Can someone help me? pwease? <3 [said help still needed]

Aichu

If I were you, I would call up a local Law firm, and ask them if they could give you some basic information.

Or have them meet with you.

Because as much as we know, a law firm could probably answer all this for you very quickly.

That's a good idea Q, if only I weren't so terribly socially awkward

I went to the library today and got some books out that look very helpful. Only problem is that they are all based on Canadian law and the story takes place in the US :P

Try reading "Lucky" by Alice Sebold. It's basically a memoir of when she got raped in NY.

As for the time, it depends I think, on when the victim tells the
authorities because usually underage rape victims have a certain amount
of time (10 years I think?) to tell the authorities before the fact is
null and void. However, with an adult it's better for someone to tell
immediately.

(Mind you this is only modern law in the US)

As for proceedings, it would go like any other criminal court trial and
if I had my law notes with me in Korea I would share them to you.
Unfortunately I don't o_o

In a rape trial, the victim is everything needed for evidence because usually they're the only witness aside from the rapist.

Trials can last as long as they need to last, if I'm correct. And usually most criminal trials end when the defense accepts a plea bargain. Or something. But if they wish to continue the trial then the prosecution needs to prove that the defense is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and never vice versa and blahblahblah

Thank yoooooou deathy <3 That was helpful.

Would they normally present medical evidence at the trial? How would the jury (or judge, if the defendant waived his right for a jury) come to conclude if the prosecutor was telling the truth or not?

at the end the judge would say to the jury do u have a verdict and then 1 person of the jury would say yes ur honor we find the defendant guilty or not guilty

Aichu wrote:Thank yoooooou deathy <3 That was helpful.

Would they normally present medical evidence at the trial? How would the jury (or judge, if the defendant waived his right for a jury) come to conclude if the prosecutor was telling the truth or not?

Yeah they would. (I highly suggest you read the book I mentioned before)
In 'Lucky' Alice takes all the tests to take crap and whatnot and takes pictures of her face and body and whatnot. If there's a weapon used in the criminal case it would also be presented, sometimes with a demonstration on how it was used, if I'm correct. Prosecution could take the victim's records from the hospital stay (including tests done after the rape and police pictures depicing the victim's state through a certain amount of time and whatnot)

Well, anyone that goes up to the stand has to place their hands on the bible and crap and swear to tell the truth or they might face serious charges later on as well.

As for the prosecution/defense lying, you really can't tell can you? It all depends on how they use the facts that are solidly known and how well they can twist them. For example:

fabricated case wrote:16-year old Jim Jones (underaged, unlisenced, on probation for larceny) speeds past Dunkin Donuts at 6:08PM on the 14th of July, 2008 with a black Merceded convertible where Officer Bob Smith was buying a small coffee coolatta.
Officer Smith saw the car speed by and quickly gets into his cop car and checks the speed of the car, and sees that it's a stunning 110mph, way above the local 40mph law. He decids to put his cop lights on, expecting the vehicle to stop but it doesn't.
Officer Smith makes a decision to chase the Mercedes and does so into a school parking light where the Mercedes crashes into a pole. He immediately gets out with his gun and yells for the driver to come out with his hands in the air.
The driver does get out (of the driver's side) but doesn't heed the officer's words and runs toward the school field, where there's a baseball game going on. Since Officer Smith is a 4th dan taekwondoist he immediately subdues the runaway and brings him to the cop station.
Further investigation reveals that the car's ignition was broken open with a screwdriver jammed into it.

Now, this case seems in favor of the prosecution. jim Jones is underaged, unlisenced, and on probation for larceny(which is a fancy word for stealing o_o). The car also seems pretty hopeless since it looks like someone broke in and rigged the car (or whatever you call it) with a screwdriver.

However, if I were defense, I could use those facts to my own advantage. For example,

defense idea, aka legal theory wrote:Jim Jones has a driver's permit but his parents are out on a business trip in France (of course, these facts have to be true). So he decided to take their car on a little joyride, something a reckless teenager does. Then this will bring the charge from auto theft to a lesser driving charge.

If the France thing doesn't work, you can use a concept of that TV show Pimp My Ride. The Mercedes IS Jim Jones' parents' car but the ignition has been messed up for a while now. The only way to start it up is with a screwdriver, something that a lot of people with messed up cars do.
And on the same day he knew that his girlfriend who lives three towns down has a lacrosse game. Hoping to cheer her on, he takes his parents' car and starts racing at the speed of light to root for her team. He is so focused on making it that he ignores the speed limits and Officer Jones.

Not as bad as auto theft of a nice, good car from a random stranger huh?

^
That wasn't a rape case but it's just an example of how I could twist the facts to make them work in my favor. You really can't fabricate facts when you're a lawyer because it's all a battle of facts based on a standard of law.

Ooh, but I just remembered.

Sometimes, if a rape victim sees his/her rapist even a bit, or can describe the assailant, the police could piece together a vague description of who the rapist might be. Then they will do a lineup like those shows where you can see them but they can't see you, and you'll pick a number(representing a suspect each) that you think is the person that raped you.

(Once again, this is ex. from "Lucky - Alice Sebold")

death-chan wrote:

Ooh, but I just remembered.

Sometimes, if a rape victim sees his/her rapist even a bit, or can describe the assailant, the police could piece together a vague description of who the rapist might be. Then they will do a lineup like those shows where you can see them but they can't see you, and you'll pick a number(representing a suspect each) that you think is the person that raped you.

(Once again, this is ex. from "Lucky - Alice Sebold")

However, you HAVE to (last time I checked, not too long ago) WRITE down the number of the person who you think it is, otherwise they can't charge him for anything, even if by your face, it's obvious who it was.

So that turns out to be a problem for a lot of cases, as the girl is normally prety young and can't go pass the mental touture to actually come out and say [write] who they thought it is.

^
Which is why when people as children are raped, the law permits them to keep quiet until they muster up enough mental courage until they're older to report it, usually without any problemos. When you're a legal adult, I think it's better for you to report it straightaway.

Aichu wrote:That's a good idea Q, if only I weren't so terribly socially awkward

^_^

Sorry, I guess I'd be a bit nervous about it

But it wouldn't slow me much

Good luck!

I shall look for that book next time I go to the library ^_^ It sounds like a good read.

I think I've read somewhere that a person does not necessarily have to the lineup when they've undergone a rape, though not doing so may hinder their progress. I'm sort of wondering how a lineup would work in a story like mine- the boy accused of rape was the defendant's close friend. The defendant claims he let the boy into his house, where he knocked him down and raped him. In that case, wouldn't it be kind of hard to mistake his identity?

Well, in that case you wouldn't have to do a lineup. Those are usually for people who were raped by someone that they didn't know and couldn't identify when the rape was going on.

Of course, when your plot is going to be about a boy accused of rape, it might become a rape case, and if the defendant is proclaimed innocent then it might turn into a slander case to the person bringing up this charge since he pinpointed that one person saying that "This person raped me", instead of "I got knocked down and raped by someone I don't know"

That might turn a bit complicated

I think it's around 68% of rape cases where the victim knows their assailant. (according to statistics found online, anyways). So it's not that uncommon. As far as the plot goes, the defendant is found guilty in the end.

I just need to get to that point first, heh heh ^^;