Legal Sparring in Rape Case
Legal Sparring in Rape Case Save Email Print
Lawsuit challenged

A | A | A

Tory Bowen, who is fighting to allow use of words like "rape" and "victim" in court, must prove to a federal judge by Tuesday that her lawsuit against a state judge was not frivolous.

"I have serious reservations about whether this action was commenced for the improper purpose of forcing Judge Cheuvront to recuse himself ... or for the improper purpose of generating pretrial publicity," U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Lincoln wrote in his order.

Kopf warned the 24-year-old Bowen and her attorneys that "sanctions may be imposed for failure to show cause." The sanctions could include dismissal of the case, fines or "such other sanctions as the court deems proper."

Ms. Bowen said in her complaint filed September 6 that Cheuvront, a Lancaster County district judge, violated her free speech rights by barring words including "rape," "victim" and "assailant" from the trial of Pamir Safi.

Safi, 34, was charged with first-degree sexual assault stemming from an encounter between Bowen and Safi at his apartment on Oct. 31, 2004. Safi says he and Bowen had consensual sex.

Bowen, a former student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln who lives in Washington, D.C., says she was too intoxicated to give consent and that Safi knew it.

Kopf said in his order, "There is something profoundly disturbing about the notion that a federal judge has the power to tell a state judge how to do his job, particularly when that state judge is presumably trying to do nothing more than protect the rights of a citizen who may have been wrongly accused of rape."

Kopf also expressed his doubts about whether the lawsuit "has any legal basis whatsoever."

"For example," he said, "I cannot find any precedent for a suit of this kind."

That, said Bowen's attorney Wendy Murphy of Boston, is precisely the point, because she couldn't find any guidance either.

More Stories
Omaha Police: Help Us Find Hit & Run Suspects

Court: Omaha Drug Bust Illegal

Girl Rescued From Pool Doing Better

Driver Gets Probation In Teen's Death

Motorcyclist Killed In Crash

Holiday Enforcement Nabs Drunk Drivers

Omaha Senator Considers Run For Congress

Lake Assault Could Bring Charges

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
By posting this comment I have read and agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy:
You must agree to the Terms of Service to continue.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Keith on Sep 17, 2007 at 02:57 PM
I posted questions to a previous article but didn’t get answers. Can anyone help me this time? Regarding this case, Temple Law Prof Eddie Ohlbaum said, “That’s the question, really, that the jury has to answer: whether there was a rape. So I’m not going to permit the use of the phrase until the jury determines at the end of the case that it was an action for rape.” I agree with his first sentence, but then, WHAT? If the charge is rape, why is “rape” prejudicial? I thought charges were to be read to the jury, but if they can’t say “rape” or “sexual assault”, how do they instruct the jury? Instead, it sounds like free reign for the jury. If the jury is to decide whether his actions fit a crime, how do they know what crime to pick? What’s to stop them from finding him guilty of a parking violation, robbery or lewd conduct? Is it like a game show where the judge tells them if they picked the right charge, or is he sentenced for whatever they find? Either way, something’s not right.

Posted by: E on Sep 14, 2007 at 12:38 PM
To those who say that she "should have known better," what about the man? Shouldn't HE know better than to have sex with a woman who was possibly too drunk to consent?? As for Ms. Bowen, she deserves the right to tell what she believed happened to her in court. To force her to say that the two "had sex" is to force her to all but lie on the stand. She believes it was rape. He says it was not. The jury should get to decide, but in order to make their decision, they should get to hear both sides. To force her to call it "sex," even "unwanted sex" or "non-consensual sex" is wrong. Would we force a robbery victim to say that the robber "took money without permission?" No! If Ms. Bowen has the courage to call it rape, she should be allowed to do so on the stand. Ms. Bowen should be proud of herself for coming forward when so many do not.

Posted by: Jerry on Sep 13, 2007 at 05:31 PM
I as a man, can not believe that I am reading this. RAPE is rape. That is why we have a courts, why are we waisting tax money to tell a person they can not use words that are used to explain what happened to her? Get real... Whats next?

Posted by: J on Sep 13, 2007 at 05:05 PM
Actually, Liz, freedom of speech is the issue here. She has the right to go into court and present her side of it. She can call it as she sees it and let the jury decide. To use the word "sex" instead of "rape" implied consent that she does not believe was there. That unfairly biases the jury in his favor.

Posted by: Anne on Sep 13, 2007 at 04:02 PM
Judging from some of the comments posted below, it is clear that women continue to be viewed, even by other women, as second class citizens in this country. NO WOMAN ASKS TO BE RAPED BECAUSE OF THE WAY SHE DRESSES, BEHAVES, OR HOW INTOXICATED SHE IS! Stop judging and blaming the victim. She has the right to a fair trial and freedom of speech. It doesn't matter how drunk she was or how provocatively she was dressed, rape is about power and control, not sex. I suppose Cathy and Amelia think an educated woman who isn't a prostitute or poor or homeless can't be raped. Give me a break.

Posted by: Terry on Sep 13, 2007 at 03:58 PM
Why not call it what it was RAPE. The judge really needs to put himself in her shoes

Posted by: Nichole on Sep 13, 2007 at 03:58 PM
Ladies, she made a mistake. That did not give him any reason to take advantage of her clouded judgment. Keep in mind that she was also 21 years old. Can you tell me that you all made nothing but perfect decisions when you were that young? I know that I've made mistakes. The point is when this woman gives her testimony, she should be free to express her feelings in her own words. Not allowing her to say that she felt raped would be like not allowing a police officer to use the words "theft" or "stolen" during a grand theft auto trial. Should the officer instead say that the suspect "borrowed" the car?

Posted by: Liz on Sep 13, 2007 at 03:24 PM
Freedom of speech is not an issue here. No one can go into court and declare another person guilty of a crime. She cannot take over the jobs of the prosecutor and the jury. It is the prosecutor's job to prove the elements of the crime so the jury can decide if a crime took place and if the accused is guilty. The jury also needs to determine if the accused would be able to know that she was too drunk to consent. Some people can reach a high level of intoxication and still give the impression of reasonable sobriety. This situation is quite common in alleged rapes and it seriously complicates the issue.

Posted by: Missy on Sep 13, 2007 at 03:13 PM
Ohh I'm sure she started her night by thinking. "Hmmm let me go get drunk and then put myself in a stupid situation like this" ---NOT. I agree that while what she did was not smart, it does not mean she deserved what happend to her. I think the judge showed complete prejudice by limiting her speach. Last time I heard, we were in the USA and could say the word rape. No matter what anyone says, when they say NO it means NO.

Posted by: LuLu on Sep 13, 2007 at 02:33 PM
Who is the victim? She went to his apartment stinking drunk and then cries rape. Even as a woman I do not buy this. Grow up. You drink you pay the consequences. You're lucky I would not be on the jury because I'm not buying it.

Posted by: Cathy on Sep 13, 2007 at 01:55 PM
An adult is responsible for his or her actions, drunk or otherwise. She could have said "no" when he wanted her to go back to his apt; then she wouldn't have to worry about what was or wasn't going to happen. She think he just wanted a "nightcap"? She knew and should have said no!

Posted by: Amelia on Sep 13, 2007 at 01:40 PM
I would hope an educated woman like Ms Bowen would know better than to get drunk and put herself in such a stupid position. Not condoning what the man at all but considering that she was so blind drunk she couldn't give consent, how many people give consent when they're blind drunk and don't remember. I'm doubting she is the poor "victim" she presents herself to be.

Posted by: Lynda on Sep 13, 2007 at 01:21 PM
For crying out loud! It's still freedom of speech. She may have been very drunk and yes, that is her fault but regardless of if he's proven guilty yet or not, that is a part of his charges. Spare me...what is he from the middle east so now people want to protect him? I wonder where the judges national alliegance lies!

Posted by: Kristi on Sep 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM
No means No! and Unconscious or near it means no! These Judges are punishing the victim and treating the jury as if they are new to wearing shoes. Let the jury decided if it is a sexual assault. They can see past the words and make a fair judgment. Isn't that why we have juries? If you want more rights in USA commit a crime. It is time that we as law-abiding citizens stand up and protect ourselves! We need to do this by our votes, legislation, and by our law-abiding actions.

Channel 6 News Features