Reply #27: Maybe...

[punpirate]

... so. As I suggest, there are blanks here. Here's the rub. We only have one side of this event. Under normal circumstances, the woman, feeling with some surety that she had been the victim of date rape, and feeling sure of her position, would formally file charges.

At that point, the purported attacker would be detained and his statement taken, and the two statements would be forwarded to a district attorney's office for evaluation. It would be up to the DA to decide if to take that evidence to a grand jury (it being a capital crime). At that point, the details of the two statements would be gauged for relative concurrence or lack of it. The presumed victim would be called to testify to the grand jury, as might be the suspect.

On the basis of the two statements, whatever forensics were available, if any, and the testimony, the grand jury, if possible, would determine probable cause for indictment.

Then, and only then, would a defense attorney be able to build the sort of case you describe. The rest would depend upon the jury's perception of in-court testimony and whatever other evidence might be available.

In truth, because there's only one side of the story available, we can't adequately judge probable cause. A corresponding statement from the suspect would have to be available for scrutiny and comparison with the presumed victim's statement.

It's not easy to establish guilt in such a case, I admit. A good criminal lawyer could establish doubt. But, bringing such a case to trial would depend on the degree and kind of disparities in the statements of the two people involved. Big disparities, on the details, would favor the victim and probably ensure an indictment. At that point, as you suggest, a good criminal lawyer could create doubt, but after that, who knows? Too many details lacking to say much more than that.

Cheers.