of course, a different question.

ETA: One of the people quoted in the article makes the point that a remark like this might be more likely to alienate the jurors than to persuade them. As I said in #11, I had the same reaction. Along with zealous representation, the lawyer has an obligation to represent his client competently. That means he's not allowed to vent his personal prejudices at the expense of his client's interests.

[SunSeeker]

18. Farese knew how to pick a jury. An overworked prosecutor is no match for that shit.

Unlike the victim, Giannini was rich and was willing to pour his millions into his defense. With that kind of money, the defense overwhelms the prosecution. A well paid jury consultant will get you the jury you want. And Farese needed a jury that would not believe the woman, i.e. was prejudiced against women. Female jurors can be just as sexist as men. Farese knew the facts looked bad for his client. As Farese said, "We knew we had a difficult hill to climb." http://www.commercialappeal.com/videos/news/courts/2017/04/21/videos-trial-of-mark-giannini/100565990/

The facts indeed were bad for Giannini:

The woman told sheriff’s investigators she was raped after she allowed Giannini to drive her to his home on June 19, 2014, for an overview of a housecleaning job, according to court documents. She said Giannini gave her a drink containing an unknown substance and began kissing her aggressively and pulling her hair.

The victim alleges Giannini performed several sexual acts on her, and at some point “put his hands around her throat and she blacked out,” Banti said in court. “She woke up in the hospital.”

Detectives who went to Giannini’s gated home on June 23, 2014, said he refused to allow them onto the property. When he later presented himself to investigators, he was “perspiring profusely and had fresh cuts and scratches on his legs,” according to a detective’s sworn statement.

A search of Giannini’s mansion turned up more than $16,000 in cash, 24 firearms, and various pills, including Viagra, Xanax and hydrocodone, police said. Detectives said they also found baskets of women’s panties, a sheriff’s badge, sex toys and nipple clamps.

Two women who used to work for Giannini also have accused him of rape, and he awaits trial in those cases. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/millionaire-rape-trial-women-lying_us_58fa6480e4b06b9cb916ca13?section=us_crime

So Farese dove straight for the gutter. Once he got the jury he wanted, he fought dirty because he knew he could with that judge and jury.

[treestar]

20. True this is like the

Trashing of Hillary for representing that defendant accused of a heinous crime.

However his making that statement does indicate he is a misogynistic. He could defend the guy by making that argument, supported by evidence in the case about the particular accuser.

And it is weird anyone would think a woman would put herself through a rape trial and get anything positive from it these days.

[PatSeg]

8. Yeah, you know who is really good at lying?

Accused rapists!

[sarisataka]

14. And lawyers...

[PatSeg]

15. Yep

How could I overlook the most obvious?

[TomCADem]

9. Trump: Women 'get it better' than men

With Trump as President, you have to wonder whether blaming women for the sexual assault for men is the new normal.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279132-trump-women-get-it-better-than-men

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said on Saturday that women “get it better” than men.

Speaking at a rally in Spokane, Wash., Trump was railing against the criticism he gets for accusing Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton of playing the "woman card."

“I mean all of the men, we’re petrified to speak to women anymore. We may raise our voice,” he said. “You know what, the women get it better than we do, folks.

“Look, we’re living in the real world. This political correctness is killing our country.”

[Dammit Jim]

10. Steve Farese, Future Republican Heavyweight

[treestar]

19. If he tried to accuse the particular

Woman in the case of that, it might be one thing. But saying that of women generally is like saying black men are more likely to commit crime. I don't know if that is argument not allowed.

[SunSeeker]

21. Exactly. Sure seems to me the victim's constitutional rights were violated.

There is a constitutional right to equal protection under the law and this women did not get equal protection. Every accuser is in essence accused of lying by the defense. This was more than that. She was accused of lying because she is a woman, not because her story made no sense or was contradicted by the facts. In her case, her story did make sense and was thoroughly supported by the facts, witnesses and other evidence. The jury was essentislly instructed not to believe the victim because whe is a woman.. She was denied equal treatment under the law because of her sex.

[KWR65]

22. The law favors the 1%

If this had been John Doe that cleaned offices for a living he would have had a plea deal agent public defender make a plea.

[Portland_Anni]

23. He takes advantage of bigot based fiction to slight women

So his ridiculous pandering as to how good he is managing 'male livestock' which is what he seems to think is the basic condition off women is disgusting and unacceptable.