|
Supreme Court won't hear Garron ruling
By The Associated Press,
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
TRENTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to consider a plea to reverse a New Jersey court ruling that prosecutors and women's rights advocates said weakened the state's rape shield law.
The justices in Washington did not make public the reason they would not hear the case.
Attorney General Peter C. Harvey filed the appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court in December, saying the state ruling put victims at risk of being targeted first by a rapist and then by defense lawyers.
Harvey said Monday evening that he and others had been "guardedly optimistic" that the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case and that only time would tell whether there has been a "chilling effect" upon victims.
"We hope that this ... does not discourage women who have been victims of rape and other sexual assault to come forward and report incidents for fear that their past sexual history or past involvement with the defendant will be examined in open court," Harvey said.
In a 5-1 ruling issued July 24, the New Jersey justices said defendants in sexual assault cases have a constitutional right to present evidence to support a defense that may include examples of prior contact with the victim.
The ruling applies to past flirting or advances toward the person accused of rape, and does not allow for testimony about the accuser's prior sexual conduct with others.
Elizabeth Volz, president of NOW New Jersey said she was disappointed but not surprised that the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal because it is a state issue.
The organization fought the New Jersey ruling because the law unfairly exposes a woman's sexual behavior in an attempt to lower her credibility.
"The reason this is so important is that individuals shouldn't be tried on previous sexual history," Volz said.
The challenge to the law was brought by Anderson Garron, 38, a Bridgeton police officer found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman. Garron, who had been in prison for three years, was released in August and granted a new trial.
During his trial, Garron alleged he had consensual sex with a woman who worked at the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office. He also maintained that she had been making passes at him and only pressed charges because he refused to return what he believed was a sexual favor.
Women's rights advocates protested the July ruling, saying it could force courts to consider a woman's sexual history, including past consensual acts with the accused. That could make some victims afraid to report crimes, advocates said.
Legal experts said the state Supreme Court had to change the law because decades of legislative amendments had put the statute well beyond what federal courts called acceptable.
Copyright 2004 Bridgeton News. |
