Ky. teen facing charges for naming her attackers

[Galraedia]

LOUISVILLE - A 17-year-old Kentucky girl who was upset by the plea deal reached by a pair of teenagers who sexually assaulted her is now facing a contempt charge for tweeting their names in violation of a court order.

Savannah Dietrich of Louisville told The Courier-Journal she is frustrated by what she feels is a lenient deal for her attackers. After posting the names on Twitter, Dietrich wrote, "I'm not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell."

The Associated Press does not normally report the names of sexual assault victims, but Dietrich and her parents say they do not want to shield her identity and want her case to be public.

The boys' attorneys have asked a judge to hold Dietrich in contempt for violating the confidentiality of a juvenile hearing and the judge's order not to speak about it.

Read more: http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/news-northern-kentucky/Ky-teen-facing-charges-for-naming-her-attackers/-/13608792/15642314/-/112bwylz/-/index.html#ixzz21Skdvx7e

[Nevernose]

1. I've tried to respond to this post a couple of times

But I don't even have the proper words.

[justanidea]

2. Absolutely disgusting.

What authority does the judge have to block her from talking about this???

[jberryhill]

4. The judge hasn't done anything

[leftyohiolib]

5. the state gave that power to the judge. gag order . but you'd think this wouldb a 1st amendmnt issue

[jberryhill]

17. The judge hasn't done a thing

The boys' attorneys have asked for a contempt ruling.

Juvenile cases, in general, need no "gag order", since details of juvenile cases are not generally public record, and some states have standing laws against the disclosure of juvenile court proceedings.

[jberryhill]

3. This story is really misleading

"The boys' attorneys have asked a judge to hold Dietrich in contempt"

In other words, she is not facing "charges" for jack shit. The attorneys for the attackers have asked for a contempt ruling which, even if granted, could result in not a whole lot in any practical sense.

[johnwb]

6. Devil's Advocate

Ok if the boys were underage and the reason for the plea bargain was there was no credible evidence. Let's say for arguments sake the plea was providing alcohol to minors not sexual assault. What right does she have to slander underage boys? Think about what happened at Duke. We do not have any much less all the facts. In certain states it is illegal to give the names of minors in a court proceeding.

[truebrit71]

8. They took pictures of the rape and shared them with friends...

...no credible evidence? Try again.

[Mosby]

9. The prosecutors have evidence

From the article:

Dietrich told the paper she was assaulted in August 2011 by two boys she knew when she passed out after drinking at a gathering. She learned months later that pictures of the assault were taken and shared with others.

The boys must have had really good, connected lawyers.

[redqueen]

11. Your post makes me sick. nt

[TeamPooka]

12. there was evidence that's why they pled out

you are just making up a rationalization here
this court process is done and the boys will be sentenced.
WTF is your point?

[johnwb]

15. Let me be clear

I was giving several reasons for such an order. In my state it is illegal to disclose the name of a minor in a juvenile court setting. I do not agree with the ruling in this case just being DA. If an adult discloses a minor's name in my state about JV court they can be charged victim or not.

[Odin2005]

7. Rapists should be publically NAMED and SHAMED, I don't care if they are under 18.

Instead these assholes attack the victim!

[get the red out]

10. Agree

I agree absolutely, shamed and shunned and treated publicly like the shit they are.

[TeamPooka]

13. ditto

[siligut]

14. In total agreement

Disgusting assholes, they aren't learning anything from this.

[Dr. Strange]

16. Oh, they're learning something, I think.

Thanks to their lawyer's request, these boys' names are popping up all over the internet.