I believe him, it is completely plausible that as he says she took off her clothes and invited him to sex. It's completely possible that she does not remember this because she was in a blackout, it's also possible that she seemed much more lucid than she was, Hasn't this ever happened to anyone? This has happened to me. I have drank to the point where I can't remember parts of the evening but friends have told me I seemed fine, I would never go to the police if I couldn't remember the circumstances because it's totally possible that I initiated it and the consequences could be that the person would go to prison, an extremely serious consequence. I am a woman and a feminist and I don't think those two thoughts are incongruent.
49
A woman is very obviously intoxicated and then a man has sex with her.
Am I missing something? A drunk woman cannot give consent.
25
Mr Khan should be ashamed and face up to his crime of rape.
It was rape. Rape by a thug who saw an opportunity to control a situation to his advantage.
A gentleman would have seen that she was safely taken to her dorm or home and left.
If he were assaulted and had worn a tarzan outfit, it would be his fault?
What was his alcohol level?
Again, a gentleman would have put her safety first. He would have said no.
Rapists use opportunity and vunerability of the victim to commit their crime. He committed rape and the realization will one day eat him alive.
15
This is not reporting. It's propaganda.
Would you expect his lawyers NOT to mount a vigorous defense?
Isn't a defense lawyer supposed to raise doubts about the accusation when his client is facing a prison term for a crime he says he did not commit?
What happened to the Times' journalistic ethics? Report the news, not your political outrage. Appalling.
36
One story about millions of women in other countries demanding equality in representation, in opportunity and pay. Two stories about college date rape and grope-y professor in US. Russian trolls couldn't do better to sow division by focusing on manipulative stories on fringe issues.
5
I remember dating in college in the mid 1960s. Sometimes there was sex. Most of the time there wasn't. At one college there were "honor dorms" for women, meaning no house mother. If the women wanted to have a guest overnight there was no one to curb behavior. At most of the men's residences there were no restrictions on anything. Getting drunk was normal but not required. At Penn State I dated a coed who was interested in sex but insisted we stay at motel off campus. I also remember the men who were total braggarts and would try to make a conquest regardless of a woman's protestations. I remember one coed who was very bitter over being compelled to have sex by more than one aggressive man. I don't remember charges be bought against anyone for sex wanted or unwanted. Looking back there should have been. Especially at the frat houses. I think women should have been very wary of going to frat parties. I would have found this young man guilty. Bruised thighs aren't a result of fun. A vomiting coed is a victim not a willing partner. She was raped.
19
So from the comments here I have gleaned: 1) If a woman is drunk, she is legitimately rape-able, and the idea that a man would simply NOT rape her is too extraordinary to even consider. 2) If a man is drunk, he may be excused for taking liberties with a woman's body, even though a drunk woman may not be excused for having liberties taken upon her body. 3) If a jury dismisses the charge of rape, then ipso facto the woman should be charged with making a false accusation, because the jury/court is always right. I was raped in 1982, and given that I knew the perpetrator, had drunk with him, was wearing party clothes, and had willingly gone to his house, I knew better than to bother reporting anything, so I never did. Clearly, on this International Women's Day, nothing has changed when it comes to relying on the halls of "justice." #metoo #timesup #enough
18
I sincerely believe that 90% of the rapes that occur on college campuses across the nation could be eliminated if the alcohol and the drugs were also eliminated. I'm not excusing the behavior of this man or this woman. I believe he is guilty of rape. If he was so interested in having sex with her why didn't he wait until she slept off her stupor and was able to consent? Why did he want to have sex with women who was vomiting, literally falling over drunk and probably not smelling all that good either after the vomiting. He sound like he was just desperately horny and couldn't control himself and here was an ideal opportunity. A drunk woman would not resist all that much if at all and that's what was going through Mr. Kahn's mind. It was easy. It was rape.
Khan is very, very guilty and should be sitting in prison. We're not hearing any testimony of Mr. Kahn's remorse or regret are we? I would have loved to be the prosecutor of this case. Kahn acted without regard for the welfare, the condition, the feelings of the victim. Sex doesn't just happen and it doesn't leave your partner bruised and wondering what happened.
I hope that Yale refuses to re-admit Mr. Kahn.
14
The weight of the mob, any mob including metoo mobs, is sufficient to pollute any thinking process associated with it. Jury did it's job, and here we have a lynching avoided.
20
Congratulations Mr Saifullah Khan. I am very happy for you, and I hope you a good, prosperous, and peaceful future. I hope you have thanked your mother for her prayers, and thanked ALLAH for his mercy for HE saved you from a life sentence in prison. Go light a candle in a Church and offer a prayer in the Mosque. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was going to put you in a prison for life at the words of a lying accuser who has yet to be named.
And remember NO ONE can criminally try you a second time. This part is over.
After you have had a moment to fully understand the blessing that you have received, move forward to fix everything else. Have your lawyers work to quash your arrest record, erase all traces of this arrest record, no fingerprints, no DNA, nothing in any database anywhere or by any agency. Get back in the university to complete your education and have everyone compensate you for the wrong that has been done to you.
Everything has to be unwound to the time before this nightmare started for you. And as a benefit to the rest of the world, pursue to get the name / photo of your accuser splashed everywhere so everyone knows what a liar looks like. I see you walking ALONE and people from different news agencies snapping your pictures as if you are some monster. We need to see what she looks like. They say they cannot prove you are not guilty, well YOU ARE NOT GUILTY.
10
"she saw used condoms on the floor", so at least the guy was not impaired enough to forget this.
3
“It is very intentionally working to trigger victim-blaming and stereotypes and misconceptions about sexual assault,” she said. “You must be interested in sexual behavior just based on how you’re dressed and drinking.”
I invite you to Google "drunk collage girls" or "drunk collage selfies".
“If she wanted to do that so bad, put a nail in the coffin, wouldn’t she have given you a more coherent story?” he asked the jury.
Most liars know to fabricate as little as possible. Police interrogation work to get the subject to lie asap. Once you prove they have lied you them in the palm of your hand.
There is no excuse for bullying let alone sexual assault, but people who do not drive drunk do not get arrested of crash their cars. If that makes any sense to you.
Why dosen't this article specify the time between the incident and the reporting to the police? How she lost her friends, her cell phone, had never been drunk before, was so drunk she was repeatedly barfing.
None of this mitigates how wrong rape is, but is does ask questions.
Did her friends testify? Why did she not call them as she realized what bad shape she was in. How many readers have ever been so drunk that you would not realize your clothes were being removed and someone was having sex with you? I've had a number of drinks a few times in my youth and never came close.
Sorry I just have a difficult time understanding the circumstances repeated over and over again on campuses across the nation.
4
Those questions are not all wrong.
If I go to a party, in a deliberately sexy outfit, drink, flirt, go to a man's room with him - it's not unreasonable to say that it looks like my intent at that point in time was to have sex. Later, what happened inside the bedroom is a matter of he said/she said, without proof.
If they're both drunk, who is to say who raped who? Who was the sexual aggressor - and can they be considered at fault when they too couldn't make a legitimate consent? Not every unpleasant experience, not every time you do something stupid under the influence can be blamed criminally on someone else. I think we've gone a bit too far the other way. No means no - always. But drunk sex is sometimes just drunk sex.
21
You know how many false rape allegations have occurred in the last 5 years? I’m not trying to deter women, but many times women regret sex.
13
I don't know how you could see CC tv footage of a staggering woman being held up by a man, have it come out that "he was with her as she vomited", and think that the sex that she claims she did not want was consensual. I have been around more intoxicated vomiting people than anyone would ever care to have, and I'm pretty sure I never saw any of them that came out of it super randy and ready to rock. Even the ones that went into it that way. Add in a staggering woman on a video and the fact that she went straight to the rape center, and you have a rape. If #metoo or #timesup have crossed a line somewhere, this most definitely is not it. A shame and a travesty of judgment that will help to ensure violations like this continue.
13
The sad reality is that the victim's conduct is on trial far more than the defendant's in this rape case. Because she was intoxicated and dressed in a cat suit, she is impliedly at fault for what happened to her. Mr. Khan, who knew she was drunk, watched her throw up and had to help her to walk, had to know that she was in no condition to give any kind of consent to sexual contact.
If this case shows that women must dress as fairy tale princesses and drink sodas to avoid intimations and assertions that they "want" whatever happens to them should a "rescuer" decide to take advantage of their intoxication, then the prosecution of rape has once again reverted to the Dark Ages. Abusing the victim should not be permitted as a defense strategy in ANY criminal case, but particularly not in rape cases where willingness to report is so low from the start.
Most victims know their rapists. What kind of "consent" leaves a young woman so angry and bruised that she calls police?
9
Particularly given that he was found not guilty in the trial, it is extremely biased reporting to provide his name and picture without providing hers. If there is an inclination to keep hers confidential, fine, then keep his confidential as well, and don't publish a picture.
29
Two very drunk people. Would any amount of alcohol awareness training make a difference?
5
A simple fact for all to understand, when you drink or take drugs to the extent that your judgement is impaired, expect that you will will make bad decisions and other people can readily make you a victim.
9
really tired of hearing about how someone got completely wasted and then something untoward occurred. Of course, it sounds like a tawdry mess, but, hey, at least she didn't walk into traffic in her condition. That could end very badly. To all males and females, stop binge drinking!!!
9
Interesting that the NY Times gives all of the side of the accuser but only touches on the defense where it appears to be outrageously "victim blaming." In this case, the accuser went to a Halloween party (yes, dressed in a very sexual outfit), got drunk, and went back with the defendant to the entry way to BOTH their dorm rooms He says that he said good night and turned and swiped his card into his dorm entryway and then she called out to him and told him to come back and come into her room. Records show that he did swipe his card into his entryway and then 20 seconds later, swipe his card into her entryway. So it certainly supports that side of his story. He then says that he entered her dorm room where she took off all her clothes and began hugging and kissing her and he got "excited." Look, I'm no defender of rapists, but it DOES matter how a woman behaves because there is such a thing as consensual sex and outside of a legal contract it is reasonable for men to believe that consensual sex is being entered into under certain circumstances. And it IS relevant for the defense to ask about those circumstances. And dressing in a highly sexual way, going to a party and connecting up with some man, asking him to come into your bedroom, and taking off all your clothes and kissing him is about as direct as you can get. And of course, virtually all of the time the catalyst is underage drinking to which the University turns a blind eye.
32
What kind of man has sex with an unconscious woman? What kind of man has sex with a woman who has repeatedly vomited all over herself?
Women, please practice the 'no girl left behind' rule. If your friend is too drunk to stand, TAKE HER HOME. Don't let that guy who kinda makes you uncomfortable but seems harmless enough, take your friend home. It might ruin your good time but we have to protect each other. Nobody else will.
Rape isn't a woman's problem; it's a man's problem. Men have to stop thinking that sex is something they TAKE from a woman. Men have to stop thinking of sex as a 'conquest' or a 'notch on their belt'. The only way to stop rape is for men to stop raping.
I hope that there aren't any women who read about this case and think that dressing less 'sexy' will protect them from rape. Children are raped. Nuns are raped. Soccer moms and old ladies are raped. I have no doubt that the same thing would have happened even if the victim had been wearing a nice Cinderella costume. Turning a man on isn't consenting to sex. Making out with a man isn't consenting to sex. Men have to stop holding women responsible for their sexual responses.
Legally, Mr. Khan isn't a rapist. We live under the rule of law. But if a man has to drag a woman through the mud to prove he isn't a rapist...I hope the victim is being supported and receiving help to deal with what happened to her. Don't let what happened to you define who you are.
7
I was a criminal defense lawyer for 35 years. It is impossible to understand the outcome of a trial without sitting in the courtroom and hearing the witnesses testify. The jury weighs credibility of the witnesses. It could be they didn't believe the accuser. Just reading some facts in the newspaper is not enough. The jury got it right.
32
Shame on Yale for suspending this student without due process on a mere acusation. This reminds me of the Duke Lacrosse case where liberal administrators declare guilt before any trial takes place because it fits their latest theme/agenda.
The real victim here is Mr. Khan. His life has been ruined despite the jurors finding him NOT guilty. But what if he was guilty? Sorry, but in this country we do not get to trash people on our personal thoughts. We have trials for a reason.
Why did the defense present her attire at the trial?
Well, you see, the plan was to put Mr. Khan in a prison cell with other violent criminals for a very very long time and it's only fair that the jury gets to see ALL of the evidence. Her story was just not credible and as the female juror stated, his was (and the time clock showed that).
17
This article does not present much of the relevant evidence the jurors heard. If you Google Mr. Khan's name, and read the other articles about the trial, many of them pretty much copy the Times article, but some describe in more detail what the jury heard. One reports that they had known each other for sometime, had dated before, and the woman had sent Mr. Khan a romantic sonnet at one point. Another describes Mr. Khan's testimony in more detail, including his leaving her at her door, only to be invited back in; that she asked him to try to find a friend of hers who had been drinking too much, which he did, and couldn't find her; when he returned to report he couldn't find the friend, she answered the door naked, invited him back in, and then sat on his lap naked, after which they engaged in oral sex; she asked him to come to bed, and then asked him if he had any condoms and after he said he had some in his room, she asked him to go get them; after he did, they had intercourse. More evidence is detailed at https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Defendant-in-Yale-sex-assault-tr...
The jury included 3 men and 3 women. They heard all the evidence, and took a little over 3 hours to reach a verdict of not guilty on all four counts.
26
People will look at the face of the assailant, a Muslim older male student in a prestigious Ivy League University and automatically assume he is guilty because of the time and place where are living amid the #metoo movement. Fortunately, justice won and unsubstantiated accusations didn't ruin this innocent man.
14
Read the various account's on the New Haven Register.
It strikes me that the only person being attacked for not gaining 'consent' is the male student accused of rape.
Her friends claim that she was drunk...then they left her.
Her friends claim that she was drunk and texted her to make sure she was OK. She replied "yeah", and that was sufficient for them to believe.
The accused claimed this was consensual, but his words are not to be trusted as he is a rapist.
Weren't her friends guilty of the same thing that the accused rapist is guilty of? Not knowing how to value a drunk persons words?
The problem, it seems to me, is alcohol and the resultant impact on judgement.
How in the world are we, as a third party, supposed to interpret the private interactions of 2 drunk people? How can you presume one person guilty without evidence, unless it simply reflects our own bigotry.
16
Just sickened to read that the victim was accused of "being flirtatious", and, heaven help us--wore a black cat Holloween costume. This is a god awful account of a young woman first victimized by her rapist, then victimized by the rapist's defense team. Flirting, and wearing even a provactive outfit are not justifications for rape. As a clearly inexperienced drinker, the victim was not capable of making informed consent after she had been drinking--and her rapist must have known that. It seems that he took advantage--wasn't he "following" her?
The trial was a disgusting display that the #metoo movement has a long way to go!
5
Since he hadn't finished college and is living with family, I'd like to know how the accused afforded such a well known criminal lawyer such as Norman Pattis. I wasn't in the court room and can't make a subjective opinion on this, but in this instance, a high priced lawyer who can press a case with researchers, assistants and associates can make a big difference. Did the plaintiff have the same quality representation? Please don't tell me this case was pro bono for Pattis.
When no means no, is this stressed at orientation at Yale? If someone is vomiting, does someone actually think sex is the next step? At what point does the accused ethics in how he treats women ever enter his decision when she was nearly passed out/passed out. This is a terrible outcome for both.
5
In the throes of the metoo movement, and the accused being a native of Afghanistan, it would appear, not knowing anything else, that all the prejudice was against him, and yet the jury unanimously decided to acquit!
Perhaps her story was riddled with gaps and inconsistencies. And it’s rare for an accused to testify. He must have been confident in his story.
And she was drunk to the point of throwing up? That’s a huge problem for the prosecution.
Why did the prosecution not to mention Yale even bring this case?
And who paid for his defense?
Will Yale reinstate him? I doubt it. They don’t have the courage.
11
The article doesn't mention his history of misconduct with other Yale female students:
"The woman told the News that when she was in Khan’s room, he asked her to lie on his bed because it was a “special mattress” and suggested she remove her clothing to “feel the effect” of it, which she declined to do. Later, she said, he offered her drugs that he said would “help [her] think” and proposed that they take a walk in the woods.
Another Yale student who knew Khan through mutual friends said Khan was “handsy” with her even while the person she was dating was present in the same room.
“I was extraordinarily uncomfortable being alone with him,” said the student, who asked to remain anonymous to protect her privacy."
See: https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/03/05/khan-was-charming-ambitious-bu...
7
This sounds like a tragic outcome for this young woman. While this article focuses on the extreme difficulty of prosecuting a rape case through our current criminal justice system, I hope we can also do more to educate young adults about alcohol use without judging them. Young people who are not experienced with drinking often overindulge to a dangerous level. They wind up blacking out, vomiting, etc. They push each other to overindulge and drink shots. Young women get so drunk that they lose sight of their friends at parties or bars. That's just plain dangerous. Young women: Do NOT let your drunk friend leave with a stranger even if she says she wants to. Make a pact before you go out and before you start drinking. Stick together, leave together, get home safely. And pace yourself with your drinking. Blacking out, falling down or vomiting are not a sign you're having fun. It's dangerous. I am not "blaming the victim." She is not to blame.
1
Considering the NYTIMES cannot cover all that was covered in this case, almost two weeks of testimonies, evidence, etc. Does anyone know if the Transcript if FOIAble? I trust the jury made the best decision with all that was provided but the divide in these discussions seem to widen, maybe if people got to read the transcripts, maybe then they can come to the same conclusion as the Jurors.
6
Enthusiastic, sober consent for first-time lovers. Easier said than done, but it should be taught in high school (heck, maybe grade school these days). I have a short tale to tell ye.
During my college years, I walked a very drunk, very attractive woman whom I'd met a few times home one night. She had been drinking with a couple of her guy friends who lived in my dorm and she passed by my door barely able to walk. I gave her an arm to lean on and walked her back to her dorm across campus. She asked me up to her room (barely able to get the words out) but I politely declined and kicked myself back home (I was tempted!)
I earned a great deal of respect from her and her guy friends, who later became my roommates and friends through another three years of school.
Aristotle teaches us that we should build our own character (virtues) through knowing what is right and acting on that belief. Kant teaches us that people are an end in-and-of-themselves, never a means to an end. My mother taught me that women are people, not objects, and to treat a person as such is despicable.
Rapists commit rape, normal men know that if the woman wants them for real, they'll let you know when they're sober.
10
The most disturbing thing about the report of this trial is not so much the verdict, but that the accuser's attorney didn't object (it seems) to the defense posing irrelevant questions about the victim's attire and prior behavior and that the judge allowed it.
2
Young women will never learn to not drink to the point of becoming incapacitated , perhaps because they feel invulunerable or through sheer youthful carelessness . Tragically , bad things happen to them. Remember a case here in NYC of a young woman was so inebriated , she was kidnapped , tortured , and raped by the bouncer of a bar who was supposed to find her a cab. It's very sad that such events don't prompt young women to control their drinking.
4
1) I am disturbed by the lack of MEMORY expertise in that courtroom. There should have been an expert witness to explain how the human memory works. The short explanation is - newsflash - we are not computers nor tape recorders. in fact, it is more common to remember bits and pieces at different, unpredictable times.
2) Alcohol is a DRUG! Industries are built on its making, distribution, advertising and general acceptance in society. Alcohol makes some quiet while it makes others aggressive - so it's unpredictable except that it universally causes a lack of motor control. Unlike cannabis, Alcohol has a relatively low dose level and lethal levels can be reached by any user. "Celebrate" by not lying that alcohol is a drug that poisons people easily. (it also makes you gain weight)
Regardless of the outcome of this case, I am glad that this matter was prosecuted in a court of law rather than have some college administrators wipe the matter under the rug. It seems that most of these college cases are adjudicated at the administrator level with minimal investigation and without due process. That is neither fair to the accuser or the accused.
All alleged rapes should be investigated by trained investigators and not by college rent-a-cops and then, if warranted by the evidence, prosecuted in the courts wjere a jury can decide the innocence or guilt of the defendant.
6
Beyond a reasonable doubt. Its a tough standard on victims but we are stuck with it, along with all the other defects in our unjust civil and criminal legal system.
When we socialize, we are not necessarily looking to attract sexual interest. When we dress provocatively, we are not necessarily presenting ourselves as available. When we drink, we don't necessarily intend to lower our inhibitions. When we arrive at a cozy spot, we're not necessarily saying we trust who we're with. When we wake up the next morning, we don't necessarily remember every detail. In such a pickle, we don't necessarily press charges.
2
Fundamental fairness is lacking in sexual assault trials because jurors are blinded from connecting the dots of past behaviors. The accused may be been found 'not guilty' in a dozen or more other cases involving other human beings (or animals for that matter).
The accused may have used the same method of drugging victims into unconsciousness as the case in question. Jurors are not allowed to see a pattern because that may prejudice their decision to "see the big picture" of the accused's disregard for individual dignity. Jurors are allowed to believe the trial is really about greed and the victim's plan to sue in civil court. That's fair.
If slut shaming is fair, why not rape?
2
The original version of this article omitted any mention that the defendant testified and contradicted the alleged victim's account. The updated version seems to strategically omit crucial aspects of his testimony that don't fit with the narrative the authors seem determined to pursue. The defendant testified that the alleged victim not only invited him in and took off her clothes, but also directed him to go get condoms, which he did. She also spoke with the defendant's girlfriend on the phone while they were at the apartment (defendant was in an open relationship). The girlfriend testified at trial. Indeed, he was in the alleged victim's apartment for several hours, and she told him a second time to get yet another condom, which he did. There were, in addition, text messages between the alleged victim and her friends in which she said she was fine. My understanding is that the prosecutor tried to argue that the defendant must have taken the alleged victim's phone an posed as her, but that the defendant denied this was the case. And the alleged victim exchanged text messages of a jovial nature (e.g. saying "LOL") with the defendant after the alleged rape.
One would think that an attempt to present a fair assessment of what transpired at trial would include some of this. But doing so would not fit with the narrative the authors clearly wish to put forward, which is that a rapist was set free because a victim was slut-shamed.
57
Thanks for the contribution. Seems pretty relevant to the story and why the jury decided on a 'not guilty' verdict. Did not know this at all, had to read the New Haven Register to actually make an intelligent decision.
8
100% correct.
8
If any of this is true, the reporters and the editors involved should be fired.
12
I am concerned that there will be a movement toward allowing colleges to judge accusations of sexual assault so that the looser standard of "preponderance of evidence" be used instead of "guilt beyond all reasonable doubt" that is required in a court of law.
Requiring guilt beyond reasonable doubt means some guilty rapists will go unpunished.
Using preponderance means some innocent people will be falsely found guilty.
There are some who believe that since rape is a horrible crime [and it is] that we must accept that some innocent people will be found guilty.
Rape is a crime that should be reported to police and handled by the legal system. If some guilty are unpunished that is the same thing that happens in other criminal trials [robbery, homicide etc].
I don't know enough about this case to decide if he was guilty or not.
I do remember reading that an anal swab of the accuser showed DNA that did not belong to the either accuser or accused.
I don't know what that means.
8
Preponderance of evidence is indeed the standard in court--civil court. Universities have a duty to protect all their students. An accused rapist on campus is potentially dangerous, and the wheels of the justice system turn slowly.
1
That means that she had intercourse with at least one other male on the night in question, but this information was not used to judge her, only to judge her credibility.
5
Many campus sexual assault cases are of the form:;
He said the interaction was consensual.
She said the interaction was not consensual.
Does "preponderance" mean that the woman is ALWAYS the legal winner.
There is no disagreement that rape is a serious crime.
To repeat the issue is this.
Using preponderance means less rapists will escape punishment but more innocent people will be falsely found guilty.
Using guilt beyond reasonable doubt means more guilty rapists will escape punishment but less innocent people will be falsely convicted.
Those who want to use preponderance are willing to accept a higher rate of innocents being falsely convicted in order to convict more guilty rapists.
I find this second tradeoff unacceptable just as I would find it unacceptable for other violent crimes.
5
I went to college in the early 1960's.
Alcohol was not allowed in the dorms.
There were male dorms and female dorms.
Members of the opposite sex were not allowed to visit in the dorms.
We came to college to study and not party.
With the heating up of the Vietnam War students were bought off with all kinds of "freedoms".
Many students being away from home for a first time are ill equipped to handle these freedoms.
Maybe we should rethink some of these freedoms.
20
The fact that the second highest voted comment is victim blaming cloaked in "personal responsibility" speaks volumes about our society. The fact that it's an NYT pick speaks another volume.
The commenter says to take care so there is "less chance that unscrupulous or criminal elements will take advantage." That assumes we accept living in fear of "criminal elements." Sorry, but we don't. You can live your life accepting how the world is, but we will take action against it. Now step out of the way.
2
Your comment assumes that a crime had been committed. But that was not at all clear from the evidence presented at trial. And if there was no crime, there was no victim. So calling this "victim-blaming" is a bit of a red herring.
8
Sounds like you might have a point. I'm just not sure I got it.
1
If he was found not guilty, then a trial of their peers determined that a rape didn't occur. In that case, why isn't her name now disclosed? Let her receive the same attention that he had to endure.
25
No: a trial of their peers did not determine that a rape didn't occur. It determined that there is reasonable doubt that a rape occurred. Those are (by design of our system) very different things.
1
Go petition the court--they sealed her name.
2
History and statistics. Men are far more statistically likely to rape women than the reverse, for a number of reasons. There are just as many crude, rude, awful, lying women as there are men out there. But statistically we do not express our terribleness by raping others. That particular crime is, for the most part, a dude thing. Courts and society have come to accept that in these situations men are generally the aggressor which is reflected in the paradigm of men being perpetrators and women being victims.
4
Yes, but none of these statistics speaks to the issue of whether a _particular_ defendant committed a particular crime of which he was accused. And that is what a criminal trial is concerned with. It is not up to a criminal court to address the wider problems our society has in teaching people to respect sexual boundaries. It is about the facts and circumstances (to the extent they can be known) of the case before them, and whether those facts and circumstances establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
3
No Emma - that's not how things work in a criminal trial. No such presumptions can be made and should never be made
8
But you still must PROVE as assault had taken place.
That did not happen here.
3
I detest all these comments about how women and girls must be taught not to imbibe alcohol because it might cloud their judgment or they might not be sober enough to fight off a rapist and the like. Where are the comments about the men and boys who need to be taught not to imbibe alcohol as well, if they are too drunk to notice that the woman they are with doesn't want to have sex well that's a problem too.
Women should not have to change their dress, limit their contact with the greater world, stay sober 100% of the time while the men and boys get a pass on all that.
21
so if I walk through a poor inner city neighborhood waving $50 bills around and get beaten and robbed, you wouldn't say it was at least partially my own fault?
6
Sammy,
I have a beautiful Swiss watch.
I intend to keep it.
To do so, I minimize behavior that might lead me to losing it.
I don't wear it at 2 a.m. at an ATM in edgy parts of town.
A similar argument can be made for women who wish not to be sexually assaulted.
Watch the alcohol consumed and be careful where you consume it.
Choose your friends wisely.
That includes the men who might want to have sex with you.
Do you want to be safe or do you want to win an argument?
8
It sounds like many (most?) readers presume that Mr. Khan is guilty, despite the FACT that he was found NOT GUILTY by a court of law.
A fundamental principal if our justice system In the United States is that an individual is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is wholly UN-American to try and convict individuals by popular press. It is dangerous too, and I shiver to think of many of those commenting serving on a jury; those who begin with a presumption of guilt.
Those who respect justice, will see that the unnamed accuser in this story had her day in court while the accused, Mr. Khan, stood trial and prevailed. Not Guilty.
29
No, it isn't "un-American". The presumption of innocence applies to the disposition of criminal defendants before a court of law. It has no bearing whatsoever on what people believe or choose to believe about that defendant outside of the legal setting. Social opprobrium is something that operates entirely independently of whether a person is found to be legally guilty of a crime. And that is as it should be.
3
you don't understand, him being innocent doesn't fit their agenda so they refuse to accept it as valid. and trust me, they are always right and know best. I know this because they keep telling me it's so.
9
Everyone here seems to accept that this was rape. But a jury determined it was not. Why is it that everyone continues as if this is some sort of obstacle to a social movement that has nothing to do with the facts at issue in this case? This very article is framed as if there was an injustice here as a matter of fact. Where are the quotes from Mr. Khan's mother thanking god her son isn't unjustly in prison? Why not consider that Mr. Khan genuinely liked this girl and though she reciprocated? That isn't even a discussion here it seems.
And, as the juror insinuated, what does the Me Too movement have to do with this?
30
It's hard to judge this case, given how little we know of it. Certainly, some of the lines of questioning by the defense are cruel, unjust and distinctly masculine. All the more reason--as a general precaution against finding oneself in such situations--to avoid consuming too much alcohol.
4
“There was sufficient doubt on every charge,” [a juror said]. “So we came to the verdict we did.”
As dissatisfying as the result of this trial may have been to many, the jury probably came back with the proper verdict under our legal system. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove every allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. When it comes to allowing the government to take away an individual's freedom for years or even decades, American law imposes the most exacting standard.
I am extremely uncomfortable with a judge allowing evidence about the alleged victim's Halloween costume. Such evidence is irrelevant to any element of the charge, including her consent, and is highly prejudicial; it should have been excluded. Nonetheless, it certainly seems that there was sufficient reason to doubt the defendant's guilt and under such circumstances, a jury following the law would be compelled to find him not guilty.
The verdict, however, is irrelevant to the defendant's reinstatement as a student. Under the law, the jury didn't find him innocent; it merely concluded that the evidence didn't meet the highest standard of proof under the law, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Such a standard doesn't and shouldn't apply to his ability to remain on campus. A lower threshold governs that issue; the mere fact that there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt sufficient to put someone in prison doesn't mean that the evidence isn't adequate proof in other settings.
5
I heartily agree - and our legal system also agrees. In a criminal trial, the standard is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt;' in a civil trial the standard is 'preponderance of the evidence.' Yale should have the equivalent of a civil proceeding in this case (and others like it). That does not, however, mean that Mr Khan would be found responsible in such a proceeding either.
1
what? so the jury found him not guilty but they didn't find him innocent? really? either they had enough evidence to say he committed the crime or they didnt. there is no made up middle ground.
4
Wrong. The presumption of innocence was there when he was charged and it was not rebutted in a court of law. He is innocent.
8
I have read many comments as well as the story by Wang and Weinstock.
The heated, very emotional, and often borderline rational thought on both sides of the issue are, in themselves, a major issue . How can there be any solution to handling of accusations of rape in complex social situations when proposed solutions are driven by anger? By very different attitudes for sex and for youthful sexual behavior?
3
Unless this woman was into S&M why would she have bruising on her legs after sex? It makes no sense, and what could possibly be a reasonable conclusion other than forced sex?
According to the article, the accuser was drunk for the first time. I'm not excusing her--she should have stopped drinking after a certain point or refrained totally. However, once someone takes advantage of that state of being, that's a different story. What decent man thinks it's fine to make love to a woman who is so intoxicated she needs help just to walk? Even, let's say she "sobered up" a bit. She's still not in full control of her capacities, especially if she has no prior history of being drunk. If someone doesn't want to engage in sexual encounters with someone in a sober state, why would she want to do so in an intoxicated state?
So it's up to Yale to let this guy back in or not. Sure, he was found not guilty of rape--but "innocent" is another story.
7
I believe the tenet is: innocent until proven guilty. there is no made up middle ground of, well maybe you did it but we can't send you to prison so we will just assume you did it and shun you forever.
5
Let's assume that the bruising was from vigorous sex (either consensual or non-consensual) with the defendant (and not some other activity, like vigorous sex with the other man whose DNA was found in the anal swab). This makes the accuser's story even more difficult to believe. It now requires us to believe that she is so far gone that even really vigorous sex did not rouse her from this "blackout." But the jury saw video evidence that showed that she could not have been in that state. The jury was heard discussing it in the jury room. They rejected the blackout thesis.
5
We had a similar case in Hawaii. The woman had broken up with another guy, went to another seeking "comfort," (knowing that the guy liked her), even admitted to "thinking about" having sex with him, then complained afterwards. Drinking involved. Case ended in acquittal.
Parents need to sit down with their kids and have "the talk"--not about the birds and the bees, but about the real world: "You're on your own now. You're going to be exposed like you never have been before to drugs and alcohol, and if you use them, you will think you are in control but you won't be. Boys aren't going to be in control either when they're intoxicated, and this is where things happen and you will have to live with the outcome no matter what. Even if you pursue the case in court and win, that will provide little solace because you will still be a victim. So have fun and make friends, but remember you are in school to study, not to party (especially at Yale, which is costing us an arm and a leg.)"
11
In the sixties, no behavior was considered inappropriate. During the college days of the seventies, similar incidences had happened. This nihilistic narcissism had infected, poisoned and eventually suffocated our sense of common decency which gave a small minority of people an excuse to follow through on such behavior with impunity. Always, it's this small minority who set mostly overreaching social policy for the rest of us.
Every reasonably rational human being, today, would not do what either of these young adults had done had their acts not been blessed/condoned by their parents, grandparents and, generally, by western society over the last several decades.
Perhaps, we need to reassess how we behave so that this sense of decency, inherent within us all, receives some desperately-needed oxygen.
23
The Sixties were not the love fest so commonly proclaimed.
There was plenty of sexual manipulation by the so-called "good guys."
Recall Stokely Carmichael's comment about the position of women in the Civil Rights Movement.
6
I cannot figure out what you are saying.
In the 60s, women having any sexual desire or behavior was much more taboo. Violating consent not so much. Those values have flipped, for the better.
Your last sentence is concerning. What did she do? Get too drunk? That's old as dirt. Seems like people should be able to do that without risking rape.
4
Unrelated to this article, even though I am a geriatrician and not a psychiatrist, I have been reading about PTSD recently for my own education. One thing the NY Times should make clear is that it is not uncommon for people affected by post-traumatic stress disorder to have "holes" in their memory and remember some thing but not others. Previously I had the same reaction as many people did to situations (not just rape/ legal cases) where I would wonder why someone who was subjected to or exposed to horrible events would not remember them (I would think I certainly would) but the research/ specialists' clinical experiences tells us differently.
38
You are certainly correct. But, based of what I have read of this case in sources other than the Times, there was no evidence against the defendant that could be said to point unambiguously to his guilt. And even without raising questions about why the accused remembered some things but not others, the real issue here was that she made accusations about things she was convinced "must have happened" during those portions she cannot remember.
And anyway, how could a jury possibly determine whether her patchy memories were the result of PTSD or her admitted over-consumption of alcohol?
4
This case illustrates many issues. One issue it illustrates is the concept of consent and how we are all struggling with how consent is meaningfully given, meaningfully withdrawn, and understood in a alcohol addled and sexual situation. Courtrooms are by nature adversarial. But they are also where evidence is challenged. I find unsatisfactory the refrain from those who do not support the use of courts in cases like this. Please present a better system. And it cannot be a system where the male is automatically guilty, where evidence is unchallenged. It cannot be a "She said, He's dead" system.
61
Maybe she only "remembered" things that happened? This quote is disgusting.
"Mr. Pattis said there were glaring inconsistencies in the complainant’s story, and that she remembered only the details that bolstered her allegations."
2
Re bruising: Yeah, you can get mighty bruised during consensual sex. I've emerged from vigorous enthusiastic sex looking as though I'd been, you know, assaulted.
The main takeaway from this trial: two idiots found each other and it didn't turn out well. Add in the "rabbi" who wasn't the adult in the previous room and who's day job is to be a slumlord preying on off-campus students, and you've got a full cast for a cautionary PSA.
6
I truly hope you are being sarcastic.
I was a reporter in the mid 90s and covered a rape trial of a football player from the local college (a PAC 10 school) against a "city" girl. He was accused of bringing her up to his room during a loud frat party and forcing himself on her. So, the defense made her scream for help in the courtroom, made the jury touch the underwear she wore that night and repeatedly used the word "whore" and "slut". It was all allowed in court. She was humiliated and the prosecutors were concerned the girl might commit suicide. The guy was also found not guilty.
There needs to be a level of discourse to prosecute rape allegations that don't take away from the rights of the defendant while also not re-victimizing the accused. Our system is why so many women refuse to come forward. I am sure many are afraid that they would not be heard, and the Yale case justifies their fears.
For my case, I was very sure he did it because I got to talk to his previous victim, but I couldn't report on that as the publisher wouldn't allow it in the story. He was a serial rapist and his family didn't care. I've always wondered how many other women he raped before he was caught, if ever.
22
Mr. Khan hasn't the ethics of an alley cat. He sees and recognizes her drunken state, witnesses her vomit more than once, knows she's way out of it, hardly able to walk, and decides THAT is the time to have sex multiple times with this young woman he barely knew? That is not consent.
Perhaps in the country of his origin if a woman wears something sexy, she is offering herself, giving implied consent for sex. But here, women have the right to be sexual with out being groped or raped. Her clothing choice is immaterial and beneath the dignity of the lawyers' profession who asked them.
Women: if you are around and alone with certain men, drunk or not, they see it as a license to take you sexually as a right: twisted, outdated, outrageous male dominance. Do not put yourself in that position.
This woman here is not to blame: she did not give consent and that is clear. All girls that age wear sexy Halloween costumes. Mr. Khan, you are no criminal, technically, but indeed you are an immoral, unworthy, untrustworthy, sleazy, tiny man. I trust she will sue you if only to drag you into the public further to denigrate and tarnish your name for the public record. People, women, potential employers should know who and what you do when no one is looking to women incapable of defending themselves.
21
You seem to forget that he was drunk too, that she may have been eloquent and coherent despite her state (making it seem she was less drunk than she was when she led him on), and that they may actually have had consensual sex at the moment. Some people act very coherently when drunk, and forget everything the next day. It seems she was likely victim of her own confusion, and he of ignorance that in the Liberal West, responsibility defaults to men whenever women drink (or don't feel like owning their bad hookup choices).
6
Whoa, what happened here? I thought a woman's dress and prior sexual activity, in this case flirting, were NOT admissible in court under state rape shield laws? Could someone explain what happened in this case?
6
The basic summary is:
Rape shield laws typically only protect the victim from discussions of PREVIOUS sexual encounters with SEPARATE partners. If a court believes that evidence is relevant to a jury's determination of whether consent was provided in the CURRENT sexual encounter with THIS defendant, including prior sexual encounters or flirtations between the two parties, it will likely be admissible.
That's obviously a very short version, and I definitely encourage you to look more at your own state for the answers. Just know: this was not an ad hoc decision by the judge or either attorney. I can almost guarantee that if you went to the court file or the court record, you would find a substantial amount of argument on this matter.
2
Ok, yes I agree with you in order to determine whether or not the woman gave her consent, it is necessary to look at the interaction between the parties. However, what the woman wore or did not wear should have no bearing on whether consent was or was not given. At the least, rape shield laws should protect a woman from the inclusion of this type of evidence.
1
Urban legend - prior sexual history admissible where it relates to the accused. Dress is fair game.
2
The Sixth Amendment to the USC guarantees the accused the right to trial by jury. The conduct of defense lawyers notwithstanding, no criminal defendant should be "tried" by a university committee, especially given the current political environment on elite college campuses.
28
Both parties drank too much, and showed bad judgment. To say that the guy bears all the responsibility for the sex they had does not make sense to me. The woman couldn't remember a lot of details, therefore she must have been raped? It's too thin a premise.
A lot of college students get drunk and have sex and regret it the next day. I'm not saying I don't believe the accuser. I think she is very confident in her narrative. It's just so spotty and inconsistent, that her certainty about it is very questionable.
It should never have gone to trial. And note to students, whether you're a man, a woman, trans, or whatever, drinking oneself into a stupor is stupid. And you'll act stupid, and do and say things you wouldn't normally do.
21
I am puzzled by something. If sexual assaults are common on campuses, might it be helpful to go back to the days when colleges had curfews and separate dorms for men and women? Are we perhaps leading young men into temptation? We live in a society full of addictions (to cigarettes, to food, to alcohol, to smart phones). It is hypocritical to pretend that college students should be immune to temptations that also afflict adults. Also, I have some sympathy for young women who are naive and do not tolerate alcohol well at the age of seventeen or eighteen (and that's as young as some may be, especially if they skipped a year of school). Though the young man in this case was twenty-five, presumably some young men are also naive.
7
This is another glossed over fact in the hysteria over campus sexual assault - it is significantly lower than in the surrounding off-campus everyday communities.
1
It reminds me of the story of some famous graduates of Yale Law School. He was accused of rape and sexual harassment of women. But, because he was a politician with a "D" after his name, most liberals and progressives stood behind him. "it's just about sex, and everybody does it" they said. His wife said she was not standing by her man like Tammy Wynette, but she believed in her husband, so feminists stood by her man. And Bubba Clinton was never called to account for his treatment of women, and his wife is a feminist hero. So why should anything change at Yale?
24
His lawyers established that her communications with him "may have been" flirting; that her Hallowe'en costume wasn't a "modest" choice like a Disney princess; that she may have been drinking. Has the rubberband snapped back so forcefully from the #metoo movement (or perhaps, moment) that we're now in the 1950's? The victim may have confused the poor guy so he wasn't entirely clear that he was raping her? OMG. If she were my daughter, I'd be considering my second amendment rights in response to him and his lawyers. Yes, "beyond the shadow of a doubt". I understand this legal concept, which I imagine hasn't been extended to many young people working at MacDonalds.
2
As a physician, I've seen many rape/assault victims, and have testified on their behalf, in court. The lengths defense attorneys will go, and lie, to discredit a victim, is unbelievable, and unconscionable. I'd suggest they're going to hell for what they do - but suspect they are either already there, or don't believe in such a thing.
18
I don't know Mr. Khan; I don't know the complainant; I don't know much about the case other than this report; and, I have not been privy to the evidence presented in court. Therefore, I have no comment to make regarding Mr. Khan's guilt or innocence. He is of course presumed innocent and so he should remain except, of course, he is now forever to be known as an accused rapist . . .
20
If she had dressed up as Cinderella, would this Prince among men have rescued her like in the storybook instead of raping a visibly incapacitated woman after he watched her vomit?
If a man sees that a woman had so much to drink that she vomited - he knows she is incapable of providing consent - vomiting does NOTHING to lower blood alcohol levels.
13
Yale and other universities - and school health classes and parents need to explain to boys and men that vomiting relieves nausea but it does not lower blood alcohol levels - a woman who drinks until she vomits is incapable of giving consent to sex.
But that wouldn't have mattered to a 'man' - an animal really - who was comfortable having sex with a passed-out corpse. He's sick.
10
Mr. Kahn was cleared of all charges in a Court of Law. His name posted by the NYT, read worldwide. His accuser's name, found non-believable in a Court of Law, is being kept secret.
Something is very wrong.
36
I sincerely hope his chances at a normal life are ruined after this.
8
Why? What information do you have that the jury did not have?
6
Why is an alcohol fueled culture so normative on college campuses? Why do the smartest young adults (Yale, after all) not use common sense? I do believed she was raped, she was bruised, and the experience sounds just horrific. But it isn't victim blaming, it's just common sense for young women and men to avoid becoming incapacitated. Why am I not surprised that this case involved alcohol. How many campus rapes do not involve alcohol?
13
I don’t know whether the act was consensual. But she testified that she came to, or woke up, to find the defendant on top of her, having sex with her.
What sort of human being has or even desires sexual intercourse with a woman who has passed out? That is the epitome of barbarity.
25
Height of hypocrisy publishing the man's name making sure he is always associated with a charge of rape even when found innocent, while not publishing the accuser's name who had been found to be making up the accusation by a jury. Rape trials should be zero sum binary. If he is not guilty she is, of making a fake accusation and lying and she should be sent to the prison for the exact same sentence that would have been imposed on him.
21
A low-life sleeze (with good lawyers) took advantage of an inebriated student, plain and simple. Why else would she file a complaint, buyer's remorse? And don't mistake the verdict for vindication. Reasonable doubt only implies ambiguity in the evidence/statements. The juror's doubt is a reflection of our society's attempts to break free of an old stereotype . . . the way she was dressed, and drinking, can mean only one thing, she wanted it.
3
No, no, no...
A not guilty verdict simply means the state could not prove its case. It doesn't mean the rape never occurred or that the woman was lying.
Many people who actually did the crime are found not guilty in court - OJ, for instance.
2
It may be we are predisposed to think "actual" rape only occurs at the hands of complete strangers, leading to the conclusion and perhaps this verdict. That fellow students, professors, relatives, counselors or any others thought to be and commonly recognized as trustworthy would not engage in behavior of this sort is for all intent and purpose verboten.
We know truth is distorted to fit the narrative and if we are to accept reality we must question the basis of this tacitly acceptable response. Inconveniently this line of questioning invariably leads to the influence of the actual patriarchy in which we live.
1
There are many, many situations where two drunk people go back to a room without one of the being raped. Some men say, you are too drunk, good night. While others say, "this is my perfect opportunity to get what I want with impunity". And then I will deny it in the morning. I am sorry for this women, she came forward and lost the battle. But she fought the fight and that is a good thing. The message from this story is - be careful who you drink with.
17
I believe she was raped. But from a practical preventive standpoint, drinking to excess is highly problematic. It is not victim blaming to encourage both men and women in college to realize that the alcohol fueled haze is hazardous.
9
a few years ago a researcher was completely vilified because her research led her to conclude that alcohol was a huge factor in campus rape both for the victim and the accused perpetrator, people screamed "alcohol does not cause rape, rapist caused rape" and I felt so bad for her, it absolutely is a factor, very few adults have never had sex with someone that they probably would not have if they were sober, alcohol is absolutely a factor.
8
It strikes me that far too often "sexual assault" is when you want to have sex and then decide afterwards that it wasn't quite the sex you wanted. Rape is an act of violence. Neither the complainant nor the defendant offered any indication that there was violence of any kind.
20
Rape itself is violent. And she had bruises.
7
Something does not feel right with him staying around until morning. If he committed a criminal act he would not stay. Also, I note the comment that another paper reported fuller facts on the case: the room keys are electronic so a record exists that he left the room in the night and she let him back in. There were doubts here and it should not have been prosecuted.
38
Can I request not to wake up, until years after Trump Nation is a footnote in history books?Really, lawyers are still asking rape victims what they were wearing?
10
true but that practice has never stopped, yes were meaner more racist and more misogynist in the age of trump or more open about it, but that has been with us all along.
1
Can I request not to wake up, until a future era when people who have been pronounced not guilty in court are in fact treated as not guilty? Rather than being treated as guilty, which is what your comment implies you are doing?
4
She was "passed out",and had bruises.Pardon me for assuming a young woman was not a consensual partner.Oh, but she was wearing an alluring costume.You must be right. Let's get him on the fast career tract.My guess given the cost of the defense,he already is.Let's hope all future dates google him.But I'm sure he would have a promising career in the current administration.Or any of the other, parasitic" top companies".
If she was so ill earlier that she lost her friends and was stumbling home, how could she have given consent?
So, if you text with someone and get drunk and wind up in bed it's your fault.
That's the verdict here.
5
I have read elsewhere that this was a 7-day trial and the jury was out for 3 hours. That is an extremely quick verdict. Clearly, the jury had little doubt and believed that this case was not close.
19
Absolutely.
3
Now, following his acquittal, does anybody go after the accuser who ruined this person's life? I think not. That would be "anti-feminist", "anti - #me too" and "fascist", and we all know how those words can destroy a career. We are quickly dipping towards an climate reminiscent of the old Soviet Union.
33
Why on earth would the young woman bring charges unless she sincerely felt she had not consented to the sexual activity that occurred? No one would subject themselves to the horrifyingly predictable scrutiny unless the belief of sexual assault were completely sincere. The cynical and craven questions and statements of the defense team are nightmarish. Shame on them.
9
Daphne, why wouldn't they?
Why would that not say walk around with a mattress strapped to their back for an entire year? Dox their victim in the press? Coordinate with friends to make further false allegations of rape?
Emma Sulkowicz? She did just that.
Jackie from the Rolling Stone article?
The Duke LaCrosse team - all of them?
As it turns out there are indeed vile and disgusting men. It also turns out that women are every bit as human and men, and some of them and equally vile and disgusting and will perpetrate crimes of equal disgust onto their victims.
Gender alone is not an indicator of whether or not someone is telling the truth or lying. That due process is necessary for BOTH genders.
24
The fact that she sincerely felt - afterward - that she did not consent does not mean she did not consent or that Mr Khan thought she did not consent. After-the-fact feelings are just that: after-the-fact-feelings.
5
Intoxicated people can't give consent. Rewrite the rules and situations like this would be more clear-cut.
8
but what if you're both intoxicated?
4
A question for those in the camp who believe that any time a woman is intoxicated, even if she is lucid and initiates the sex, she is incapable of giving legal consent: What is a woman supposed do when she is drunk and would like to have sex with someone, since no one can legally agree to have sex with her?
23
Stay sober.
8
I'm with you, also if being drunk means a person cannot consent then a drunk person also cannot ascertain their consent.
3
She should sleep it off and have sex another day.
So should a man in that situation.
1
How is it that a judge allowed questions about what the accuser was wearing? Whatever the facts and the culpability, that is reprehensible.
11
Because clothes are metaphorical statements working as symbols. The questions go to the meaning of the symbol. We are all well acquainted with the tight clothing of a hooker trying to advertise her ... product.
1
He allowed the questions because there was doubt about the woman vomiting and the condition of her clothing was germane to that line of questioning. Incidentally, the woman was found to have lied about vomiting.
20
Why in the world don't juries believe female victims of rape?? The average man is 4" taller than the average woman and has 40 lbs on her. He has upper body strength she does not. In short, HE is a lethal weapon, compared to her. Next, unless she is demonstrably mentally impaired, NO woman wants to expose herself to the public shaming of having made the mistake of being female and too weak to defend herself, and in this case also drunk. I believe that a sane woman making such an accusation is telling the truth because she has everything to lose by doing so. I know someone who chose not to speak when her faculty advisor, who'd helped her get through school and whom she therefore trusted, cajoled his way into her hotel room and raped her after graduation. When will this end?
7
So just because she is "sane" and she makes an accusation, the accusation is true? What about the facts? Did you conduct a sanity test on the accuser in this case? Do a search on "DNA" on this comment thread and you'll be surprised by what you find.
20
Emotion anchors memory. Rape is an emotional experience. Returning to a dorm is not.
5
I was under the impression that a women so intoxicated she throws up could not consent. When has anyone ever thrown up enough to sober up and then have sex after?
The real problem here though is the lack of evidence. It's hard to overcome reasonable doubt in a courtroom without evidence. And this is why the #metoo movement is so important. So many of the experiences women have with men that fall under the purview of #metoo are the very accounts that lack the sufficient evidence to be tried in a court of law.
7
it seems your arguement only goes one way. if she can't consent, then she can't dissent either.
6
So, we just defame them in the media or in whisper campaigns? You are encouraging illegal activity because of disappointment with a judicial outcome. That's scary.
22
Another commenter noted that she did not in fact throw up. Her statement to this effect was contradicted by physical evidence.
2
This article is disingenuous at best, biased at worst. The New Haven Register has much clearer and clear-headed reporting of the testimony of both parties. Specifically, it covers his leaving her room (verified by key card) and being let back in by her, which she doesn't remember. Quite disappointed in the NYT here.
55
Moral of the story.. don’t mess with drunk girls and you’ll never have this problem. Girls don’t handle their alcohol like guys in my experience.
9
a couple of drinks, girl let's her inhabitions go. Next morning, how to maintain her integrity? he raped me. happens way more times than you think women and way more times than you'll ever admit.
8
The moral of the story is not to rape women.
5
Excellent defense.
If there is no god, all is permisable.
1
I am so happy to know that due process still functions in America and that a standard of evidence is required to find someone guilty of a crime. It scares me that so many people are willing to disregard the rule of law just because the defendant is a man in a rape case.
35
As a woman, I just love to accuse men of rape. It's so much fun to go to court and to have to relive a sexual experience in front of a jury. The best part is talking about what I wore, what I drank and proving that I'm not a nasty woman, but a good girl. Fame, stardom, money, you're mine! It obviously makes sense to pretend that I was raped so I can maybe be anonymously talked about in the news. Oh, and don't forget that I just hate men and want to destroy their lives!
20
This is an excellent point. Unfortunately for rape victims, it is not enough to convict someone of a felony.
3
What you think is irrelavant. What is at stake here is the double standards.What if both the boy and the girl are drunk. Can the boy claim that he was assaulted, that he was too intoxicated to consent? What if the boy is intoxicated and the girl is not intoxicated?
10
Your point is that she sincerely believed she was raped. But her sincere belief is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is (by design) the standard in criminal trials.
2
This exact same thing happened to me when I was in college in 1975. It was during the Qualude heyday. I had never done them before and my girlfriend handed me two at a party and I took them. A guy who had been flirting with me for months was there, but I was never interested in him. Once the Qualudes kicked in I don't remember anything except waking up the next morning in his bed with all of my clothes off. I could tell immediately that he had sex with me. From his point of view, he might have thought I was a willing partner, even though I can't remember anything, I know that Qualudes can reduce sexual inhibitions just like alcohol. But he had to have known he was taking advantage of me since I turned down his advances multiple times in the past. When I woke up, it was very awkward. We didn't speak at all. I immediately put on my clothes and walked to my apartment. This is all to say that men do take advantage of women in these situations and they should not. Maybe the "Me Too" movement will raise their awareness levels. But, of course, there are the men who will take advantage regardless. I never reported this violation to the police. It was a different time back then and these types of assaults were not discussed, yet alone reported. I was stupid to take the Qualudes. And just like the woman in the article, that does not mean that a man has an invitation to take sexual advantage when a woman is clearly unaware of what is going on.
13
so you're saying that it's up to the man to be responsible for you because you may or may not be able to be responsible for yourself. by extension, you're saying no man should ever have sex with a woman who has had a drink or two. that's ridiculous. and if they've both been drinking, maybe his judgement is also paired. but you want to hold him to a higher standard. not fair.
7
@bored critic, Anais DID accept responsibility for her part in what she described. She did say she was "stupid".
However, a smart man, in today's society, should absolutely take responsibility, if not for the woman, then for himself. Unless that man wants to end up in court like this guy did or have their name potentially tarnished in the public court. Men can also be stupid. In college -- 20 years ago for me now -- yes, I and my male friends did drink and were occasionally intoxicated but my male friend NEVER took advantage of me. They either took me safely back to my place and left or asked directly (not implied) if they should proceed. THAT's what a smart guy does.
1
What exactly is an unequivocal invitation to sex? It's apparently not flirting, inviting someone to your room, suggesting condoms, getting naked.
A button that pops up like on a turkey, a LED that blinks green, the female showing pictures of a train entering a tunnel, waves crashing against the shore—perhaps?
I wish Monty Python were still around. They'd have a ball with this gridlock.
11
Law Dictionary: '...reasonable doubt..'
“If she wanted to do that so bad, put a nail in the coffin, wouldn’t she have given you a more coherent story?” he asked the jury. (Answer: Of course not. Any attorney will tell you less is better as it gives fewer 'targets' during cross examination and reduces chances of inconsistencies which seemed to have sunk her case).
4
In these kind of rape cases especially in colleges it’s possible that women may be half way willing partners but feel degraded and humiliated after the act and can’t live with it. Drinking and hazy memory doesn’t help either.
12
I assume you are a man. I don't know and can't imagine a woman who would make this comment. No sane woman thinks exposing yourself to public shaming via an accusation of rape is a remedy for feeling humiliated by half-willing sex.
2
The issue is not blame the victim or slut shaming. The issue here is that as in many other cases, both the complainant and defendant were drunk (or in other cases, high) and unable to remember if consent had been given, or if it was given, perhaps not meant. It could go either way -and that is the salient point. I have both a son and a daughter- I do not want my daughter to be attacked regardless of her dress or conversation, and I don't want my son to think he has obtained consent when both he and the other party were inebriated and unable to account for their actions- or recall if there was consent or not. When both parties are inebriated it is impossible to determine cause, blame or other.
28
This is a complicated and uncomfortable situation for everyone but as someone whose had 2 sons navigate their way through college, I wonder how on earth do kids with limited dating/relationship experience at High School really work out dating on campus? I get the anger of women but at the same time, do you need a signed checklist/contract to avoid any confusion? I mean who in an impaired state would work through such a process especially at the start of a relationship? I don't envy kids because the accusation of rape, not the conviction is enough to damn them in today's Title 9 environment.
14
It would help, for starters, not to be drunk.
Besides not being drunk, add abuse of any substance to that (e.g. cocaine, heroin, etc.). Also:
-- Don't go out with people you don't know well already. Although this doesn't prevent rape entirely, being alone with someone you hardly know/ trust may increase the chances and also signals might be misread.
-- Don't assume anything. Talk about it openly. Yes, it might be awkward but less awkward than ending up in court.
I don't think these are hard rules to abide by. I'm a woman and the guys I dated in college were like this. (For both men and women: pick emotionally mature, intelligent people to start with. ) Also, there are huge percentages of college students who aren't raped and aren't accused of rape so I suspect there's something the more savvy students already know/ practice (without being given explicit instructions) compared to others. I don't want to give the impression though that if you do everything right, your chances decrease to nil: I was stalked in college despite doing everything "right." If someone's deranged or deadbent on an action, sometimes there's nothing you can do to stop them.
It is time to name the accusers in a rape case. This one sided shaming is ridiculous.
32
If two lesbians are drunk and have sex without proof of consent is that Rape? If not, why?
14
How is sexual orientation relevant?
Showing a photo of a man found innocent feels like the NYT is trying to publish its own judgement so that when people see him they might think, "Hey, you're that guy accused of rape." This is not the newspaper's job - NYT could have easily used another photo/artwork. Please do better NYT.
36
In order to learn more about the case I also read the articles from the New Haven Register -- I truly hope that Saifullah Khan is not allowed to return to Yale. Khan is smart enough to understand that if an intoxicated woman vomits three times she obviously is also not at full mental capacity. Also, I find it strains credibility to believe that he called his girlfriend while he was having consensual sex with another girl in order to have them both speak to each other. Also, it was noted that Khan took the phone away from the victim. For the jury to overlook that the victim had bruises is heart breaking. That should be evidence enough -- they instead made a judgement call on her liquor consumption and choice of costume. Khan is a rapist and Norm Pattis knows it and that's why he turned on the victim. Everyone deserves to legal representation but when one puts the victim on trial for her choice of costume -- it is despicable. Mr. Pattis should try get his client mental help instead of trying to get him back into Yale.
13
The jury did not believe her claim of drunkenness based on when and how much she drank and her later appearance of sobriety on video. He did not take the phone away from her. They claimed he did because it was the only way her story would make any sense at all. The jury may have even been a little annoyed at how much of her story did not make sense. They only took three hours to acquit on all counts.
15
Pattis did not turn on the complainant, she turned on herself because in the end the jury felt she lied through out her testimony. This very sad and heartbreaking for these (2) kids. She did not vomit (3) times, collaborative witness testimony only has her once in Woolsey Hall. (2) small rum and cokes and a finger of bourbon 3.5 hours later does not have her full clothed passed out on her bed @ 1:15 since campus video has her walking arm in arm fluidly with the defendant to her dorm Trumbull College. Key swipe log has him swiping her entrance 3 times and being allowed in to the complainants room when she supposed to be passed out. The costume was not discussed during jury deliberation and was introduced by the prosecution not the defense. Pattis also got the complainant to admit under cross examination her statement to Yale Health that it was "consensual with a regular partner" for plan B prescription. The bruises were deemed to old. This was a well educated, very smart professional jury. 3x3 most over 50 years old. They knew what to look for and what to discard (costume). All very sad....Khan does deserve to be admitted back. These 2 kids went thru a lot.
14
If someone vomits 3 times I am inclined to believe that she is intoxicated. My understanding is that in the video she seemed to be dragging. New Haven Register :"Defense attorney Norm Pattis played a surveillance videotape of the complainant and Khan during that walk from Yale’s Woolsey Hall to Trumbull College, one of Yale’s residential facilities. Khan was seen supporting her as she staggered forward." It if victim is annoying than the truth doesn't matter. She is to blame because she drank and dressed in costume that wasn't a Cinderella dress. She had bruises for me and that's plenty to ponder and maybe spend a little bit more than three hours. His story makes sense to you? A true gentleman, right?
EVERY college rape allegation should be tried in a court of law. College campuses have NO BUSINESS, and NO AUTHORITY to conduct a trial for ANY crime, let alone rape.
23
Yale joins the list of schools I would not send my children to.
11
The jury should be ashamed.
The rabbi who poured hard liquor to students attending a party at the Jewish Center should be ashamed. https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Yale-graduate-testifies-that-she-...
And the entire state of Connecticut should be ashamed that our rules of evidence still allow this line of questioning.
The bottom line, even in the 21st century, is that privileged men get to rape women and keep their privilege. Droit de seigneur is still alive.
5
And once again it is the victim on trial. Which is business as usual.
12
What is her name? We know all about him and he is NOT GUILTY. Consequently, she is GUILTY of making up stuff to accuse him. The government with all its heavy weights behind it cannot prove what she accused him of. Let's put her name and face on the front page. Let's hear her story. And, yes, if she goes on to make a movie out of this, Mr. Khan should get all the revenues out of that... Mr. Khan should also sue the university, this woman, and the prosecutors etc. for malicious prosecution and costing him thousands in defense expenses along with loss of income for not graduating on time. Mr. Khan, take this to the limit now. Thanks!!!
16
ANM, the 'not guilty' verdict merely means there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors to convict. They didn't find him innocent or her guilty of anything.
However, the courts are still open to him to bring civil complaints against anyone and everyone involved, and the standard is lower to prevail. And she could sue as well. But I doubt either wants this spectacle to continue or to risk losing.
Finally, to my mind a man who has his first sexual encounter with an acquaintance while she's falling down drunk is probably a low-life scoundrel. We just don't have a legal category for him.
4
What a Charley Fox situation: Glad I play with myself instead!
1
Why would anybody, especially a police precinct commander, think that a church, synagogue, college, hospital, etc, is somehow not included in the precinct?
1
Where were the rape shield laws? Can we ever rely on the legal system when it comes to rape? Not likely.
1
If a woman is drunk, consent is not possible. What a woman wears is no justification for a man having his way with her. I fault the judge for not putting a limit on the evidence that was presented and the jury for very sloppy thinking.
I do remember that it is likely that members of the jury were likely Trump voters who are inclined to forgive sexual assault. Sort of like jurors who will never vote to convict a police officer.
6
Trump voters are a rare species in CT but you somehow thought you had to work that in to your comment. Maybe they were Bill Clinton voters.
6
Two irresponsible people here, but bottom line, a male has a responsibility to make sure a female is capable of giving permission. If there's a doubt, the male should pass on opportunity. How's that for optimism?
4
Mr. Khan's name and picture is noted broadly in your newspaper, the accuser hids in her cloak of anonymity. Fair?
Mr. Khan's tenure at Yale. damaged at best; probably finished? Fair? He keeps with him the shame that only a false accusation can bring. Fair? He'll carry this for the rest of his life not to mention his name destroyed, and the cost of fighting a felony trial; I would not be surprised if homes were remortgaged, retirement accounts drained. God Bless Mr. Khan for having the courage to stand and fight these charges. America needs more men like him.
22
What is the woman's name? It's typical of the anti-man bias of the system that we shield the woman's identity, but not the man's. It ruins his reputation whether he is innocent or guilty. If there is a public interest served by knowing the identity of the accused, then there is also a public interest in knowing who the accuser is. Important to emphasize that "accuser" does not mean "victim". Many individuals who have been found to have made false rape allegations have done it more than once. The Duke lacrosse team false accuser, for example, in addition to the thoroughly discredited false accusation she made against the Duke lacrosse players, also made a thoroughly discredited false allegation that she had been gang raped by a group of police officers. Thoroughly investigated and found to be a clear lie. How many people has "Jackie" of U.Va falsely accused? The only reason we even know that the Duke false accuser made other false accusations is because of the intense media attention the trial stirred up. Normally the man's name is dragged through the mud but we are given no opportunity to assess the woman's credibility. Since people nowadays presume men guilty regardless of the circumstances, men also deserve the protection of having their identity shielded. Certainly men need it more than women, who are often lauded reflexively as courageous heroes any time they claim that they were raped. So men deserve at least the equal protection of having their identities shielded.
22
Why do women drink and date men who drink knowing it frequently leads to their victimization in incidents like this?
4
A girl gets so drunk that she vomits on the way home, and the person "helping" her home claims she consented to sex? Because a sexual encounter follows so naturally from throwing up? She was visibly drunk--so she was in no shape to consent. To counter this boorish behavior, the defense counsel suggests the victim's Halloween costume is evidence that she wanted sex? Because dressing up means a girl is asking for it? I too became so drunk in college that my date needed to accompany me home. I too dressed in a sexy cat costume one Halloween rather than in "more modest" attire. Fortunately, my dates didn't rape me. As the mother of a son, I've asked him about this type of scenario. His rule: no sex with someone who is drunk because she is not in a position to consent. The suggestion that if both parties are too drunk to remember what happened means the woman "might' have consented is horrifying. Don't blame the alcohol; blame the predator.
12
Just wait until one day a girl decides in the morning she doesn't like your son that much, and accuses him of rape. Oh you will sing a different tune then, screaming for due process, legal rights, attacking the woman;s credibility...
10
The jury heard all the evidence and found him not guilty. But this article clearly finds him "GUILTY BUT GOT AWAY WITH IT!". Not very impartial reporting.
30
This reads like a rape trial from a hundred years ago. And back then, no one was convicted either. I think this is actually the goal of these "due process" evangelists, who not so coincidentally, also seem to think a whole lot of other laws from 100 years ago were great: no economic regulations in the Lochner era, Plessy v Ferguson was the law of the land--and women couldn't vote.
2
The alleged victim was inebriated to a degree to which she was vomiting, she had to be assisted in walking home, and she doesn't remember large parts of the night in question.
What most of the commentors here, and the jurors for that matter, are missing is this:
her inebriation means that the sexual intercourse was rape. It was rape even if she invited the alleged perpetrator in. It was rape even if she took off her own clothes. It was rape even if she asked him to have sex with her. It was rape even if she enjoyed it. It was rape even if she was happy while it was happening. It was rape even if they both experienced pleasure in the moment.
Her inebriation was incapacity, and precluded her ability to consent.
Furthermore, Mr Khan's inebriation does not pardon him. anymore than inebriation would pardon a bank robber, or alcoholism would pardon an insider trader.
A legally (and morally) responsible man (that is, someone who isn't a rapist) would, while being enticed by an inebriated woman, indicate to her that he is willing to engage in sexual activities only when she is in a responsible state of mind.
He does not mindlessly take advantage of the woman's condition.
If you believe that this is an unrealistic standard for a man to reach, you are part of why we're living in a rape culture.
11
That’s a crazy standard for rape. My wife’s parents (in their 70’s now) tell of how she was conceived on a night when they were playing a drinking game called “Pass Out”. According to your definition of rape on the night my wife was conceived her dad raped her mom.
5
"It was rape even if she asked him to have sex with her. It was rape even if she enjoyed it. It was rape even if she was happy while it was happening."
For heaven's sake, you take this to a ridiculous extreme. The hypothetical woman in your example has done everything to indicate that she is "willing to engage", aside from signing a contract; she seems to be in a "responsible state of mind", unless she is a pathological liar. Using your logic, I can give a huge tip to my waiter, then accuse him of robbing me.
10
So, if both parties are drunk, he is responsible for his actions and she is not? That is infantilising women.
16
I question the fairness of publishing an article questioning the justness of this verdict, naming the man, but not the woman. Right or wrong, her accusation has not held up in a court of law. Why is it fair to continue to condemn the accused, and not even publish her name. I do not think it is true here, but on rare occasions women falsely accuse men for ulterior motives. Would the Times continue to print his but not her name in such a case? And who decides if that is the case?
17
The word choice in the Times' coverage of the Yale rape case both encapsulates and exacerbates the problem with colleges adjudicating sexual assault accusations. In February, prior to the trial, the reporters adopted the language of the Yale police and referred (prematurely) to the woman accusing Mr. Kahn as "the victim." Now, after Mr. Khan is acquitted, the reporters relent to referring to her as "the complainant" -- which (to avoid poisoning the jury pool) is how she should have been identified all along. Why is it that the press only accords a criminal defendant the presumption of innocence after he is acquitted, rather than before, as the constitution demands? Until that mindset changes, Mr. Khan and those similarly situated will never be able to return to campus, even after exoneration. I've represented students who ultimately were completely cleared of campus assault charges -- yet whose reputations, despite being vindicated even after receiving the most meager of due process, never recover. Perhaps someone needs to focus on fixing that.
24
Guilty or not, in this case or in all the cases is a practice I just don't get.
Why is the rape victim's identity NEARLY always shrouded. Her name never appears in the press and her privacy is as closely guarded as the alleged victim wants it to be. And yet, the accused is dragged across the headlines, he is tried in newspapers and in the court of public opinion. The default position is if a man is accused of rape he is guilty and we all need to know who he is. I know this is a cliche but we do live in an "innocent until proven guilty" justice system (which is often a naive concept when it comes to practical application. But it is dead wrong to routinely ruin the life of the accused in every possible way before a verdict has been reached or a confession elicited. If this man is innocent...we'll nobody cares that the verdict says he's innocent, has been permanently stigmatized and his life somewhat ruined. I think about the four boys at Duke. Of course, the very people who think these trials are rigged against the victim in this instance are the same feminist/liberals, etc who think trials are always rigged against defendants when it's any other crime being tried from murder on down to jumping turnstiles.
18
Everyone needs to become a great deal more responsible for self. To believe at anytime anywhere you will be on good behavior or safe while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is the height of immaturity, irresponsibility. No one should rape or be raped. Yet to expose oneself to the possibility (which is the case while inebriated) is like pretending one is shielded by “be good and safe fairy dust” is beyond reasonable.
5
Here's a thought. Children should be raised to understand that you don't get stumbling, throwing-up drunk... and you have strength of character to know having sex with a very drunk person is wrong.
I have three children that are now young adults. I was not worried about them MAKING DECISIONS that would put them in these situations. People don't have to be perfect but they should be taught basic differences between wrong and right. That takes hard work. Unfortunately, many parents are too busy trying to be friends to their kids... or just too busy to be parents.
7
This article was written with bias against the accused so much so that editors had to stealth fully add “alleged” when discussing the accusations. There have been other edits as well following criticisms.
No note from the editor.
No wonder there’s so much anger about the jury decision. When reporters cannot follow basic rules of journalism and some of their faults swept under the rug, you can expect this outcome.
NY Times, you can and should do better.
18
This is an example of how high priced defense attorneys make the big bucks. As well as an apparent defendant that is a punk. Karma will get him.
3
Where did you read any of this? The story revolves around the fact that the complaint was hard to substantiate beyond reasonable doubt (the legal threshold which the jury took seriously). It is very possible that both complainant and defendant completely believe their versions (and that both regret the events). If anything, the fact that this case got to be tried in criminal court makes it the exception to the 'rape culture' on campuses.
8
Vivian Wang's reporting and tweets about this case seem biased in favor of the complainant. Compare her reporting on the trial to the New Haven Register's. For instance, she does not give salient details of the defendant's testimony. It turns out, Ms. Wang attended Yale between 2013 and 2017. This incident took place October 2015. Surely she knows people in the Yale community who have strong opinions about the case. This creates at a minimum an appearance of a conflict or potential bias. Additionally, according to her LinkedIn profile, she was University News Editor for the Yale Daily News from September 2015 to September 2016 and was a staff reporter from September 2013 to September 2015. This means she wrote about and edited stories about campus sexual assault at Yale. I'm not sure what to make of this. It seems off.
This is yet another example of why the Times should bring back its public editor.
31
Rape is a serious crime.
False accusations are also a serious matter.
Even though he was acquitted, the defendant will have to live with a stain on his reputation forever. He will be flagged in every background check. He will have to explain what happened at every job interview and on professional license application. His name has been besmirched at Yale, in this newspaper, and on the internet. He will always be considered guilty by many.
Yet the accuser, who was discredited at trial and where there are actual evidentiary standards, benefits from anonymity. Her name was "stricken from the record" and withheld in this article. Even though she did serious wrong by falsely accusing someone of a major crime, she skates through the whole affair with her reputation intact. It's outrageous that a public accusation of rape that can be made anonymously. "J'accuse!" should always be accompanied by "Je m'appelle."
169
The woman in this case did not falsely accuse anyone; the guilt of her accused assailant was not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors do not err by not having dropped cases they end up losing; they are supposed to try the cases that they believe have sufficient evidence for conviction. Unless evidence emerges that the victim was lying about her assailant, the system has worked the way it should: charges were brought, and the accused was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That he may be considered guilty by a lower evidentiary standard is part of how the system works (OJ Simpson, anyone?).
15
A jury finding that it was rape does not entail that it was a "false accusation."
5
So everyone who is found not guilty in a trial is the victim of "false accusations"? Guilty parties never go free? Sexual assault is very hard to prove by a shadow of a doubt when the two parties are acquainted or worse yet, in a formal relationship. I see no reason in this article that this woman would have to lie. The lines of consent may have been blurry, but to state she made it all up is cruel.
10
I feel like everyone is misinterpreting the defense's line of questioning about the defendant's clothes. The logic is not "it is okay to rape a woman if she dresses provocatively." Instead, they're trying to prove that the sex was consensual, and they're using the clothing to try to argue that the accuser went out that night hoping to attract a sexual partner. It may seem sketchy, but people do dress differently when they're trying to hook up with someone. Thus, if you were trying to prove consent, which leaves virtually no physical evidence, you may want to turn to the clothing. It's the same thing with flirtatious texts. Do flirtatious texts mean that the girl automatically consents? No. However, flirting is often how two consenting sex partners signal that they want to have sex with each other. Thus, if the accused is claiming that sex was consensual, and he has all these texts suggesting that the girl wanted to have sex with him, that does suggest that there was consent.
12
I don't know the details of this case, but please be aware that people dress in various ways for many reasons, only some of which might pertain to sex. People are allowed to feel attractive and sexy when they have no intention of sleeping with anyone. Flirtation, which does hint at openness to romance, does not explicitly invite sexual intercourse. You might flirt with people because you want to date them, kiss them, be near them -- it should never be assumed that the end-game is sex unless someone explicitly requests it.
The goals of flirtatious behavior exist on a continuum, of which sex is just one possibility. Not everyone wants their flirting to end in intercourse.
2
It is never, ever good for a woman to go in front of a judge and jury claiming that she was too drunk to remember much about the events of the night but is sure that she did not consent to sex. The prosecution's case becomes about how drunk she was rather than the alleged rape. Witnesses for the prosecution testified about her level of drunkenness. That seems to me to be a sure way to lose a case.
8
In the absence of definitive evidence the word of the policeman is taken over the word of the accuser in police abuse cases. The solution has been so far to issue body cameras to police.
As ridiculous as this sounds it may be time to issue body cameras to the female and male student population. The number of both wanted and unwanted sexual encounters would be reduced greatly. I know some of you will point out the obvious problems with this proposal but safeguards like encrypting the video and audio for use only by the police or courts and only allowing the camera to be turned off by the wearer may alleviate those concerns.
Failing that theres always reverting to single sex schools, banning alcohol or adopting some sort of buddy system.
1
Unfortunately for women, rape and sexual assault seem far too commonplace on college campuses. They seem most frequently to take place at parties when there is plenty of alcohol and drug consumption. The occurences of rape and sexual assault always seem to involve a very intoxicated victim who can't remember everything that happened to her. It seems pretty obvious that the best self-defence for women is to refrain from excessive drinking. Keeping your wits intact enables you to extricate yourself fast when things start going sideways. That is common sense. Think of the analogy of walking through a dangerous neighborhood, men and women would take all precaution to keep themselves safe. Why shouldn't women do the same when they knowingly enter situations (drinking parties) with potential predators present? The best defence is to stay sober. There certainly is no fun in becoming so intoxicated that that you throw up, pass out and don't remember much the next day. Teaching young women to exercise common sense and personal responsibility will go a long way towards keeping them safe from predators.
7
Most women say that they've been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted during their lifetimes. I don't doubt them. Most men will also say they've been in sexual situations with women that were far from being clear-cut as far as consent goes. Usually alcohol is involved. We all do things when impaired that we might not do when completely sober. Recollection is usually spotty at best.
So, how do we define "appropriate" behavior? There are some clear boundaries, but what about situations that are not so unambiguous? A woman who dresses "provocatively" may not be asking to be raped, but she surely is dressing to attract. Women also have libidos that can be unleashed with too much drink. Is a man out of line if he enthusiastically accepts a proposal, verbal or otherwise, from a tipsy woman? It happens, you know. Trying to judge such a liaison after the fact is next to impossible - there are just too many variables.
Anyone who can figure out how to deal with human sexual behavior should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
4
This poor man is going to be saddled with enormous legal fees that he and his are going to take years to pay. Obviously the jury made the right call and the defense attorneys did a fine job discrediting this woman. She can always get a job here in Las Vegas.
5
We, as humans, are approximately 96% genetically similar to chimps... and 90% to cats! Let that sink in. We pretend to be so much more "evolved," but are we?
4
The difficulty of our time: the prevalence of special interest groups bypassing the legal system.
Glad these cases are going through the Courts. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of these cases involve 2 drunk college students doing things privately, then demanding that society takes action if things didn't feel right or someone convinces them that they are a victim.
I am reminded of the 'dorm rape' case involving a USC student in 2017, one facing not only expulsion, but jail time. Until video came out showing the 'victim' in question was a fully engaged participate in the evening's "festivities."
5
I am not a lawyer and maybe I watched too much court TV but shouldn't the lawyer for the unnamed woman have stood up repeatedly shouting "objection your honor" or is is totally permissible to have this line of questioning which inevitably primes the jurors to fall into the fallacy of blaming the victim. I thought we were so far beyond that out dated way of thinking but yet this court permitted such inappropriate questioning.
And I also wondered, is it only sexual assault victims who can keep their names from public view or if I were a victim of burglary or simple assault may I select not to be named in a criminal trial.?
The article does not inform enough to determine guilt or innocence but it does raise significant questions about the way our courts deal with sexual assault.
1
"...the fierce, unresolved debate over whether campus rape cases are best handled by universities or law enforcement..."
Unresolved? Rape is a felony. If this woman had reported any other violent crime to Yale, say, assault with a weapon, Yale would have called the cops immediately.
5
“Drunkenness is temporary suicide: the happiness that it brings is merely negative, a momentary cessation of unhappiness.” – Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970)
What a pity that American university culture sees freedom and adulthood as a prolonged drunken binge for young men and women. Surely, that is an impoverishment of the imagination in a relatively better educated and privileged part of America?
7
So... she doesn't exactly remember what happened. What she does remember apparently seemed unreliable to the jury. He sort of remembers. His memory is, sex was consensual.
I don't see why what she was wearing or what she texted to him previously or any of this other extraneous material is relevant. The prosecution was charged with proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they had sex (which I guess no one is disputing) AND that she did not consent.
We are not allowed to presume the crime, that is, presume she did not consent. As one of the elements of the crime, lack of consent has to be PROVEN. Beyond any reasonable doubt. Without some evidence beyond what I have listed I think we're stuck with the original presumption of innocence, which is, it wasn't rape.
This might seem an injustice, but as many here have pointed out, presuming the guilt of an accused person without evidence would be far worse.
9
An intoxicated person who is throwing up, disoriented, and needs help walking is in no condition to give consent for sex. A person's judgement in such circumstances is highly suspect, as most people familiar with alcohol should understand. Proceeding then with the first episode of 'consensual' sex is a really bad idea and essentially rape. It's not an excuse to notch a conquest.
2
Were you at the trial to watch the same video the jury watched? She didn't need help- walking, in fact she was walking arm in arm with him laughing and chatting. He eyes weren't closed as she claims, she had a smile on her face!
3
Rape is a serious felony and act of violence.
Rape allegations need to be investigated and adjudicated in the criminal justice system.
Claiming that a university panel, composed of professors,administrators, and students, can fairly adjudicate a rape charge is irresponsible nonsense.
5
First time being drunk. Would this guy have been arrested ans suspendbed if he was white from a wealthy family a member of lacrosse team ? Would this girl go into the ocean in the middle of the night by herself? Her story is all too familiar, these girls need to have a strict buddy system. So that situations like this don't happen. I'm not condoning the actions of this guy. At some point you have to take responsibility for your actions, if you're planning on going out drinking you make sure you have a designated driver and / or some way to get home. If your going out to a new situation you go with a friend and you make sure you have each others back. Why wasn't her friend put on trial for abandoning her? Clearly when people drink their thinking is impaired which result in unexpected consequences. Sadly this young man has had his life interrupted with this accusation and has been exonerated. This girl has learned a very difficult lesson in personal responsibility.
2
Most of the comments seem to be concerned about "putting the victim on trial". Need it be said that the victim is the accuser...the only person whose testimony might result in the defendant being jailed for many years and otherwise ruining his life. And remember that unlike most crimes, sex is a consensual act performed millions of times each day and in many cases it is only the the victim's state of mind that makes it a felony. Due process requires the victim has to testify and be vigorously cross examined; we can't just assume that she is telling the truth, as some of these comments seem to suggest.
10
I think the defense lawyers leave their own moral standards outside the court's door. If I were a lawyer, I would refuse to accept the case - I will not sacrifice my moral principles for money. But i guess, some lawyers, like our president, money is the only morality even if it destroys other peson's dignity.
1
I'm not surprised! There are daily reasons I'm ashamed seeing/hearing about deeds by my fellow men. It's so obvious this young man knew what he was doing, and did perhaps due to upbringing, genes, or whatever; but I'm not surprised. I hope this will live with him for the rest of his life in that it will be proscribed.
3
Among the challenges, the claim that dress and drinking should not be considered flies in the face of the realities we have seen. It's not a transitive property but it is also impossible to classify it as wholly irrelevant. There should be not question that a person should have the unambiguous right to drink, flirt and not be assaulted. However, it is as if I was walking around the worst part of town in a $2000 suit with $100 bills hanging out of my pockets. I should be able walk around and not be assaulted and honest people won't assault me. However, there is also a likelihood that I will attract the attention of dishonest people. One of the basic conclusions is dont put yourself in vulnerable positions including drinking as this not only will likely make you less likely to be a target but also it will make it make it easier to prosecute perpetrators.
6
This reinforces the fact that today both men and women need to be taught what signifies consent and accountability for both sides. The defense's questions about dress and demeanour are nauseating to say the least. How can anyone ignore the fact that the woman was clearly more affected by the alcohol and the man still had some semblance of thought compared to her. Also i am appalled that her friends didn't look for her or watch out for each other. I fear for this overall lack of respect and empathy that the young men and women of today seem to demonstrate in these situations.
3
The general drift towards guilt until proven innocent combined with an attitude that reasonable doubt should not apply in these cases is disconcerting. To all those who profess these ideas, be careful what you ask for.
8
There is the possibility that Khan is actually innocent. The current trend of an accusation being as good as a guilty verdict is startling. And no, that's not blame the victim.
18
I guess the only good thing that will happen from this is that his name will be available on Google to discover. I am hoping that future employers and co-workers find it and he suffers the consequences.
5
Seems like alcohol is involved in all these cases.
Get rid of the booze. It's a carcinogen and not healthy for you anyway, especially how it's consumed at colleges.
5
There is a double standard here, and the presumption of guilt is usually placed on the male.
Did anyone ask whether the woman was guilty of rape here?
No, because the societal presumption is that the man wants to have sex or is so conditioned, by his gender and the societal norms.
And on the contrary, the woman is presumed to be so inclined, only when she gives her unequivocal consent, and further the societal presumption is that this may happen when she feels like it, actually wants to engage in sex and is interested in the male.
Yes, that’s a crude and unvarnished view, but it’s true. There is a gender bias, when looking at how males treat women and how men are treated in return.
8
I wonder if the Times would have had such a lengthy article, had he been found guilty.
I did criminal defense trial work for 42 years, much of it as a result of my associations with a major university in the DC area. In court, the alleged victim's statements can be fully explored. In a Title IX case, on campus, the respondent (usually male) has few rights.
Thankfully, attitudes are changing, despite the #me too hysteria. Evidence should triumph over allegations. These cases should never be tried in the press.
One last comment. Mr Khan's reputation was ruined by this case. Don't you think the just thing, at this point, after an acquittal, would be the disclosure of the complainant's name?
15
It is sad but understandable that a number of comments still question this man's innocence.
Our constitutional right to be considered innocent until proven guilty - *including when you are found not guilty* - is sacred. This right is there because the inverse - guilty until proved innocent - has been abused countless times throughout history. It is there to prevent overreach by government authorities and other powerful figures. It is a system no one wants.
As a person who worked with victims of crimes, it is a very difficult thing to sit them down and say "Not guilty means they are innocent of the crime. Period. I can't change that, you can't change that, the court can't change that. It is time to move on. To a civil action if you wish, to quieter days for certain, to educating other victims in how to cope if that sounds interesting to you, but you must move on from proving guilt. The accused is innocent."
Obviously, every victim still held in their heart that the accused was guilty. How can they not? But for the most part, they understood, eventually, and moved on.
I hope the victim in this case can discover her own path to putting this horrible event behind her. For the rest of us, the best thing we can do to help her - and every other victim - is to respect the accused's innocence and move on from proving guilt as well.
Because there is nothing you, or I, or the court can do to change the verdict of "Innocent."
1
Readers should wonder if Mr. Khan will be re-admitted to Yale University and be able to complete his degree in a timely fashion.
Will Yale University administrators make this article mandatory reading for incoming freshmen and their parents, so the tragedy experienced by "the complainant" and Mr. Khan will not happen again?
On that Halloween night two people brought sorrow and suffering to themselves and their families, perhaps some good can come of this incident in the lives of future students.
3
Alcohol is a drug. Just like marijuana is a drug, just like opioids are a drug.
That it is accepted in our culture and looked at with a nod and a wink in college events should be questioned. Children are taught not to raid the medicine cabinet, but it is assumed they can’t be kept from booze.
The ages of these two students aren’t given in the article. Over 21? How these situations develop - both in macro and micro - should be subject of the next “movement” .
5
This gets to the heart of the issue. Not all of these cases are clear cut, and when you have cases that are in the gray, we need a system that can adjudicate them. Whenever I see stories like this, I am reminded of mob justice. A serious accusation requires investigation and adjudication. That is how the system has to work. If someone is accused of murder, and they are put through a trail and found not guilty ... that is it. That is not a failure of the justice system. That is not a failure to care about the victims of murder. It is proof that we have a system that can both convict and exonerate, but not do so perfectly.
As a male domestic abuse victim, I am all too familiar with the other side of this process - where certainly without evidence and politicization of the process is ruinous. I know what its like to report a crime that can 'only happen to women', only to find myself under investigation for committing the crime that I endured. I know what its like to have people 'certain' that only a man can be guilty launch dozens of investigations into increasingly spurious allegations, and have that process stop only when Members of Congress get involved and you have to file a law suit to make it stop.
Seven years later, litigation is still unfolding because the agencies that engaged in these practices are refusing to cooperate with the legal process until forced to do so by a judge.
That is what a false allegation does without due process.
2
The focus on the tactics of the defense lawyers obscures the fundamental issue here. We may well find the results of rape trials unsatisfactory and attribute that correctly to still prevailing cultural attitudes about men, women and sex upon which the defense plays, but there is simply no safe, higher place to lodge judgement over life and liberty than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a jury of one's peers. All our long historical experience with abuse of power says so, loudly and clearly, again and again and again. As culture changes, the balance of jury verdicts will change. Attempts to hasten that process by tampering with the standard and substituting authorities who "know better" than juries is just playing with fire. Once started, there's no telling how far it will burn. It is intrinsic to the price of liberty for all that we accept that many we consider perpetrators walk free. They are free from the reach of the law; they are never free from general understanding of what they did and who they are. These are bedrock fundamentals of civics in a free society. It is distressing to have to rehearse them. We all should be more distressed that public understanding of these fundamentals is so eroded and so under assault today, from all directions, with seemingly fewer and fewer defenders, than with the outcome of this or any trial by jury.
3
Citizens and advocates have every right to lobby for rape shield laws and limit what can be presented to a jury or judge. They can even push for changes in state lawyer ethics rules if they choose to. But a defense lawyer's duty is to his or her client -- to represent his or her client "with zeal" -- at least that's the last rule I've read. It is not to the public at large, or to advocates. In the same sense that prosecutor's duty is to present a case against the defendant, who enjoys a presumption of innocence under our system.
2
Having witnessed a trial brought by a female prosecutor against the advice of the police which ended in a full not guilty verdict with only thirty minutes of deliberation by a jury mixed between men and women of all kinds, I can easily understand how this happened.
2
And, Happy International Women's Day to all - the shaming of victims as a legitimate strategy that works shows us that the fight is far far far far from over. It's only begun, yet again.
4
Some people upset about this verdict argue it is inappropriate and irrelevant to to ask the accuser how much she had to drink. Other people upset about the verdict argue the defendant must be guilty because the accuser was too drunk to consent.
3
"Instead, she said, they considered the evidence."
Enough said.
6
Same as it ever was, victim blaming and shaming.
I do take heart in that this case went to criminal court, and may many others also find their way to court. Perhaps if the victim were able to be seen and idenfied as a real person, as the defendant was, that may have helped her case.
I find it despicable that her Halloween costume was shown as evidence against her. We really still have a long way to go in believing and protecting women and girls.
1
Women need to protect themselves. No alcohol, no going to a man's room at night alone. My mother explained this to me 70 years ago!
3
Objecting to defense attempts to discredit the witness is nonsensical. It's what defense lawyers are supposed to do. It's what women would want if they were being unjustly (in their own eyes) accused of a crime. This story is a welcome recognition that there is, somewhere, a glimmer of sanity and justice in these campus sex cases.
But making that the focus of the story here goes well beyond our system of justice. It is a relentless attempt to stir grievance at a supposed travesty of justice. The Times should be celebrating the acquittal of an innocent man, rather than stoking further division.
8
Incomplete journalism. The New Haven Register covered this well, and there is a lot of information left out here. For instance, the woman went to the Yale health center on Nov 1 to get a morning-after pill, and she told the staff that she had had consensual sex the night before. That's a gigantic detail, but this article skips to her accusations on Nov 2. In statements to police, the woman also could not clearly remember whether there was penetration, but on the stand her memory was suddenly clear. Electronic swipe card data corroborated the defendant's account that he left her dorm to get condoms -- suggesting she let him back in. There was also a strange detail of a two-hour documented phone conversation that the defendant had with another woman in the midst of the encounter. That woman testified that she had spoken to the accuser on the phone (at the time that she was supposedly unconscious). Finally, it was actually the prosecutor that brought the clothing into the case. The accuser implied that she didn’t have a choice about what to wear, but this was demonstrably false, as she had gotten the costume from a Yale storage closet and there were other costumes available (including the Cinderella costume). This kind of inconsistency is relevant to general credibility, even if the specific detail shouldn't matter in a broader sense. In all, there was a great deal of third-party evidence not mentioned here and the case was actually more than "he said-she said."
15
Thank goodness for a real judicial system, not university kangaroo courts, beholder to PC bias. But guys better get their act together and tread cautiously, as the "victim" determines when the fun becomes a felony.
6
Unless you attended the trial, I don't see hwo anyone can comment intelligently in regards to guilt or innocence or the character of the defendant or hsi alleged victim.
Even teh rudimnetary recitation of defense and prosecutors' questions and the procedural aspects of the case are hard to evluate based on this brief article.
6
The jury heard the facts and returned a verdict in short order of "not guilty". One has to take that seriously, unless you are not actually interested in the facts of this particular case. That should have been the lead, instead of the zealous defense (what? you want a lawyer to not zealously defend their client?).
And yet the authors of this article led with how wrong the jury was in a blatant display of bias, burying exculpatory evidence towards the end of the article.
NYTines should not be a sanctuary for bias in service of an agenda, as I believe this article was.
22
This case is depressing and deplorable. My heart goes out to the victim.
That the defense attorney was permitted to flagrantly appeal to misogynist prejudice by attacking things like the clothes she wore disgusts me. Like so many defenders of rapists, this lawyer fundamentally argued not that his client didn't do it, but rather that he had a right to rape her because she wasn't a good girl. Only good girls have the right to object to rape, under this hate-infused theory. This young woman was out on her own at a party, had a black cat outfit and got drunk. So she's a bad girl and any man who wants to use her as a sex appliance should be able to. She has lost her right to complain!
Both this case and numerous of the comments posted nauseate me.
This story would be disgusting on any day but that it is delivered on International Women's Day puts it beyond the pale.
3
Everyone involved is asking the wrong set of questions, pursuing the wrong answers.
The place to start is asking how the victim of these assaults gets ‘got’ in the first place, and especially when that built in trigger was first pulled.
Behavior after that moment is mostly irrelevant, because the final result is a change in the victim’s self model that she never wanted.
The trick is going back far enough to establish that without doubt; start to analyze these events much later, and that doubt spreads like a cancer through every honest person’s mind and heart.
Including the victim.
The brutal crime in rape is that change in the victim’s self model. The defense in this case simply established an overwhelming compendium of interpretation of the victim’s behavior, successfully diverting attention from the fact that the person acting to produce that behavior was the changed self model, a change that the perpetrator triggered.
He wouldn’t ‘define’ a woman who would refuse him, even if she failed to become the person he desired her to be, someone who sincerely wanted meaningless sex with him.
But just because he, like all males, can sometimes find a way to force a woman to change herself, doesn’t excuse any of the effort he put into it.
It’s still rape. It might be natural, built in to all members of our species, but it’s still just rape.
—T&K
Did he use roofies? I heard those are bad. Rohypnol is predominantly used by roving groups of despicable men, some in fraternities. Sometimes on each other. I hear they like the personal responsibility argument as well. Then the ‘rape’ can be blamed on the victim and their parents. That’s why I tuck my Piaget under my sleeve, leave my Maybach with the valet, put my wallet in my front pocket, and carry a gun when I visit my old college.
1
Good to see due process work.
Much easier whining to the Twitter mob and talking to the press than proving your case in court and getting shut out.
9
Women, stop drinking to excess and putting yourself out there in compromising situations. Protect yourselves by avoiding the situations and curbing your drinking. Don't expect your companions to protect you. When two drunken people get together and hook up there should be no consequences other than perhaps a lesson learned. Regret sex is not rape.
13
To the commenters who are blaming women for getting raped while they were drunk, I offer an alternative scenario:
You show up for surgery drunk, the surgeon has you sign a consent form, and performs the procedure. Later you find out it was the incorrect procedure performed by the wrong doctor. Will you sue claiming you were too drunk to consent?
3
That's ridiculous. The point is that women need to protect themselves and avoiding drunkenness is very important. The level of vulnerability when someone is drunk is ridiculously high. It's best to avoid being that vulnerable all together. It doesn't mean that she wasn't raped, but she didn't need to be in that position to start with. If I walk down the street with $5000 in my wallet in a bad neighborhood at 3 am, and get robbed, the person robbing me is still a criminal. But I'm an idiot for allowing myself to be so vulnerable. It's common sense which seems rare on campus these days.
2
Hardly ridiculous. In your scenario few in society would hold you responsible for the robbers actions. Yet women are held responsible for not only their own behavior but those of the men as well.
He was considered an acquaintance. I would expect a male acquaintance, friend, boyfriend, neighbor etc. to be respectful of boundaries. To look out for me if I were incapacitated for ANY reason. Regardless of your definition of rape, he took advantage of a clearly incapacitated person. Does this mean I must assume all men all incapable of self-control? That all men are potential rapists, just waiting for a chance to act? Well, I don’t. I believe real men know right from wrong and act accordingly. Real men don’t rape because the circumstances make it possible they’ll get away with it. Real men don’t blame their behavior on what someone wore, or if she was drunk, etc. Real men are respectful and act accordingly.
1
I am super glad about the verdict. Women, these days, think that if they do not like something they did earlier on they can just make up stuff and create a humongous problem for the man. Even wives are claiming rape these days--- imagine that!
In college around the early 80s, I recall, having been in encounters like the one described here. Living in the dorm, parties, lots of beer, wine, etc... and then going to each other's rooms. I never heard any such nonsensical #meToo type stuff that is going on these days. There is mass hysteria taking place around sex. When a woman and man end up in a room together after taking a stroll and having had drinks etc earlier there is implied consent, and everything that is happening is consensual. To think that people should sign legal documents or have recorded vocal consents on cell phones before engaging in sex acts is simply nonsense.
I would say to all women, if you do not want to have sex with a guy do not let him into your place of residence. If you allow him into that space after having dinner and drinks together then if sex happens, it is with consent.
Rape is someone forcing themselves inside your house, or a stranger (plumber, electrician) forcing themselves onto you, etc. i.e. such situations.
Women should conduct their affairs with strange men in PUBLIC, a man is not going to rape you in a mall or a library, or a cafe.
8
by this Texas logic, guys, if you spend money on dinner, take the date back to your place, get drunk and wake up to find she's grabbed your wallet and shoved a salami in your mouth, you were just asking for it - giving away cash, eating, just asking for it.
3
Instead, she said, they considered the evidence. “There was sufficient doubt on every charge,” she continued. “So we came to the verdict we did.”
Probably 99% of the commentators here would have been thrown off the jury by the lawyers for one side or the other. Comments irrelevant. Juror comment above is relevant.
9
There are 100,000's of men in prison for rape and sex assault. There are millions of men on the Various State Sex Offender Registries for rape and sex assault, having served there time. But hey, let's measure the world from a couple of drunks who partied to hard one night.
5
"In an interview afterward, a juror, Diane Urbano, said the #MeToo movement had not figured in the panel’s decision.
“It was not part of the case,” she said. “We put it aside.”
Instead, she said, they considered the evidence. 'There was sufficient doubt on every charge,' she continued. 'So we came to the verdict we did.'"
------
People seem to be reading all sorts of things into this. It is clear that there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant on rape charges.
11
I should think that a morally confused and declining institution like Yale that features an annual "Sex Week" and continues to pioneer the such lofty cultural phenomena as the "Naked Party" can expect to see more of its students enmeshed in trials such as Mr. Khan's
5
Thank God there is still justice in America. However, it is still unfair that this innocent young man has had his name dragged through the public mud. In the future, women like this who falsely accuse men of rape should also be publicly named.
8
There is no evidence that she falsely accused Khan of rape. There simply wasn't enough evidence to say that he did rape her under our legal system. Whether one is found innocent or guilty by our legal system and whether one is actually innocent or guilty are two very different things. We hope that they align but I think we all know that there are lots of instances in which they do not.
2
So, once again, how a woman dresses means she is okay to rape. After all, a cat outfit for Halloween means she wants it, right? But, if she were wearing a nun's outfit instead and this still happened, it would now be rape and not just a night of two consenting adults having sex? Oh, wait, she didn't consent. She was drunk, very drunk, and instead of being a gentleman, he took advantage of her. Guys, when a woman is drunk, she can't consent. She is intoxicated, not able to make rash decisions. Why is this still being argued?
9
This is every woman's worst nightmare realized. As someone who works at a large urban university, I will state that rape happens on college campuses, too - and this is what it looks like.
6
getting publicly accused of a rape you didn’t commit by an accuser who is able to continue to hide her identity is every man’s nightmare
5
Maybe there should be a ubiquitous PSA poster on all campuses directed towards women along the following lines:
If you drink and get drunk you will be raped. Use good judgment when going out with friends.
Guys that do this on campus, graduate and do the same thing in the workplace. Just read the newspapers..
3
How is it the "personal responsibility" argument consistently used to batter her, while he, who "commits a sexual act" with someone clearly blindingly drunk, is left with no such standard?
7
A woman who is drunk in public is an idiot who is likely to become a victim of some sort of crime. Is it fair, is it right? No it's not, but is the world we live in and as such each person must make wise choices to insure their own personal safety. I wouldn't go into a bad neighborhood late at night by myself and neither would most thinking people. Obviously, one must secure one's own safety and only a fool would rely on a stranger for personal safety. If you can't remember anything, it just as likely it was consented to as not, and as such no conviction can be justified.
8
Give the jury a little credit. Even if the defense attorney was allowed to present evidence regarding her Halloween costume, etc., it does not mean that the jurors relied upon same to reach their unanimous verdict of "Not Guilty."
And yes, since Mr. Kahn was found not guilty, there should be no reason whatsoever to withhold the complainant's name from the article.
12
This verdict is very unfortunate for the victim, especially since she had to relive the event on the witness stand. If not a triumph for white privilege, it was definitely one for male privilege. A couple of years ago here in Nashville, several members of the Vanderbilt University football team, one of whom was white, underwent trial for the rape of a female student. The white defendant had the means to hire a crack defense team, whereas the black defendants did not. In the end, all defendants were found guilty, sentenced to at least 15 years in prison, so justice prevailed over privilege in this incident. Let's hope it does in others as well. Thank you.
2
He is guilty! How do I know? Because I was once in the victim's position. I was in my late twenties and didn't enjoy the drinking scene. On a blind date, after more drinks than I could handle, I had no memory of consenting to go to my date's apt, taking off my clothes or consenting to sex. I woke up naked in his bed with him on top of me. The only way I got out was to say I was going to vomit! I never accused him of rape because I had no memory of the events.
2
The terrible thing that happened to you did not involve any of the people in this case. When bad things happen to us, it is tempting to exact revenge on someone else, but this temptation should always be resisted.
5
The fact that you had no memory of consenting does not mean you did not consent. A well-known side effect of alcohol is loss of memory.
2
The next time I see a guy in the gym wearing gym shorts, a t-shirt, and boxing gloves and punching a bag, I'm going to punch him in the face. When he asks why, I'm going to say: You dressed like a boxer and acted like a boxer, so I assume you consented to being punched in the face.
10
If she had murdered him instead of having sex the courts would not accept a plea of incapacitation. How to square that circle? Note to young women: that guy whom you met at a party and you invited back to your room probably wants to have sex with you. If you are not in the mood then do yourself and him a favor and just say no thanks, I have a headache.
9
Innocent until proven gyUilty is our standard. However; blame the victim tactics give a unfair edge to the accused and ought to be banned in court.
2
You know...I have a hard time believing this guy is innocent of rape. Period. End of subject.
Victim blaming. Ubiquitous. Inherent abuse of women. Guilty as charged.
4
I was in your shoes. But dig into the story. Read the NH Register story. Her story did not add up. It was contradicted by verifiable facts over and over. On video, she looked sober. The idea that he could have stolen her phone, sent texts, stolen her keys, left to get condoms, come back to the room, stolen her phone again, sent more texts, talk to his friend, and have enough sex to use multiple condoms without her regaining consciousness did not seem credible. The prosecutors overplayed the drunk card. When it turned out to be untrue, they lost the jury. The jury could be heard in the jury room commenting on the video tape derisively.
6
How sad. Based on previous NYT articles I thought the defendant surely would be convicted.
My two takeaways from this story:
1) Flirting with your assailant before the rape = consent. Once women give & invite attention, they cannot say "no" in the future. No autonomy.
2) Every single male acquaintance makes his big move when the woman is blackout drunk; they never have the courage to hit on the woman when she's stone-cold sober.
3) We need to re-educate people - adults and children - on the effects of alcohol, namely that getting drunk does not "make you" do something you normally wouldn't. Drinkers aren't transformed from Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde. Alcohol brings to the surface who you are by loosening inhibitions.
If you only beat your kids or spouse when you're drunk, you're an abuser. If you only hook up with the same gender when you're drunk, you're in the closet. If you only have sex with an acquaintance when she (or you) are drunk - and she cries "rape!" the next day, guess what? you're a rapist.
5
Your comment made sense until the end. If a young man has sex with an female acquaintance when she are drunk, and she cries rape the next day, it may be that she is regretting her loosened inhibitions, that, as you note, alcohol brought to the surface who she is, and that while she was drunk, but conscious and having fun, she consented to have sex which she later regretted. People are making it seem like drunk young women are just automatically completely dysfunctional. Sometimes, they are just having a wild good time, and either forgetting it or regretting it the next day.
1
Maybe it's time to turn the tables: ask the accused, did you flirt by text? Do you flirt with the intention to get sex? Did you drink too much, knowing that you act irresponsibly when drunk? How is it you remember the party but not having sex...
2
The right to be presumed innocent, to confront one's accuser, to a trial by jury of one's peers, these are all fundamental tenets of due process. Why is it that so-called progressives don't seem to believe they should apply to a man accused of rape?
12
This is all about standard of proof. The legal standard for imprisonment for rape (beyond a reasonable doubt) is too high for these cases. The standard for being judged to be a dirtbag with no honor and no place at Yale is much lower and (based on the reporting) very obviously met in this case. Campuses need to adjudicate these cases to the lower standard to keep dirtbags out of their communities and to keep their students safe. Here is one strong voice for our students' rights to do dumb college stuff like get drunk in a cat suit without being raped for it. If she is sick from alcohol she cannot give consent and every gentleman knows that.
9
If we didn't live in a rape culture, men would not confuse sex with rape.
6
I was a prosecutor for 35 years. What you just witnessed is called due process. Let's be thankful we have it in America, although as we have discovered over the last six months, the American left has only disdain for the concept if it involves a sex crime, especially when the alleged victim is a privileged white female student at a prestigious university. In that case, an immature, ill-considered, alcohol-fueled decision to have sex, if later regretted by her, must always be considered a sex assault. And of course, when the sex act involves two college students who are both too intoxicated to legally consent, in the eyes of the left, only the male is guilty of a crime.
To American liberals, criminal defense attorneys are heroes when they're defending the accused, except when they defend men accused of raping women. Their are no plaudits in the New York Times vocabulary sufficient to express liberal America's gratitude for the selfless few in university "innocence projects" who use any technicality, attack any victim, distort any fact, in the name of "exonerating" guilty offenders, especially if they are black.
Except, of course, if the alleged offender happens to be a male, especially a "privileged" white male, accused of rape, and especially a campus rape. In that case, due process can safely be ignored, and defense attorneys, who in all other instances would be considered heroes, now become villains.
16
Most jarring - some seeing a "not guility" trial verdict as "nullifying" earlier judgment by a Yale tribunal
Gaping fundamental difference isn't venue or jurisdiction, but threshold for a culpable finding vs a guility verdict
Not a lawyer, but obvious difference between "preponderance of evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt"
Further, our justice system uses the lower threshold, e.g. indictments and civil suits
So - the rub...
> Outside justice system, no ad hoc way to empanel prosecutors or judges, based on reasonable doubt - except where stakeholders hire actual (e.g. retired) judges and have clear mutual view of "law" in force
> Campus "preponderance" proceedings have become shrill shoutdowns, where more people (metaphorically) shouting louder and repetitiously for your side can sway things...Rape - whether student or planet - engenders loudest shouting
> With preponderance, can be a mixed finding - and pro-rated culpability - as in civil suits...Perhaps Colleges should handle these situations as acts against campus comity, and - across the two parties - assign 100% of blame - with schools having sovereign immunity...i.e. can't go in, implying that "...in part, Yale made me do it..."
> Within an 80-20 range (either way) parties share nominal cost pro rata...If beyond 80% either way...Can lead to trial/suit
> The irony...90-10 verdict for a woman may lead to rape trial...90-10 other way - at most, civil suit
Sort of meditration, with systemic right of appeal
2
Gentlemen: when coming upon an intoxicated female acquaintance, do you escort her safely home and ensure she is ok, perhaps not in any danger of alcohol poisoning and leave, or escort her safely home and have sex with her? Seriously??
15
I am a former bartender and there seems to be a double standard. If the woman is drunk, she is not responsible for her behavior and is considered incapable of consenting. If the man was at the same party drinking the same drinks, he is expected to hold her hair while she hurls?
We were not there that night and she admits being drunk to the point of huge chunks of memory missing. For all I know, they agreed to have sex after the party while they were still sober and then stayed and got hammered before going home.
1
"We both got drunk and I am sorry I had sex with that guy last night" is not the same as "he raped me."
24
a lot of cases like this one never go to court because prosecutors are afraid of verdicts like this one. I've gotten a few misdemeanor convictions with facts like this because jurors want women to be sober, and want women to not engage in kissing or flirting. It's frustrating when jurors say they would never [put themselves in that position. As for clothing well, I think we women should be able to walk around nude at lunchtime in downtown Atlanta w/o being assaulted, but no one else agrees. My halloween costume for many years was my Frederick of Hollywood/s great white bunny costume from about 1980. I was always careful not to get drunk and to stay with my boyfriend as I knew that a jury would not be my friend if I got assaulted. Just let a man get sodomized forcibly and the jury will be horrified. Different standards for men and women in court.
7
Everybody hates a vigorous defense right up until it's their neck(or someones they know and/or love) on the chopping block.
11
The problem is, J. Hencks, that trial by jury in cases of rape is not a path to justice either.
3
The man was found not guilty and yet this paper has no compunction about showing his face and name numerous times and never mentions even the name of the woman, even though her claim did not result in a guilty verdict. This double standard must end.
22
You need to get consent on a video tape, prior any sexual activity - sarcasm!
1
Regardless of what this court decided, anyone who has sex with someone who is incapable of consent is morally guilty of rape.
7
No man should have sex with dead drunk women..it's not an equal situation; the man can drink more and than just wait until she passes out. Americans don't know how to drink properly, also. With moderation.
9
There is no biological difference between men and womyn.
1
Will, there is a biological difference. Men certainly can handle more alcohol than women. From NIH - Women appear to be more vulnerable than men to many adverse consequences of alcohol use. Women achieve higher concentrations of alcohol in the blood and become more impaired than men after drinking equivalent amounts of alcohol. Research also suggests that women are more susceptible than men to alcohol-related organ damage and to trauma resulting from traffic crashes and interpersonal violence. https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa46.htm
2
That's not what my gender studies professor said.
The New Haven Register has much better coverage of the trial with daily articles.
https://www.nhregister.com/search/?action=search&firstRequest=1&...
4
From that bastion of EuReason, across the pond...
*ttps://www.cnn.com/2018/03/05/europe/france-age-of-consent-law-intl/
"...In France, current laws criminalize sex with children under the age of 15 but prosecutors must prove that the sexual act was forced...
"...Two cases involving the 11-year-old girls provoked outrage in France after the alleged perpetrators were acquitted of rape...
"...In November a 30-year-old man was cleared of rape after the court found that the victim had not been subjected to "constraint, threat, violence or surprise."...
.....................
A wake-up call, for folks having continuing difficulty understanding differences among forces of...
> Law
> Truth
> Logic
> Reason (approximate logic)
> Nature (couple of people)
> Nature (crowd - aka mob)
> Ethics (people - after the drunken sex and mob carnage)
Won't even cite murders of women being perpetrated globally in the name of honor, or - alternately - simply because they can be...
If the campus rape rules in force today had been in force in the '70's, everyone I went to college with would have been in jail.
7
Maybe they deserved to be.
8
Getting the girls drunk and taking them back to your room was De Rigueur in those days. They were none the less for wear.
There is something wrong with a man (and his motives) who wants to have sex with a woman after he ha watched her throwing up repeatedly because she is drunk.
19
But that's not what really happened. The events under consideration happened over the course of many hours. The accuser drank much less than originally claimed. She was clearly sober on video. She took a shower before they had sex. An upset stomach from alcohol does not mean incapacitation. There was deception by the accuser and the DA. Each time they got down to brass tacks, the accuser's account turned out to be misleading. If you are going to ask a jury to put someone away, your claims must match the facts. The match reassures the jury that you are not manipulating them. But time and again, the accuser's story did not match what could be verified.
8
I don't understand what would compel someone to even want to have sex with someone else who is ill and vomiting.
18
"She saw used condoms on the floor...."
Evidently Mr. Khan was not completely drunk, but having sex with a woman that just threw up is the tie breaker
5
She didn’t know he was there. She couldn’t give consent. This was their first encounter. Mr Khan raped her.
7
But she invited him into her dorm room twice over a three-hour period, once when they came back to it after the concert, and again when he came back with condoms. Clearly, she knew he was there.
2
You got to be Rich.You have to have deep pockets.You can then buy the best Liars in town & make a mockery of justice.
No wonder everyone's running after money.
Commit any crime & get acquitted.
Cash is king.
5
So when you’re intoxicated and you commit murder it is a crime. But when you’re intoxicated a commit a rape, it’s because of the woman’s outfit.
Happy Woman’s Day Y’All
14
Much of the material that caused the jury to acquit Mr. Kahn was left out of this story.
A tale half told by the Times.
Who did the male DNA found with an anal swab belong to since it was not Mr. Kahns' is reasonable doubt about what happened that night.
18
The DNA from the anal swab was important because the accuser was characterizing herself as someone who was chaste and not into casual sex, and therefore not someone who would have had sex with a man on a first date. It's impossible to explain away that DNA evidence. It really rocked the courtroom. It's amazing that it was not mentioned in the reporting.
13
Have sex. Regret it later. Accuse man of Rape.
17
She was staggeringly drunk and Khan took advantage...sounds like non consensual rape...
9
No, the jury saw the closed circuit video and could be heard commenting on it in the adjacent jury room. When you say you are "staggeringly drunk" and someone shows video footage of you getting along perfectly nicely, you have a credibility problem.
5
and did you just make this up? Somehow this tidbit never made it into the story...
A Lot of tidbits never made it to this story...
1
If you get liquored up, bring a guy into your room and then get into bed with him, nobody's going to believe you were raped.
9
This article left out crucial facts. The accuser became separated from her friends because she was so drunk she had trouble showing her ticket at the entrance to the concert. Her friends texted her several times to find out where she was and if she were all right. The accused took her phone and texted back pretending to be the accuser. He sent reassuring texts to her friends so that they had no cause to come after her.
That is damning. Saifullah Khan raped that girl, and he got away with it.
12
Nice point about the texts. This is VERY important, folks. If the texts were sent by the accuser, they would be exculpatory. The prosecution needed a theory to explain all these texts to friends. For her story to be true, the accused would have had to break into her phone, send a bunch of texts having studied her linguistic habits well enough to mimic them, leave the dorm room to get condoms, steal her key to get back into her room, break into her phone again, send more texts, then have sex for a long enough time to use multiple condoms, and talk to his own friend on the phone without her ever regaining consciousness....do you see that it does not add up? It's a lot to get a jury to believe, especially when your original claims to drunkenness are not credible and then there's the DNA evidence...
2
Many commentators have been mis-stating the standard for proof required at university hearings for cases like this. Pursuant to Title IX and a "Dear Colleague" letter from Eric Holder and the Obama Administration, the standard that universities are required to employ is this: Does the accused have a penis? If so, he is culpable. The university can assemble various committees and schedule various layers of procedures and appeals, but basic biology will dictate the result, after these PC academics have their fun. Penis=guilt. Imagine how upset radical feminists are to lose control of "their" proceeding and have it take place in a somewhat fair setting.
6
Perhaps the new line of alcoholic beverages from Coca-Cola should be targeted to women and have a warning label : Drinking excessively will increase your chances of getting raped.
This would counter the planned advertising campaigns depicting increased chances of getting laid.
The male version would carry the standard message about sugary drinks and penis damage.
1
I have been on juries charged with determining the course of people's lives - one was a highly publicized and controversial murder trial. I know everyone in the room to their responsibilities for upholding the law and analyzing all evidence presented by both sides.
I have to imagine the jurors on this trial did the same. If anything, given the current atmosphere, there was plenty of outside pressure to convict. You can see it in many comments here. Yet, the jurors determined not guilty. We did not see or hear all the testimony. We are not privy to all the facts.
All I can say is that if, in this environment, that jury panel took only 3 hours to return a not guilty verdict, the defense argument must have been incredibly convincing.
31
Seems possible that she was impaired but did not appear so. Though if he saw her throw up earlier, that certainly was a tell...
6
I have no idea whether the accused man is innocent or guilty, but I do feel quite confident in saying his lawyer should be disbarred for bringing up what she wore out on Halloween. The idea that provocative dressing gives a man the right to take what he sees is outrageous and ludicrous.
Does the flashiness of a Ferrari give me the right to steal it? Or why about prominent window displays in a store? They’re basically putting the merchandise out there, so should we not prosecute shoplifters?
The judge should have stopped that line of questioning as soon as it began. Women should be able to wear what they please without men taking it as invitation for sex.
41
Turns out it was the prosecution that first introduced the Halloween costume into evidence. They presented it at trial to show the vomit on it. If evidence is going to be used to convict a person of a crime the defendant should have the right to challenge it.
2
The judge is not an advocate. He/she only applies rules of evidence if/when one of the lawyers objects to a line of questioning. Remember that this is criminal charging brought by the State, not the complainant, against this defendant. State's attorneys/prosecutors in these cases frequently are outgunned by high-priced defense lawyers.
And do read the local New Haven press reports, journalists who covered every word of this trial and interviewed jurors after, to find out why "her clothing" was highly pertinent to proving what did or did not happen, e.g., was there or was there not "vomit" on her clothes -- as a sign of her incapacitating intoxication? Did she or did she not invite this defendant into her room, ask about condoms that he went to his room to get, and undress herself when her returned?
from a retired trial lawyer: The problem here may be incomplete and prejudicial NYT reporting? Imagine the damage to this acquited man if morning-after regrets about her actions fueled by friends pushing the "rape" angle are true . . .as both parties allies testimony indicates may be true? Trial by media and fury by those untutored in legal processes and roles can ruin lives.
1
Respectfully, you are comparing apples and oranges.
One scenario is an incentive to purchase by exposing how the item may enhance your life if you pay money for it. Everyone knows it’s not an incentive to steal the window display, but it sure is an incentive to a person who covets to steal the very same item that someone else already paid for. The other is not a suggestion to rape but it certainly is about a woman putting herself out there to be admired in ways that standard garb doesn’t. It may say something about her intent and should be fairly clarified, particularly if a mans life hangs in the balance.
But that’s not why this woman had sex that night . Wittingly or unwittingly.
Certainly , no woman should face the threat of rape. However This case seems to come down to another awful set of circumstances that repeat themselves over and over in our culture. A woman didn’t think that getting blackout drunk at a party would yield dire consequences. No one should ever be raped ,ever. And no one should ever wake up the next morning regretting the stupid lack of control that put themselves in a position where they can’t remember when they lost control of their own safety.
There’s the way the world SHOULD be and the way the world actually IS. No,dressing in a provocative outfit for Halloween is not an agreement to comply with someone’s will over you. But this is another sexual assault or experience that could have been completely avoided by this particular woman’s sobriety.
There's an important point here which I'm concerned about. I'm a staunch supporter of the idea that courts are the only place to deal with serious crimes. Rape is a serious crime, it needs to be dealt with by the courts. If you can't get a criminal conviction, perhaps a civil trial might work for some legitimate victims.
Having said that, isn't the real question why the judge allowed utterly irrelevant testimony to be part of the trial. A woman's attire is not grounds for raping her, is it? So, it's irrelevant to the matter. Does flirtation invite rape? The trial seemed fueled by testimony that is simply not important and intended to inflame the jury. All of this irrelevant testimony about the woman should never have been allowed. The rules of "evidence" seem to be the real culprit here, not the judicial system per se.
22
It's tradition in the courts. We have a long way to go in growing up.
The finding of not guilty was not based on what she was wearing. It was based on verifiable information like the defendant's card swipes when he left to get a condom, and returned. He could not have reentered her room if she was incapacitated or if, at 2 am, she did not want him there. It was based on closed circuit video that belied the claim that she was drunk. The jury was especially interested in that video, and could be heard in the jury room responding to it. Shortly thereafter, they sent out a verdict of not guilty on ALL counts, even 3rd degree. The jury acquitted because, whenever there was verifiable information, the accused was accurate and the accuser was inaccurate.
5
Youth, alcohol, and lack of adult supervision is a combustible mix that skews behavior towards the "less civilized".
In such circumstances it is wishful thinking to expect virtuous restraint from either sex. The present campus regulations penalize in many cases the lack of restraint from the male but the female. In their most egregious applications these same rules completely ignore the rights of males, to wit the many cases of false accusations that have come to light.
While it is tempting to blame male aggression for this sad state of affairs, if what is desired is a solution to the problem rather than an assignation of blame, a better solution may be the realization that some form of restraint may be needed. Particularly when the players in the drama are so frequently intoxicated young adults lacking in judgement or inhibitions.
13
In the Court of Public Opinion you are guilty until proven innocent, which is an impossibility. In the Court of Law you are innocent until, or unless, proven guilty. A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, a bunch of (white) men set up the system of laws that we have to protect people from the power of the state. Throughout our history, this protection against the power of the state has been pummeled and battered and assaulted by many forces. At this point in time it's the liberal media and "democracy" that is assaulting the rule of law. Few people understand that there is a difference between "democracy" (the rule of the masses) and "democracy" (the rule of law). It is the latter, not the former, that protects our liberties.
11
Most of these comments are ridiculous. The best defense for a rapist whose DNA has been collected is to claim consensual sex. The issue of force is a red herring: young persistent men can wait out a woman and after she is exhausted from hours of saying no and trying to push him away, she lies there and offers no more resistance. If shes lucky then a pregnancy will not result from this rape.
5
I would have like for the article to explain how the judge instructed the jury. What for instance is consent in Connecticut? Is it No means No? Yes means Yes? The decision on rape turns on whether a person as drunk as the accuser can give meaningful consent. The reader can't decide this issue based on the article, and I can only hope the jury was better informed.
10
If the woman is too drunk to give consent, then isn't the man too drunk to get content? Everyone knows that drunk people do not make good decisions, that is why it is against the law to drink and drive.
If you choose to drink, then you are also choosing to accept the consequences of your actions. Don't we also say the same thing to drunk drivers? That they choose to get in the car and drive? Unless someone drugs you, then using the "I was drunk" is not a good defense.
18
But I seriously doubt you would be willing to use the argument that by being drunk you forfeit your right to security for any other crime. What if he had beaten her with a baseball bat instead of raped her? Would you still say that, because she was inebriated and couldn't effectively defend herself, she should accept that being beaten was an inevitable consequence which she can't protest against?
Drink driving is a crime because being drunk whilst driving is a danger to others on the road, not because you might just 'make a bad decision'. The two situations are not analogous.
And people wonder why women don't report rape. This is why. She was exceedingly brave to report this and go through this trial and this is the result. Why would anyone go through this torture and public humiliation if they were lying about it? Our culture has a long way to go. I am beginning to lose hope and am afraid it will never change.
13
Strict laws are necessary regarding rape and strong civil penalties must also be in place. That being said, this article seems very on-sided. The man was found innocent by a jury in less than three hours, meaning the jury believed the case had absolutely no merit. If Khan's lawyers were relentless, then that means they were doing there job in the courtroom. Meanwhile, Khan was expelled from Yale and remains out of the educational system. We have the man's name plastered online and his picture prominently displayed in the NYT while the woman remains anonymous. His life is permanently wrecked - and he is an innocent party (at least in the eyes of the law). Rape is a serious crime and if you get drunk and willingly go to a man's bedroom and sleep in his bed and ask him to wear condoms, maybe you shouldn't be crying rape. Maybe we should have another crime, called sex while both parties were drunk and stupid.
28
Her life is not perfectly wrecked by this crime?
What century are you living in that you think a young woman would make this up and put herself through this ? To what end ?
In the end, the jury didn’t believe her because a large portion of society still believes that women who get drunk deserve to get raped. Bigotry begets injustice.
We are back to the days of no eyewitness, no crime. So much for the progress of the #metoo movement.
2
From this, he said/she said, parody of a trial its clear that sexual victims will never get justice. The solution should be required self defense classes for girls starting in 1st grade and continuing throughout college. Women have to learn to stop these perpetrators. And for buys to attend classes where they are taught never to attack women, respect for women, equality for women.
5
How can a woman so drunk that she is throwing up and needs help walking, be able to execute self defense moves against a perpetrator? That would work only for mentally alert women not under the influence of alcohol or drugs
1
BK: As with all solutions nothing is 100% effective for all conditions, nonetheless the things I propose wiill reduce rapes.
1
Yet another sad case of a woman being responsible for and asking to be raped. How far have we come in the treatment of the victims of rape?
9
He was acquitted. How do you know she was a rape victim?
5
Because a jury decided that she wasn't raped.
Because there is no evidence- outside of her post-coital remorse- that rape ever took place.
Not far at all.
Most focus on the defense's actions, but I am distressed by our peers who serve as jurors. After reading of case after case like this, evidently in America it is a truth universally acknowledged that a woman fortuitously in possession of sex appeal must be in want of a man's sex.
7
No, it just means she was unable to convince them beyond a reasonable doubt that she consented to it.
13
That isn't in contention John. What is contentious is their belief that flirting and dressing in an appealing fashion signified consent to sexual intercourse with the man. This is despite her testimony to the contrary and video evidence that she was heavily intoxicated shortly before the event. And the fact that most any woman will tell you flirting and dressing in a manner appealing to a man is not a form of consent to sexual relations with a man.
2
A woman’s right to drink herself blind supersedes a mans right to get on with his life.
Ladies : stay sober-er
Dudes: of consent can’t sustain the light of the next dawn , you’re doing it wrong!
Why is it that when a man is accused of rape or sexual assault and found not-guilty by a jury of his peers the media covers it as though he was guilty but got away with it?
57
Because the bar for guilt is so high and the rate of false accusations is so low.
1
Because, more often than not, that is exactly what happened and the misogyny embedded systemically within our culture and society needs to be called out.
Let's do a poll.
Who here prefers the presumption of innocence and trial by a jury of peers?
Who here prefers the presumption of guilt and trial by media?
35
Good poll J Jencks. I prefer the presumption of innocence and trial by jury of peers. Thanks for asking.
The justice system worked. Had he been found guilty, I would say the same thing. It's easy to second guess after reading the account in the news, and it seems that everyone comes to their own conclusion based on their preconceptions. That's why we have the system we do.
12
Let this be a reminder never to get too drunk. Not because it means you are consenting to sex, but because it means a future jury will discount what you say.
In cases like this, there is no good answer and there never will be one.
15
Feminist and women want equal rights and equal pay. How many men are claiming to be raped everyday? Women need to take responsibility for themselves and their actions or they will never be viewed as equal.
19
It seems like the defendant's attorney did his job with the result that the jury determined that the State failed to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Result: NOT GUILTY. Does anyone really want to change such a system?
15
Ban all college drinking on college property. Kick out every student who breaches ban. Remind students that they are there to study. If they want to play, then let them go elsewhere. Alternatively, make every university and college single sex, since so many modern American students evidently find it so difficult to behave appropriately.
12
Taking responsibility for being drunk does not mean that a crime which was exacted against you while you were drunk should not be prosecuted and brought to justice. Rendering yourself "vulnerable" does not forgive rape. As someone who deals frequently with college rape once told me, "You are responsible for what you do when you are drunk, not for what is done to you."
15
How could this women possibly give consent in the state she was in ? Regardless of how she dressed acted etc ? And are bruises in the thigh/genital area consistent with consensual intercourse ? I don't I know if this man should have been guilty fo rape and the severe strote day penalties, but campuses, though they cannot ban drinking, simply have to tell guys when you have sex with an overtly and provably intoxicated women you'd better be certain you have crossed your is and dotted Ts on the consent aspect-otherwise, famous will and arguably should suspend you. This doesn't mean we have to end sex on Canopus, just end this drunk hook up culture-thats what has to to, and can, change.
"You are responsible for what you do when you are drunk, not for what is done to you."
Yes!!
1
but it was prosecuted and brought to justice, and our legal system found Mr. Khan not guilty.
Apparently, the accused was asked to wear a condom by the "victim", and he went out to get a pack or two of condoms. That does not sound like rape to me.
You get drunk, have sex, and wake up with cognitive dissonance, and then cry rape.
The accused had a chance to confront the accuser and the jury found him not guilty after weighing the evidence. Unlike those accused of sexual misconduct by those who claim #METOO without wanting to go through the same process of cross-examination and confrontation, this accuser had her day in court, and came a cropper.
There is no victim blaming here. If anything, the victim was the guy who was falsely accused of rape and got acquitted.
34
I served on my university's student faculty conduct committee and while we mostly heard about plagiarism and cheating cases, we also had our fair share of sexual assault/rape cases. 100% of the time there was drinking involved--not just a a few drinks but excessive drinking to the point where at least one of the parties is black out drunk (typically the woman) and can't remember anything. Another common theme is that girls go out to parties with their friends who all promise not to leave one another and inevitably someone gets left behind. I asked my university's sexual assault counselor why they don't do more to dissuade such heavy drinking--give incoming freshmen statistics on sexual assault/rape and drinking, tell them that they shouldn't solely rely on their friends, that they put themselves at greater risk of danger when they get black out drunk, etc.--all of which are true regardless of whether they're PC or not. The counselor actually told me that it's the right for every woman to get as drunk as they want to and nothing should happen to them. And yes, I agree--that is the right of every woman to do what she wants but the "nothing should happen to them" is only true in an ideal world and sadly, we don't live in one of those.
Nothing bad should ever happen to someone because they drank too much, or because of what they wear, or because they had flirted with someone. But bad things do happen for these reasons. It's unfortunate but women need to watch out for themselves
27
Agree. But I feel very strongly that *people*, both men and women, make really bad decisions in the setting of alcohol consumption. Decisions they wouldn’t ordinarily make. We have got to stop being victims, and own our drunk decision making. And if that’s a problem, then don’t drink or do drugs in the first place.
9
"Mr. Khan’s lawyers worked relentlessly to discredit the account of the woman"
And that is supposed to mean what? A black mark on defense lawyers?
What else would any defendant want his lawyers to do?
Remember that old American principle? "Innocent till proven guilty?"
That means defendants get to attack the accusations against them. Pretty simple. But how easily the NYT and media forget. And how very much more frequently that "forgetfulness" occurs when the case doesn't pan out in the way of one pre-conception/"pre-ordained" spin or the other.
30
Back in the 60's and 70's no one would have called this anything other than "unfortunate sex". I don't care if it is the first time you got drunk. That is no excuse. Maybe these students need to ask themselves why they drink to black-out stage and maybe. like little children, need step-by-step instructions on how and where to get black-out drunk if that is their all consuming desire. No one has ever suffered from missing out on a hangover.
31
Smart men would not/should not get involved after a party, night out, etc. It is far too dangerous these days and the incident could ruin your life.
7
What was her name? The media enjoys divulging the name of the accused before due process, so it's only right that the accused's name be revealed when her charges are dismissed.
24
Charges were not dismissed; the accused was found not guilty. There’s a big difference. And it doesn’t prove his innocence, it just means that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. Hopefully, other women who come in contact with this man will be on their guard, thanks to this woman coming forward. Any man who has sex with an acquaintance who is highly intoxicated is not someone to be trusted.
2
The eventual and responsible answer for most females seems to ensure that they remain in womens colleges. Most of the Ivy league only began to allow females in during the late 60's to early 70's. If this is to be the result, it seems the most effective way female students can protect themselves is by not attending schools with males, who clearly are too dangerously stupid, rambunctious and constantly in search of sex,(as are most males of various species)
If women fear for their virtue, it seems we might be better served by a return to sex segregated colleges like in the 50's and earlier. Women didn't stop getting married nor did they cease having children so any fear that such a move would be destructive of the population is probably nonsensical.
However, many women attending college with men seem to have taken the idea of equality among the sexes to absurd lengths by assuming that besides having the same "rights" as adult men, that they somehow also have the same bodies and digestive systems, able to consume and detoxify excessive amounts of alcohol. This is something their grandmothers, attending women's colleges, knew to be fallacious.
Having to be back in their dorm rooms by 11:30 may have made girls at such colleges more conservative when it came to the consumption of alcohol. Being late to the dorm might reflect on their ability to remain at the schools or, their parents might be made aware of their habits.
1
Resolution of criminal accusations, particularly in serious cases like rape, belongs in the courts, not in panels made up of college faculty and administrators who are woefully unprepared to deal with legal matters and complexities.
In American jurisprudence the accused is allowed his or her day in court and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I have not read the transcript of this case (nor have most or perhaps even any) of those commenting here; however, the jury listened to all of the testimony and evidence presented on behalf of both parties and duly rendered their verdict.
Sources other than the NYT have described or suggested specific points of fact that seem likely to have influenced the jury's decision; and by neglecting to present all of the key points on which the jury likely based its decision the NYT has failed its readership.
15
As someone who sat on a jury in a criminal case some time ago, my comment is this: To render an opinion on the verdict without having been in the courtroom can only be based on prejudice. This is exactly why we have the trial system -- so that people are not pre-judged. If you have not read through all of the evidence presented in the trial, exactly what are you commenting on? The only meaningful opinions are the ones based on knowing all of the evidence. They voted to acquit.
29
thanks for defending our jury system so eloquently. comments against this jury are as bad as Trump comments after the illegal alien in sf was found NG in the murder of Katie steinle, assaulting the jury for their decision. wrong in both cases. do we really want a presumption of guilt and decisions based on the whims of the day? maybe the prosecutors need to make better cases for guilt.
Discarded used condoms on the floor? Sounds like callous narcissistic sex, unloving and self serving, using someone’s body while they are drunk and incapacited. She was throwing up! How sexy can that be? If she enjoyed herself with this guy, why would she have reported it the next day? The problem is the guy doesn’t even think he did anything wrong. He needs to take responsibility.
I agree there is too much alcohol (and date rape drugs) on campuses and people lose judgement. Women should be aware that if they drink too much, the risk for being raped goes up, just like the risk of mugging goes up if you walk into a bad neighborhood. Women need to take responsibility for their safety.
Otherwise,
Net result: ruined lives.
3
This comment will get shoved to the bottom. Oh well.
I am a woman. And not a millennial. My generation had drunken sex and hook-ups, but this younger generation would like to think they invented that, I know.
Here's the big difference: Women from my generation would wake up the next morning, realize they were stupid and had too much to drink. Regret they had sex. He was probably lousy in bed anyway. If the guy tries calling the next day, avoid him. Not interested. Then move on in life.
36
By far the best comment yet! Thanks for putting things in perspective.
And men have regretted their sexual escapades at times too, the morning after!
You just described my life as a gay man:)
Agreed. And I don't recall ever going home with stone cold sober guys in that condition.
Dozens of commenters in this discussion have berated the defense lawyer for highlighting "intoxication", "suggestive clothing" and "flirting" as exculpatory
The fault does not lie with the defense lawyer whose job it is to use whatever arguments best defend his client.
The fault lies in the pre-existing prejudices and misconceptions that the defense lawyer believes lurk in the minds of the jury members.
A defense lawyer will use a sexist line of argument if he sees four or five old guys in the jury box who look sexist.
The commenters have a valid concern, but they are aiming at the wrong villain.
The villain is the prevailing sexist norms in America, not the arguments of a defense lawyer who must defend his client in the context of those norms.
7
Alright, then, let's pretend you've just been accused of rape. You admit to hooking up with your accuser, but you say it's consensual. What would you realistically use to help prove that consent did take place, excluding the supposedly-sexist arguments used by the defense attorney?
You are not required to prove that consent took place. The prosecution is required to prove it did not.
Let's consider a few hypothetical situations.
A sober, 12-year-old in full control of her faculties cannot vote, because society does not believe her competent. She cannot drive, same reason. She cannot sign a binding contract, same reason. And she cannot give meaningful consent, so any sexual contact between her and an adult of legal age is rape. No one argues about what she was wearing. No one argues about how she was acting. No one argues about what she texted to her assailant.
So why is the situation any different for a 19-year-old intoxicated to the point of vomiting?
Let's establish a new doctrine: consent is only meaningful if given by a person you'd be willing to drive you somewhere. Because if you don't trust them to make the right decision regarding the far simpler rules of the road, then why would you think them capable of making the right decision regarding the far more complex rules of life?
3
So what if a boy is drunk and the girl is not drunk. Can he give meaningful consent. Also can he claim next day that he was violated/assaulted?
For all you know the Boy could have been drunk too. It is not as if you cannot drive a car if drunk. Happens all the time.
2
Also what if both the boy and Girl are drunk? Then does the blame go only to the boy?
2
Doesn’t solve he said she said problem. The accused will say the accuser was competent. The accuser will say the inverse.
The jury did not see enough evidence to convict. End of story. The defense will do whatever it takes for its client; doing anything less amounts to constitutional and ethical error.
The bottom line is both parties in such a situation need to be aware of their own actions and behaviors, how they may be perceived, and how their judgments may be affected by alcohol or other environmental influences. They also need to be aware of others. Drinking or drugging to excess rarely ends well. I had a roommate in college who did the former — a lot — and it was a trainwreck. I hate to bring this up, but personal responsibility is required, again, from both parties.
Note I said BOTH parties. Twice.
9
The thing I have trouble understanding is that we hold a drunk person accountable for their behavior if they are in a fight, crash a car, or even just drunk and disorderly. Why are those drunk people responsible for their decisions, but when it comes to giving consent to sex, a drunk person is not responsible for their own decisions?
10
Good to see this young man is going to spend half of his life in jail with his life ruined because of what a woman may or may have not remembered, we have to take these things very seriously. If you was wrong, he should go to jail, but there are far too many accusations flying around that ruin men's lives.
3
At least other young women will know that they should avoid being alone with this young man -- he is obviously not a person to trust. I hope the rape victim is able to take some comfort from the fact that the misery she has been put through by the defense lawyers at least resulted in making the identity of the rapist public.
5
So he should be punished for the rest of his life because he was ACQUITTED??
1
'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is a high standard for conviction. This does not mean the woman's account was judged to be definitely false, or that a not guilty verdict is a declaration of innocence; it simply means that the jury had doubts and given her unconsciousness, that's not surprising.
What I find objectionable is the defense implying that flirty messages and a sexy costume mean that she consented to intercourse. That's outrageous. People must consent at the time. Someone who is so drunk she falls unconscious before intercourse cannot consent to it.
2
The jury, approved by both sides, listened to all the evidence and returned their verdict. We should not sit in judgement of them (the jury) and their actions based on only the facts printed in this article. The records from this case are public record. This article should inspire us to read the actual transcripts and come to our own educated conclusions that will result in meaningful conversations.
9
She said he raped her, he said he didn't. Her dress or drinking don't seem relevant, but the article gives little information regarding what evidence there was to support a rape conviction. It is unfortunate that many crimes are committed with little or no evidence of the crime, but that's the way it is, so individuals might want to be aware of this inconvenient fact and take precautions. Stay away from dark alleys when alone late at night, especially if you are incapacitated by drink or drugs.
1
Our system is based on the centuries old concept of innocent until proven guilty as determined by evidence and a jury of peers.
And yes our justice system is imperfect as is everything on this earth. But since Roman times no other judicial system has been found to be as rational, sane or generally fair when compared to the alternatives (such as a claim of wrongdoing = guilt).
Most adults in this country find rape abhorrent and want anyone found guilty by the established court system to be jailed.
For those that don't support our court system, what exactly do you want it replaced with.
If you say a person's behavior, clothing, words, demeanor, actions and state of consciousness (drinking or drunk, or not) - prior to the accusation of rape - are irrelevant, then is this standard to be applied to people charged with planning and executing any other crime: drunk driving, drunk bank robbery, inciting a group to violence or riot, etc.
There would be no logic to such a system in my view.
At the end of the day, the best we have come up with is the court system we have. In this case the jury heard all the evidence and arguments -- and found the student not guilty.
We all know no one knows for sure what happened, but what exactly if you don't agree would you change in the process that would then logically apply to all other cases -- i.e. if being drunk absolves you of all responsibility if sex occurs, but doesn't if you drive your car, rob a bank, shoot or kill someone.
1
For those who condemn legal rights for the accused, I urge you to consider how many people have been targeted by the police and actually convicted using 'fake' evidence. The Central Park Jogger should be in the forefront for those who believe all accusations mean guilt!
3
The assumption concerning the sexual activity of impaired people seems be, that of course a male in any kind of condition would want and should want to have sex with any female in any condition. And whether she has an opinion about it is irrelevant if she’s not sober enough to take care of herself. I honestly don’t get it. Do people feel obliged to mug others who are impaired? And if it were the norm, would that be OK?
1
sorry to say, but this smacks of "buyers remorse"
no one but these two were in that room, so who can really tell? but remembering only those bits that make you believe a crime happened is highly suspect.
I have no doubt she felt violated, after all, she didn't appear to be very pleased to be waking up next to him. may I suggest making sure you don't drink as much next time so that you are in control of your faculties? not insinuating that one should be assaulted for bring intoxicated, but at the end of the day we, and we alone, are responsible for our own safety.
11
The woman was not put on trial. Nobody knows her name. She was not kicked out of the university. This young man was found innocent by a jury, but his name, picture and details of his life were posted in this newspaper. I believe in protecting the innocent. In this case it was the man, unless, of course, one does not believe in due process.
23
We must educate men and end predatory male behavior on campuses. But in the meantime, we need to make our daughters understand that getting blackout, fall-down drunk in public is dangerous and dumb. Every one of these murky stories involves the same degree of intoxicated helplessness, yet the fear of "victim blaming" means we can't encourage smarter behavior.
27
Well, it would also help if we taught our sons not to get drunk either. Then they could make better choices. And not have sex with someone who can't, at that moment, give consent.
Please stop putting the entire burden of preventing sexual assault on the victim.
4
The accuser SHOULD be grilled on the witness stand. She made a very, very serious accusation and a man's life is essentially at stake.
14
Yale and Yale's campus police botched the case. Yale, like many other large universities, employs its own police force. Yale Campus Police, not the New Haven Police Department, investigated the accusation against Khan and arrested him. However, the prosecution was carried out by the Connecticut state's attorney's office. Campus police was not capable of properly handling this case (campus police forces throughout the country have repeatedly botched rape cases). Campus police were not qualified to properly collect evidence or interrogate the suspect. New Haven police detectives interviewing the defendant would have made a conviction likely as glaring problems with his story would have be revealed. Before the case began warning flares were sent up. Harvard Law School professor Janet Halley, expert on the legal issues of Title IX enforcement, set out the coming disaster in stark terms. "This is oil and water flowing in together," Halley stated. After reviewing the details of the case prior to trial I was fairly certain that the defendant was guilty, and equally certain that the jury would likely acquit. As a former prosecutor and current litigator I've personally handled dozens of criminal trials and countless hearings. I have some idea how such cases work. It takes a jury several hours just to review evidence and take a preliminary vote. The only way a jury walks out after only three hours is if every juror knew upon stepping into the jury room that they were going to acquit.
10
I’ve been on a jury and your statement about a fast acquittal is patently false.
Proven in a court of Law! Accusation does NOT equal guilt. I'm a dad of a daughter too
11
And acquittal does not equal innocence.
8
...and having charges dropped doesn't prove innocence.
If a person is too intoxicated to give consent them she didn't. Likewise if a person is too intoxicated to form intent he is just as innocent, n'est-ce pas?
8
Non! The law does not allow the defense of drunkenness (or dui would not be a thing)--for obvious public policy reasons.
A sad case that would be educational for all youth to analyse and discuss with the hope this would prevent similar outcomes.
In the mean time, try not to drink, find loyal friends, stay in public venues.
4
Does it matter what a victim wears? Does it matter if a victim is intoxicated? There has to be some responsibility on the accused. If a victim is intoxicated, just as we have a moral responsibility to not let them drive, doesn't the accused have a moral responsibility to not take advantage of someone who is intoxicated? If the victim is capable of saying no (via speaking, screaming, recoiling) at the very last minute, that should stand as a NO. Period. There is little room for interpretation. NO is NO. It should not matter what happened in the previous few minutes or hours etc. Someone's wardrobe should not be a determinate. Someone's inability to have SELF CONTROL should be.
This is a video on consent that the Thames Police Department released. Simple. Direct. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ
20
This case is not complicated. The video and both of their accounts indicate that she was quite drunk and threw up several times.
What is more complicated is the lack of social support here. They knew each other on some level. Why wasn't his response to her sickness to support her? Or, if he didn't feel comfortable doing that, text their mutual friends to light up her social support network? Why didn't she text her friends when she got separated from them? Why didn't one of her friends think, "Where is she?"
6
The issue with trying such cases in court is that there has to be irrefutable proof in order to convict the assailant. In these type of cases, there rarely is.
3
And that is why catherine Mackinnon and the Obama administration decided to use title ix for something it was not intended. They wanted to subvert the criminal justice system. By the way, has anyone seen any evidence that 7 years after the dear colleague letter and aggressive pursuit of men on campus, the climate has improved for female students? I’ve looked. Can’t find any evidence. It is a failed strategy. Interesting that commenters refer to the young man as a rapist. No, he is not—as a matter of law and common sense. Yale’s title ix office is very much in the cross hairs for its prejudicial handling of this and other cases that will soon be in the national spotlight.
3
A person cannot provide legal consent if they are intoxicated.
10
The law can’t police everything or provide perfect justice everywhere.
It’s madness to think that we can effectively police what two drunk college students do in their rooms, especially when one student can’t even give an accounting of what happened because she blacked out. Or shall we just take one person’s word over the other person’s?
That a jury was not convinced should not surprise us... a conviction is to happen only when guilt is clear “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
If the complainant can’t give a clear accounting of what happened, how can any reasonable person have anything BUT doubts? I have an idea of what I think happened here, but certainly not beyond doubt.
Who knows how the law will change in response to cases like this, but what I will tell my daughter - and son - is this:
Don’t drink too much, and don’t invite (or allow) anyone in your room unless you plan on having sex. And for sure, don’t go to someone’s room if they are drunk. You never know what can happen or what perceptions they will have in the morning.
But even better, try to get to know someone first before you are even in that position.
Courtship- it’s old fashioned, but it works.
17
Can we all agree that date rape is a tough one: that when the two parties are spending the night together without any evidence of force, it is really, really difficult to sort out the consensual from the non? Given this, we really have no choice but to bring these cases to trial in a court of law with the full panoply of due process protections for the accuser -- and the accused. And the accused. And that means cross-examination of the accuser -- the hall mark of due process. Many states have passed laws which effectively limit the ability of a defense attorney to put the victim on trial for her sexuality during cross examination -- so that the fact that the accuser is a human being with a human being's sex life is not used against her. But plaintiff's lawyers must, nevertheless, prepare their clients for what they know is coming -- and we shouldn't be shocked at (or seek to politicize) a defense attorney's use of a probing cross examination to create reasonable doubt.
142
So-called rape shield laws are clearly not appropriate in a society where women are lining up in droved on a movement that adopts as its moniker: #metoo.
Sexual behaviour, including promiscuity, may be relevant depending on the particular defence being offered by the other side. A pattern of casual "drunk sex" does not create proof of consent, but it does have relevance in terms of what the person has consented to in the past. The idea that consent in the past was being given generally to a class of "hot guys" or "hot girls" (remember, men can be raped too) prior to reaching the point of inebriation where consent is removed (and frankly that is what many of these college party cases come down to) begs the extension of that consent to anyone who might reasonably think that they are a member of that class. Waking up in the morning next to "Mr. or Ms. Ugly Stick" does not invalidate consent if you were calling them "hot" with your beer goggles on.
1
I strongly disagree. No one's sex life -- man or woman -- is predictive of what might happen on a given, singular occasion with a given, singular individual. A wife can be raped by her husband. And, yes, even a prostitute can be raped by her or his client. Trying to extrapolate from past sexual behavior is a lazy cop out -- an avoidance of the hard work of fact development -- and one that will almost always violate due process.
1
"...it is really, really difficult to sort out the consensual from the non? Given this, we really have no choice but to bring these cases to trial in a court of law..."
You've described a situation with so much reasonable doubt that only a hearing where reasonable doubt is the precise standard will do. Does not seem like a fruitful analytical approach.
1
After re-reading this article and others related I must say that I am quite disturbed by the way the NYT reported the verdict. Essential testimony from Mr Khan has been omitted, the erstwhile complainant is still treated as though she's probably correct by some nebulous association with a robust defense, etc. This is not an opinion piece, I think it if needs to be re-done in order to reflect the outcome reached by the Jury and Mr Khan's key testimony.
21
As much as I feel for the victim, this is the way our legal system is supposed to work: The defendant's choice whether they are tried by judge or jury, the presumption of innocence, and zealous advocacy by a defense attorney (in this case a particularly skilled one).
I'm reminded of a CLE course I attended 10 years ago, where two law students strongly questioned women attorneys on a panel on defending juveniles accused of sexual assault as to how they could live with themselves as women who tear apart survivors stories on the stand. The response? Maybe this specific part of the job isn't for you, this is what we are called on to do, to do less wouldn't be zealous advocacy.
But lets all remember trials are about settling legal "facts" not what actually happened. The court of public opinion can ignore a jury's decision.
1
The gaps in the victims story make perfect sense when viewed through the lens of trauma. When someone has suffered a traumatic event, it is normal for them to have lapses in memory and for the story to seem disjointed. The presentation of the facts, as reported here, certainly suggest that trauma had an impact on the victim's memory. Had the prosecution called an expert on trauma to testify the verdict may well have been different.
3
Being found not guilty doesn't mean it didn't happen it or that he didn't do out, it just means there was not enough evidence to proved it in court.
As a supporter of#metoo this article misses the mark. If the problem here is the defense attorney's line of questioning, then the article should focus more on court procedure. To me several of those questions should be dremed irrelevant by the judge (like what she was wearing). But there is no analysis ite reporting on such procedures in the article.
It was also always made clear to me in college that drunk people were incapable of offering consent. If that is not where the law is, then maybe we should be petioning changing the law.
This article just works on the inuendo of sleazy lawyers manipulating some kind of ambiguous patriarchy without thinking or analyzing real solutions to specific problems to change a system the article takes for granted is flawed.
7
There was the accused and accuser, an investigation, a day in court, deliberation and finding by a jury of their peers and a verdict rendered.
That is the definition of justice in a democracy - whether one side likes the outcome or not.
7
While I understand the argument of people who say all young people must be taught responsible drinking, partying, etc, so that subsequently, rape incidents will decline, I believe the danger of this mentality is that it often defers attention from a larger issue.
Most rapists are men, and most, but not all, victims are women. A terrible truth in society today is that it is not surprising when we hear about a man raping an intoxicated woman. The fact that it is almost unheard of for a woman to rape an intoxicated man demonstrates the power imbalance between these two genders. In most sexual assault cases, whether or not the alleged perpetrator is convicted, both parties are not equally at fault. We must attempt to reform the attitudes we instill in boys--they should not be taught sexual dominance.
6
There are biological reasons why men aren't raped by women-- especially when the man is drunk.
The Times asks whether rape cases are better handled by universities or law enforcement. The courts at least offer due process. The universities notoriously do not. Are we to infer that due process of law is undesirable?
11
Being found not guilty doesn't mean it didn't happen it or that he didn't do out, it just means there was not enough evidence to proved it in court.
As a supporter of #metoo this article misses the mark. If the problem here is the defense attorney's line of questioning, then the article should focus more on court procedure. To me several of those questions should be dremed irrelevant by the judge (like what she was wearing). But there is no analysis or reporting on such procedures in the article.
It was also always made clear to me in college that drunk people were incapable of offering consent. If that is not where the law is, then maybe we should be petioning changing the law. The article offers us no legal context or framework to begin to have this conversation.
This article just works on the inuendo of sleazy lawyers manipulating some kind of ambiguous patriarchy without thinking or analyzing real solutions to specific problems to change a system the article takes for granted is flawed.
1
"Mr. Khan’s lawyers worked relentlessly to discredit the account of the woman"
Of course they did. That's their job.
21
Commenters focused on "dressed in a cat costume" as if it were the entirety of the defense are being disingenuous.
4
Amazing how these prosecutors discover case after case after case in which the “victim’s” level of intoxication falls right into that sweet spot in which she’s too inebriated to give valid consent, yet sober enough that her recollection of events can’t be validly questioned.
7
"There was sufficient doubt on every charge, so we came to the verdict we did."
And that's it. That's the way it works, and if anyone can come up with a better way than our court system to handle accusations of crimes, let's do it. But, really, we can't. End of day, sounds like the case never should have been brought. Instead, prosecutors punted a politically charged case to a jury, and got an unsurprising result. It's the prosecutors' fault, really, for bringing the case. What they should have done is sat down with the woman and explained that, while they believed her, they could not meet the legal standard, and so no charges. That's a difficult conversation to have. Good prosecutors do it. Cowards do what happened here.
272
I have some ideas for a better way. We could have non-criminal tribunals that allow universities to expel students who violent a code of conduct as determined by a preponderance of the evidence. The accused receives no criminal penalty and the complainant is more likely to get some kind of justice.
We could allow victims to register complaints with law enforcement that could be used by prosecutors in the future so that if another victim comes forward this is a record of a history of abuse.
We can change instructions to the jury so that the bar for conviction is lower. No one wants to see a truly innocent person convicted, but letting rapists off is no better.
1
I was hoping someone commenting would bring up the juror's comment, but you did not include the juror's gender...Why not?
In a jury of our peers, the inclusion of the same gender seems important, just as the trial of a negro in the first 60 years of the 20th century would not include 'like me' jurors, and the results of the verdict would be forever suspect.
Exactly. Amen.
Many commenters here keep confusing the difference between a criminal prosecution in a court of law and internal university processes. The standard that tells a jury they can only find a criminal defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard used because a criminal defendant's liberty is at stake -- i.e., the state itself is acting to potentially separate the accused entirely from society through imprisonment.
In an internal Title IX proceeding, a university is deciding whether or not an accused student can remain in its educational community or not, or whether the student can only remain under certain conditions or restrictions. The student's liberty is not at stake, so "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the right standard of proof. Universities were told several years ago that all must do what many already did: use the same standard of proof that applies to most civil cases in court, i.e. "preponderance of the evidence." Just as a civil verdict in a private court action can be very serious (a huge monetary judgment, for example), forced separation from a university is a serious consequence. However, it is not at all the same as a prison sentence or felony conviction.
These are separate and distinct processes for different purposes. There will always be cases where a university decides to sever its relationship with a student, whether or not the student is ever accused or convicted of a crime.
12
Traditionally, the standard of proof in a college disciplinary proceeding was clear and convincing evidence. The change to preponderance of the evidence is of recent vintage.
7
From insidehighered.com: "As preponderance of evidence is the standard already used by the U.S. Supreme Court in civil litigation involving discrimination, the department’s Office for Civil Rights argues it makes sense -- and is legally sound -- to use the standard when it is enforcing Title IX. About 70 percent of colleges and universities were using the standard prior to the 2011 letter."
Don’t drink to excess with people you don’t know well. I don’t care how much we try to change the culture, there will always be predators out there. Always.
42
that's true, Jennifer and those Predators should be apprehended. But let's not cast a wide net to include innocent man either. that's the point that guys are trying to make!
1
Unfortunately, there is really no way to determine guilt or innocence other than through a trial, with evidence presented and evaluated by a jury or judge.
I am completely sympathetic to the women who fear coming forward because they will be made to look like they invited abuse. But the alternative can't be convicting anyone against whom an accusation is made.
As we know, a trial does not prove guilt or innocence, it determines whether a person is guilty or innocent under the law. A trial is a contest between two sides and whoever does a better job tends to win.
This is imperfect and injustices occur, frequently. But I can think of no other way of evaluating the truth about what happened.
As we are filmed more - on streets and sidewalks, for example - we'll get closer to making better judgments. But at what price?
33
Your second to last paragraph speaks volumes. You say a trial is the only way the truth will get out? No it's not. A trial will be the only way lawyers who are adept at their jobs will get their client off. Perhaps you are old enough to remember the OJ trial and the ridiculous "if it doesn't fit you must aquit" mantra. Anyone with a brain knows that a blood soaked fine quality leather gloves shrinks. What the woman wears, whether she was attracted to the perpetrator, whether she kissed him once or a hundred times prior to the rape is of no importance to the act of rape it self. The result of this trial means little except the lawyers for this young man we're good salesmen.
2
This is why so many fear having to sit on a jury for the proverbial he said/she said cases and a disturbing illustration of why so many rape victims do not prosecute. On the one hand, I firmly believe anyone and everyone is innocent until proven guilty and that those in the courtroom are privy to details we are not.
On the other hand, it is simply outrageous that in 2018 women bringing charges of rape are themselves put on trial for what they wear. If that exchange about the cat costume versus the princess one is accurate, then it's unforgivable.
No man is ever asked what he was wearing or why he drove down a certain street or why he dared to have a drink before parking when his car is stolen or he's mugged. To hang a case on what a woman took off a hanger and donned is despicable.
There is a reason why so many women and girls forgo bringing a case to trial. There has to be a way to preserve the alleged perpetrator's right to a fair hearing and the presumption of innocence AND the alleged victim's right to not, herself, be put on trial. Three of my close friends have been raped in circumstances running the spectrum from being raped as a child by a family friend to being raped at gun point and threatened with death. The latter went to trial and told me she wished she never had. Even in her dire circumstances she was made to feel guilty despite sustaining injuries requiring hospitalization.
That our courts simply cannot seem to get this right is a crying shame.
95
Question: Do victims who are raped at knifepoint by a stranger in a dark alley fail to prosecute or just victims who have drunken sex? Would the victim fear being put on trial herself in the former case?
1
Actually cops do ask if you locked your car or left anything of value in plain view if it is broken into, but nice rant anyway
Is it fair that the man’s name is made public, but the woman’s name is not even even the man is found not guilty? Remember the Duke lacrosse team affair?
You may not like the outcome but all university related crimes should be handled by local & state police not internally where so much is swept under the rug & can take years to even come to public attention.
69
Then fix the federal requirements that place this burden on universities. It is hardly a choice they can opt out of until the law is changed.
4
It wasn't a requirement until the Obama administration issued its 19-page directive on campus sexual assault and the subsequent 46-page question-and-answer document
That policy has been rescinded to properly reflect the concept of due process.
1
I cant agree with this position. I dont gainsay the jury's verdict, and I also question NYT policy fo publishing his name now that he has not been found guilty, but I also agree with Yale's decision to expel any student so stupid and or socially inept to have sex with this woman and/or drink so much that he lost all judgement. Seriously, there are thousand sof bright sober wise male applicants whop would loved to have taken his place in the freshman class there. Seems to me (admissibility of some evidence aside as posters have noted this outcome was pretty good in this day and age.)
He should have Been expelled at least for a year for conduct and judgement unbecoming a Yale student and he should not have been found guilty of rape and sent to jail for what 10 plus years ?
As someone of the older generation, I'm struck by the surprise expressed by many of the commenters. Sadly I have to say that before feminism this was the norm for rape trials to blame the woman's dress or nonverbal behavior to say she was responsible for the man's actions. That this defense was so successful with the jury shows how little progress we've made in overcoming these stereotypes which denigrate both sexes.
This is not about "reasonable doubt" so much as about exploiting ugly beliefs about women (a Cinderella gown, i.e. the Virgin Mary) and men that are naturally expected to take advantage.
This is why rape cases began to be adjudicated by universities under Title IX, which has also shown itself to be inadequate. I don't know what the solution is, but until we confront these old expectations I don't think we will find it.
73
Don't drive drunk, bad things will happen, and it's against the law because bad things will happen.
I hope this makes sense to at least some of you.
I wish someone would start a MADD (mothers against drunk driving) program for collage students.
And yes, young women you are expected to take responsibility for yourselves. You have agency, use it.
Technicalities aside, a man who forces himself on a woman who is at the brink of consciousness is not fit or worthy to pursue higher education. Period.
103
Right on
And you shouldn’t assume facts the jury didn’t find convincing. Period.
And what does that have to do with this case?
In a crime involving private behavior between two individuals, it is absolutely necessary to a legal process to discover motives, behavior, and facts, including sexually provocative or other behavior where the complaint involves allegation of sexual crime. It is utterly astonishing that feminists still cannot accept this simple postulate where a true system of law is concerned.
59
So, to follow your logic, if a man enters, say a bar, and takes his shirt off because he was really hot from dancing and if some person begins to touch him in a sexually provocative manner and he doesn't like it then he is just a sitting duck? I see men "show skin" all the time. In far more situations than I would wish.
1
It's utterly astonishing misogynists still cannot understand the simple concept of double standards.
1
The unanimous verdict for acquittal indicates to me that the prosecutor failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. That this case did not result in a mistrial or a hung jury tells me that the failure to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt was not even close.
The victim can still bring a civil suit where the standard of proof is far less. I would encourage her to do that. The evidence has already been mustered. I am sure that there is a lawyer who would take that case on a contingency basis.
I might also encourage the defendant here to bring a civil lawsuit or make a counterclaim for defamation of character. Accusations of sexual misconduct that cannot be proven true are actionable and no actual damages need to be shown in order for the plaintiff to receive an award. That is how much our society is opposed to defamatory and slanderous accusations of criminal or sexual misconduct.
34
The text messages were flirtatious? What does it matter whether they were or weren't? The accused could've been her boyfriend, her best friend, or a complete stranger--it wouldn't have changed the fact that she was too intoxicated to give consent.
92
You don't know that? She puked. She walked in the fresh air. We have no idea how much she drank. Or ate, before or after drinking. We don't know how much, or what, she drank. If you weren't at the trial or have personal experience of the facts, please don't be so quick to accuse.
1
Amen.
Perhaps it was he who was too intoxicated to give consent.
Though the defendant was acquitted of felony rape he has been expelled from college and his name, reputation and ability to do all sorts of things, among them get a job, have undoubtedly been irreparably harmed. Perhaps all those consequences of his actions are deserved but to say that he has suffered no consequences is false. Acquitted of rape but still guilty of being very publicly accused of rape, which in and of itself have and will continue to have serious negative ramifications for him for the rest of his life. Is that just?
60
I think that the stigma only exists among the people and institutions who believe those accusations to be true based on their own presumptions and burden of proof. The prosecutor failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt here, but Yale is well within their right as a private organization to have a lower standard, or even to presume guilt if they choose. Is it just? In terms of criminal liability, I think so. The defendant was able to fight his case, but he isn’t entitled to force anyone else to believe he’s innocent. If you were a university, and you believed his accuser, would you want him as a student? Even if you couldn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, shouldn’t you still have the right to refuse to offer him your services based on your (arguably reasonable) suspicions? If you were an employer, wouldn’t you have a duty to protect your other employees from a potentially dangerous hire? Or even someone who doesn’t express your company’s values? The fact that this case was allowed to be presented means that enough evidence existed for the prosecution to meet a minimum prima facie burden. While a higher burden wasn’t meant, that lower burden was. How people choose to react to that is up to them. He has a right to trial, but we all have a right to our own opinions as well.
4
With a record like that he would never get a high-level government job, for instance (except, of course, if it were in the White House).
4
To paraphrase his own defence lawyers -
He shouldn't have been drinking if he didn't want this to happen to him. Maybe he should've dressed more modestly?
5
What a novel idea; trying a criminal case in a court of law. I know that wasn't the main thrust of the article but it was refreshing that the case was tried where it should be tried instead of in a dean's office.
87
Well, yes, except that the judge ought really not have allowed many of the questions asked by the defendant's lawyers.
2
Could we please take an informal poll?
How many ladies are typically interested in having sex with someone they hardly know after having thrown up multiple times? Hands up please.
It’s true we have a decent justice system as many people have commented, however just as it sometimes convicts the innocent, it at times also lets the guilty walk free.
There’s not enough information in the article, but clearly there wasn’t enough evidence to convict in a court of law. It’s not easy.
But usually common sense would tell you that when a lady vomits repeatedly and staggers home, it might be time to save sex for a second date. Perhaps the cultural differences also made reading the signs of consent difficult for the defendant. Perhaps it may not have been risen to the level of criminality but it was certainly not the right thing to do. Don’t those Yale students study Kant’s moral imperative?
Either way this seems like a miscarriage of justice.
Just like in the California case behind the dumpster.
N.B. If a lady is vomiting, gentleman that’s a cue to not pursue intercourse.
123
Agreed.
Question: If both parties are intoxicated and subsequently have sex, have they raped each other? Or, if a bar serves a drunk person, may he sue for a refund because he was too intoxicated to consent to the drink order?
J.D. - if you're accurately addressing the person you're talking to as "gentleman", then there is no need to point out the cue. We already know. This guy was no gentleman.
In a hypothetical case in which both parties were intoxicated, and this issue of rape revolved around whether consent was given or not, then the woman's dress and demeanor are relevant because they demonstrate a willingness to engage in sexual behavior, and therefor boost the credibility of the defendant's claim that consent was given. The defendant must be given wide latitude to impeach the credibility of the complainant.
The complainant's claim of victim blaming is limited by the defendants right to a vigorous defense. The judgement allowing such testimony seems to be rational. Perhaps this issue may eventually be adjudicated in a court of law.
28
I don’t think it’s as clear cut as that, it sounds less like impeaching credibility and more like propensity evidence: ‘because she made a decision implying a desire to have sex earlier, it’s more likely she consented to do so later’ looks like a textbook example of inadmissible character evidence. How can we possibly relate her choice of attire to whether or not she specifically consented to the defendant at a much later time? I think there may be a credibility argument, but probative value of what her attire suggested about her motivations (especially during Halloween) seems fairly low, where as the potential for prejudice (by improper use as propensity evidence) is extremely high. I didn’t read any transcripts from the examination, but I don’t think the connection between attire and specific consent is especially clear.
2
'The woman's dress and demeanor are relevant because they demonstrate a willingness to engage in sexual behavior, and therefor boost the credibility of the defendant's claim that consent was given.'
- It is categorically false that an individual's clothing can be taken as a demonstration of willingness to engage in sexual activity absent any other form of explicit consent. Regardless, the woman in question was clearly too intoxicated to offer informed consent so what she chooses to wear is irrelevant.
3
Absolutely not. Basically you are condoning grabbing a women's breasts, etc. if they are not loosely enough covered.
The trouble with these situations is that many people have already made the determination that he is guilty of rape, and she the victim; or vice versa that he is innocent of wrong doing-- before reading this entire article, before knowing the case and certainly without being a member of the jury or the judge.
And it probably leans heavily on gender lines. Women defend her, and assume he is guilty. Men perhaps lean more the other way. What's worse, even when presented with a very detailed story of what happened, there is still a huge difference of opinion on right and wrong, and how punishable the offense. Even the meaning of the word "rape", it is either elevated by addressing stats and numbers of female victims or discredited and diminished by all the normal arguments, many used in this trial.
And ultimately this young man was found not-guilty, acquitted. No one can really say he is innocent, but just that the burden of proof to find him guilty was not there. And yet, we probably still stick to our same opinions on whether he is guilty or not in our minds, about our definitions of guilt, which are independent of law or ruling likely.
19
The fault is with the judge. He has the power and obligation to rule on what evidence is to be admitted. The lawyer Mr Pattis was using every trick and tool to advocate for his client,and every defendant has the right to expect his lawyer to do this. The prosecutor failed to get the costume thrown out,and failed to convince the jurors that the sex was not consensual. No one really knows what happen beside the two in the bedroom The use of alcohol and getting drunk muddies judgement and the waters as well.
9
The prosecutor first introduced the costume into evidence at trial.
As a legal matter, voluntary intoxication (shy of incapacitation) is not a factor in consent. How could the state arrest a drunk driver who kills somebody, or a drunk who stabs somebody if that person can claim that they were not responsible because they were intoxicated? If a person is held accountable for their choice to become intoxicated in a criminal setting how can we then say they are too intoxicated to consent to sexual intimacy?
49
I think that may not be a proper analogy. In terms of drunk driving, the consequence of drinking rests on the victims, not the individual who drank. In terms of consent, it’s flipped: the person intoxicated has been victimized due to their incapacitation. I’d like to offer my own example to illustrate: assume someone who were drunk were to leave the keys to his or her car in the ignition on the side of the road, unlocked. If a thief were to steal that car, the victim of that theft gains no liability for the crime because they were drunk. Sure, had the victim not drank he or she would have likely done a better job locking the vehicle, but the thief is still a thief regardless. It is no defense for the thief to claim that, because the car owner was drunk and didn’t do a good job locking his or her vehicle, that a crime did not actually occur. We must remember: victims of rape are still victims. Just because they cannot give consent does not change whether or not consent is necessary. We’ve known that for decades, and certainly back in 2015. I don’t think her intoxication plays any relevant role in this case besides evaluating the credibility of her recollection.
2
It's the difference between did and done to.
It seems to me both parties were morally at fault. The woman needed to control her drinking and the man needed to realize how drunk she was and control himself. Young people of both sexes need to understand what drinking does to your judgment and then take responsibility for what may happen when you get too drunk for your own good. For the young man to be the sole person at fault here absolves the young woman any responsibility for her own sobriety. Colleges would do well to teach responsible drinking along with consensual sex guidelines!
60
Being too drunk is not morally equivalent to raping someone.
4
If instead of going home together for sex, they had jumped into cars and driven down the road getting into accidents, both would be held accountable for their behavior. Yet, most of the comments suggest that she was drinking and could not consent while he was drinking and should have known better. Does alcohol affect women more?
The student was found not guilty of rape in a trial with a jury. 12 people didn't find the charge legally credible. Was his behavior moral even if it was found not to be rape? That is another calculus. The woman can't recall if she gave consent - it's just as likely she gave drunken consent as not. Maybe these guys should administer breathalyser tests before sex?
For all the many commenters here who clearly think that accusation = guilt I have a question:
How, exactly, do you propose that a man accused of rape or sexual assault prove ongoing, enthusiastic consent?
Responding that he just shouldn't have been accused in the first place is not an answer.
36
Vomiting women rarely consent to sex after they are done puking. That’s just my experience. and by rarely I actually mean never.
Just as our laws define sex with a mentally disabled person, unconscious person or minor child as non-consensual, we need to amend our laws so that sex with an inebriated person as non-consensual rape.
It's beyond contemptible to take advantage of anyone in an extremely vulnerable state, subjecting them to intimate bodily violation -- even physical penetration and the injection of your bodily fluids into their body -- for your own sexual gratification. Far worse than many other actions our laws define as crimes, such as shoplifting or any other form of larceny. Most people would rather be punched in the face, even beaten up, than raped or sexually assaulted.
Especially when our culture makes alcohol consumption such a widely accepted part of social life -- when, in fact, our culture puts *pressure* on people, especially young people, especially college students, to drink socially -- why do we let people who take sexual advantage of another person's drunkenness get away scot free?
31
The problem with this is that he may have been drunk too. Then you are expecting him to be able to act with discernment while acknowledging that she isn't able to. I really think the solution to all of this is not going to be found in the courts, but rather in dialogue between the sexes. Both women and men need to be heard and listened to, so a much greater understanding develops about where each person is coming from, BEFORE two people wind up in the same room together.
1
What is the "gaping divide" referred to in this article? The accused have a right to defend themselves in court, regardless of the crime, no matter what kind of "national reckoning" is ongoing. The press coos over some defendants, but wants others to go to jail for decades maybe, depending on the crime, and their gender, race or ethnicity. Let's have some consistency please!
32
Looks like a victory for justice over hysteria and college kangaroo courts.
Rape is a crime, and should be tried in an open criminal process, where the defendant, just like in every other crime, enjoys the presumption of innocence.
47
I assume you will be equally as proud of the victorious justice system when it convicts a college student of rape.
David wants to tell us that men can be back to raping, as per usual, with women always being the problem (either their outfit or them being hysterical once they complain).
Happy Women’s Day.
As a woman, I find it ridiculous that a woman does not need to take responsibility for what she consents while intoxicated. Does a man need to take responsibility for what he does while intoxicated?
Based on the logic "If a woman is too intoxicated to give consent, then it is a rape", you can also say "if a man is too intoxicated to recognize a refusal, then it is not a rape."
103
If a man were to drive a vehicle while intoxicated, and subsequently killed someone, he cannot claim his intoxication as a defense for his crime. We have decided as a society (through our laws) that being intoxicated has no impact on liability for criminal actions. But we have also decided it does have an impact on someone’s ability to give consent. If someone were incapacitated due to alcohol, by definition they cannot give consent. That only goes one way: if someone is too intoxicated to recognize they are committing a crime, they are still liable for their actions. On the flip side, intoxication cannot make victims more liable for crimes committed against them. The only relevant use I can see for evidence of the victim’s intoxication is to determine the credibility of her recollection.
1
The victim had bruises on her thighs and knees from trying to fight him off. This was in the medical report -- she didn't give consent. He is the only one stating that she gave consent. There is physical power involved -- when someone is fighting you off even if you are intoxicated you should understand that is a refusal. You are blaming her because she was intoxicated?
1
As a man, your case doesn’t stand. There is a huge difference between being raped and committing a rape.
"Mr. Khan, a native of Afghanistan, never finished college and has been living with family."
Who paid his lawyers?
The questions in the court that were asked to the victim are shockingly not right. No wonder women do not report rape.
46
If a woman is too intoxicated to give consent... then it’s rape. This seems to be a pretty simple case messed up by a jury.
Either way, yale can have more stringent consent requirements than a court...
79
That would be a very problematic standard to enforce. How would you define too intoxicated?
10
Oh, brother. Yes, Yale can impose whatever requirements it wants to with respect to student discipline, admission, suspension or expulsion. But Yale can't impose its own criminal law, which is what this trial and article are all about.
11
"This seems to be a pretty simple case messed up by a jury."
Did you review ALL the evidence presented in the trial?
The jury did.
23
Literally disgusting. Males: If you ever get robbed or mugged, it's entirely your fault. You should have stayed at home, alone.
See how that works ?????
115
No, it’s not, but if I want to prosecute it the perpetrator criminally I’ll have to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
22
So, a male sports a bulging wallet in a run-down, poverty-stricken area, proceeds to get black-out drunk and gets someone from there to help him back to his room, then wakes up to find no money in his wallet. He has no memory of it and says robbed, the other guy says the money was offered freely.
Indeed, should have stayed at home, alone. That's how it works.
I encourage you to research the full facts of the case, including the large amount of important evidence not presented in this article. You will find much more detailed coverage in the New Haven Register. They did many articles. Here is a link to one.
https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Defendant-in-Yale-sex-assault-tr...
1
So, why does a rape defendant introduce or try to introduce the victim's attire at trial?
Well, because counsel understands that to many it demonstrates the unchaste character of the victim. In a relatively modern case a Judge went so far as to say it evidenced the victim's "consent." (that said, there is ample case law supporting the rejection of such evidence....even in jurisdictions that some might be surprised to learn)
So, because of arcane, some might say asinine, notions like this, we have rape shield statutes. Section 54-86f here in CT was enacted specifically to bar or limit the use of such information because it is so highly prejudicial. I have to believe Prosecutor Pepper objected and invoked the rape shield law. Not sure why the Judge found it admissible.
NYT, who was the Judge that thought the probative value of this evidence outweighed the prejudicial impact on the victim? The public should know.
Also, if a victim needs to lean on someone to walk home and throws up several times enroute to her home, there should be a presumption of no consent or the inability to give consent. Its a shame that Connecticut's affirmative consent law wasn't passed until 2016. Given his history with other women on campus, I'm amazed that the Ms. Urbana and others on the jury found Mr. Khan more credible than the victim....I guess you had to be there.
76
Your amazed because you have no idea of the evidence. Ms. Urbana as well as the others we mature, successful and educated. The attire was introduced by the prosecution since it had throw up on it and Pepper used it to support the complainants intoxication. Pattis jumped all over it as he should have. The whole narrative of the clothing by Pattis wasn't even discussed in the jury deliberation. The complainant was not credible. Her testimony was challenged by her own witnesses as well as the electronic and video evidence. The complainant did not throw up several times or need assistance when she walked home. She lied.
22
The only facts that are excluded from a jury are those that the State, probably represented by a $14k/yr attorney/prosecutor, persuades a Judge should be excluded -- with effective objections raised during cross-exam of witnesses. NOT a judge's job to advocate for this woman; the State is the charging party and has the job to advocate for the raped women.
Why are we surprised that expensive trial lawyers for a Yale guy got into evidence before this jury elements that better criminal trial lawyers likely would have gotten the judge to exclude?
Remember the drunk TX kid who drove his huge truck into innocents and killed four people? With creative expensive lawyers hired by wealthy parents arguing effectively that his judgment was impaired by his upbringing, the effective "affluence defense" to being accountable for what the rest of the world would get a life sentence for . . .? He got probation and rehab. Fortunately, he and his enabler Mom got caught drinking/partying. When they fled to Mexico with thousands of dollars in their pockets, they were arrested and returned to TX . . .same judge. The kid is now serving manslaughter sentences -- a more appropriate sentence for violating terms of his probation. Mom got jail time too.
Always all ways follow the money. New Haven CT is a nasty place to be a State's attorney. Yale kids, rich kids, get away with lots of crimes that juries nail lesser mortals for w/the same evidence.
1
Rex:
The accuser's attire may be admissible because it helps the jury determine what on what her intent was.
Imbibing alcohol lowers psychological and cultural inhibitions against having sex and increases purely physical urges to copulate. Young women who would not want to have sex with a date should not drink more than three drinks a night - say over a 9 hour period - say from 5 pm to 2 am. That way, women will remember everything that happened. The fact is that people who are legally drunk can remain apparently conscious even when they can no longer recall what they said or did. This sordid tale of two bumbling young people has no villains except naivety and alcohol. Both people involved have been hurt tremendously by a single evening of drinking too much. It's time colleges require a pre-acceptance essay on why students should not have more than 1 drink every 3 hours. All clothing sends messages. Women shouldn't send suggestive signals with their clothing choices unless they plan to stay sober enough to avoid acting on their own sexual lust. Men from conservative religious backgrounds based on faith which forbids women from appearing in public after puberty, must be conditioned not to see women in sexy costumes as inviting sex. Women need to re-examine why they insist on sending come hither messages when not planning to have sex. Why do women insist on flaunting their sexual assets without obligation to have sex as a measure of their independence and freedom?
102
"flaunting their sexual assets" is about power. They enjoy the attention but refuse to accept that it comes at a price.
2
So if a guy shows up to a party in running tights that show his assets (maybe because he was working out, is trying to attract women, or just enjoys how they make him look), and some men at that party start feeding him shots, escort him home after he pukes, and once there take turns having sex with him, which he can't remember except in bits and pieces, then the moral of the story is he should have worn baggy sweat pants or had not so much to drink? Good to know.
1
Ummm ... because MEN who insist on flaunting THEIR sexual assets without obligation (?!?!?) to have sex consider it a measure of their independence, freedom, and MALE privilege?
Why are people even commenting about this? The only people who can comment with any actual information are the people involved. Were you a jury member? Are you prosecutor? Defendant? Alleged victim? None of the above I'm guessing. He was found not guilty. And thank god the FEMALE juror had the sense to highlight the fact that the jurors, as a group, were able to un-#metoo themselves long enough to apply the evidence or lack thereof to reach the appropriate verdict. This man could have been thrown in jail because a woman got wasted and got mad at herself the next morning.
154
Wonderful. You are against making assumptions that the woman's perspective was correct--but then you assume the man's was. In your mind it's fine to assume a women is lying, but not that the man is, EVEN without having sat in the courtroom yourself. It is the height of hypocrisy to lecture people against taking sides without sitting in the courtroom and then take a side yourself.
Evidence that the plaintiff "got mad" at herself the next morning?
1
We can’t vouch for others. We comment because we’ve spent over fifty years studying the subject in detail, down to and including the neural level.
Will that meet your standard? We don’t know the details beyond what we’ve read of this case in the press, but we’re certain what transpired that night was a not very well constructed example of the human primitive mating strategy,
which as attentive readers will recognize from our frequent comments on the subject, is rape.
We are pretty sure of this, and yes, we know it’s a view that raises hackles, shouts of denial, threats, raging fear, and a host of other emotional responses, most of them attacks directed at us.
50 years is a long time. We’re used to it. It’s still rape.
—T&K
1
Maybe the FACT that Mr. Khan testified that the accuser asked if he had condoms and he left her room, went to his own and brought back 2 condoms (Card swipe records confirm he left her room when he said he did and returned when he said he did) was the nail in the accuser's coffin.
The jury was in the court room every single day they saw the FACTS of the case and those FACTS allowed JUSTICE to be served in rendering a NOT GUILTY verdict! Regretted sex is NOT a crime, it is NOT rape and a woman cannot accuse a man of rape because she regrets the sex she had with him drunk or not.
147
The "FACT that Mr. Khan testified"? That's not a fact, that's testimony. It's an allegation.
The complainant disputed Khan's allegation. She made her own allegation. Conflicting allegations places the *actual* facts in dispute. The jury
"Card swipe records confirm he left her room when he said he did and returned when he said he did." The records confirm that he left her room and returned. They establish nothing about what the complainant said or did not say.
The specific time when the defendant left and returned to her room is irrelevant. The fact that he left and returned to her room is irrelevant. The only relevant fact is whether there was consent.
The accused alleged that there was consent, the accuser alleged that there was not. It was the jury's duty to find that fact, and the judge's duty to ensure that only relevant evidence, and evidence that was more probative than prejudicial, was presented to the jury, so that it could make a fair and reasonable finding.
The judge, however, allowed irrelevant and prejudicial evidence regarding the accuser's clothing before the jury, with predictable results.
44
The jury is trying to piece together what a reasonable person would see as signs of consent from the verifiable information. Sure, it does not "prove" consent absolutely but it's reliable information. If Khan left for the condoms and the accuser did not want him to return, he could not have entered her room. This all took place at around 1-2-3 AM in the morning. He left for condoms, came back and she opened the door for him. So, she was not incapacitated.
26
Hmmm. Word for word repeat of another comment (NeverGiveUp).
Plagiarism? Bot? What gives?
1
According to the article, "She found herself instead with Mr. Khan, an acquaintance who had been pursuing her, who sat with her as she threw up several times and accompanied her back to her room afterward."
I do not know Mr. Khan, or whether he committed the crime, but I feel confident in saying that Mr. Khan has a long way to go to becoming a decent person. Having spent my time around libations in college and graduate school, I know that no decent person hooks up with another person if that other person has just spent the night throwing up. That's pretty despicable behavior, in my opinion.
362
Yes, and I know of no woman who throws up all night and then wants sex.
1
Thank you. A decent human being would try to find the person's friends, help get the person home, find someone to sit up with them and make sure they are medically safe, etc. A male should search for a responsible, sober female known to the drunk woman to do this. The chances someone who just threw up consented to sex seem pretty slim to me. What a jerk.
1
And he has been punished-Yale will never let him set foot on campus again and as others have stated good luck getting a job in the US with this when employer googles your name.
After hearing so much about rape recently, I wonder how the prosecution of a rape case differs (if at all) from the prosecution of any other [non-sexual] assault. Say I'm in my yard mowing, and my neighbor comes over and angrily pushes or punches or slaps me (for whatever reason; maybe he's annoyed by the noise)..... Is it simply my problem and the violent neighbor faces no consequences? (i.e. there are no witnesses, there is no DNA evidence, and I don't have any grievous injuries....)
7
If you want to prosecute him criminally you will have to provide evidence. You can’t convict him just because you say he did it-even if he did. So yes, other crimes are treated this way
21
It is often pointed out that incidence of false reporting of rape is low. But in fact, it is true only if ‘false’ means a deliberate lie. Far more common are cases in which the alleged victim may believe that she was raped but in fact she was not. Human memory is unreliable and extremely flexible. Confabulation, fantasy taken for actual recollection, is common and not just in rape cases. There were numerous experiments in which, for example, witnesses of a traffic accidents would describe totally different scenarios. This is true even when no alcohol or drugs are involved. How much more so when the alleged victim wa drunk? There was no need to bring up her clothing. Otherwise, justice was done.
28
"Far more common are cases in which the alleged victim may believe that she was raped but in fact she was not."
Really? And you know this how? Because it fits well into your general world view?
You know, 'facts" that you have just invented out of thin air really don't count in any kind of reasonable discussion.
Isn’t there a guard at the front door of the dorms or do you swipe in and that’s it for security? If I were a university I would have a guard at the door who would watch for drunk under-21’s and alert the dorm monitor person who minds the kids.
Wow, what is that? The 40s? There is no guard on dorms. There is no security. Sometimes outside doors are locked. However, some student will prop them open so that his girlfriend can come in. There is no dorm monitor, either.
14
If the trial had been before a judge, we would have (at least in theory) a reasoned opinion explaining factual findings and the application of laws to those facts. We should expect the same of trials before juries; we can give juries a professional opinion writer to help explain their decision.
3
NO. Juries are not required to justify their decisions anywhere in Anglo Saxon jurisprudence.
According to this article the accused was guilty —-until he was proven innocent. Obviously the jury system is flawed and rigged.
16
He was found not guilty, not "was proved innocent."
That said, the suggestion by JR elsewhere in the comments is a good one: record and publish the jury's reasons for its finding.
1
It would only be fair to also publish the name of the accuser. Not to do so creates a double standard that will always compromise the credibility those who accuse. There should be no shame in being an alleged victim of an alleged crime.
Anyone inebriated enough to have vomited repeatedly is not last minute date, and certainly not a consensual partner. Confusion or eagerness is no excuse for an absence of basic decency.
74
That's silly. One drink is enough cause an upset stomach. An upset stomach is not being drunk. Anyway, you are framing it as if she did nothing but throw up for 10-12 hours. And, that's not what happened. Read the NH Register story.
1
Stomach flu
Stop criticizing the verdict. No matter what you’ve posted or supported in these comments, I assure you there were people on that jury who agree with you and who made those arguments during deliberations. And at the end of the day, the jury acquitted. It wasn’t because of any question the defense attorneys asked; it was because a group of people like you and me decided that the government hadn’t proven rape. It’s that simple.
95
Of course. Juries always make the correct decisions. Good to know.
Sorry, but that is simply ridiculous. Juries often make incorrect decisions. Many, many innocent people have gone to jail, provably so, and guilty people (perhaps a smaller number, given the way the majority of people irrationally trust prosecutors, but a number nonetheless) have gone free. And as someone who has served on a jury, and who has a lifetime of experience with humanity--people are very fallible and prone to all sorts of irrational thinking. This comment thread is proof enough of that.
The bias exhibited here is faith in the just outcome--you want to believe that the good are rewarded and the just punished. So do many of us. That's why we want to believe that sick people brought it on themselves with bad lifestyle choices, even though we knew two year olds die of cancer every day. We want to believe that the world is fair. It's not, and this jury decision may not have been either. I don't know, and neither do the people commenting here.
8
Does this story support that we should teach young women to not get drunk and incoherently wander around campus at night? Probably, but liberals will completely oppose such sexist ideas.
62
I'm a Liberal.
It's my view that we should be striving for a society in which women can walk down the street stark naked and not face harassment. There is NO EXCUSE for harassment, rape, etc.
I also believe that we have a very good (by no means perfect) justice system (and a great Constitution) and I respect the conclusion of the jury in this case. They have a very better view of ALL the facts relevant to the case. I oppose "justice by media", which is all too popular today, both in Left and Right wing media outlets.
And I repeat, I am a Liberal.
24
ak - It doesn't matter if a woman actually gets drunk or actually "incoherently wander(s) around campus at night". The rapist and his pals will make up stories that the victim was drunk, etc., and other people will believe them, so he will escape accountability for rape.
My rapist falsely claimed I pursued him sexually, was drunk, etc. Nothing he said about me or the incident was true, but people (including police officers, judges, and many of our neighbors) were more than willing to believe him and his ridiculous hearsay claims that I made sexy talk with him and other men. The rapist and his pals were angry that I had rejected all of them sexually. The rapist took revenge on their behalf.
So much for justice. So much for avoiding rape.
31
Maybe we should teach young men more effectively to not treat young women as sex objects to be used to satisfy their drunken lust. Right wingers wouldn't abide the notion of shaming the men who commit criminal acts and get away with it, and that's the sad part of it.
22
The is about the 1000th press item over the past few years presenting the same utterly ignored elephant in the room. She stands on four legs:
1. American jurisprudence is based on presumption of innocence.
2. She said vs he said testimony can only rarely overturn presumption of innocence.
3. When there are no other witnesses, she said vs he said testimony becomes the main source of information about what happened or did not happen.
4. Because, for reasons 1,2 and 3, punishment rarely succeeds, and can carry a risk of being falsely applied, and is thus a very poor substitute to prevention (for starters warning students against intoxicating beverages at parties), but pieces like this article ignore that. Such remedies might reduce the potential number of sensational reportable stories, which seems to often have a higher priority than advancing workable means of reducing sexual crime.
49
This is where these cases belong, in a court, subject to rules of evidence, a trial judge, cross examination, summations; not in front of university administrative staff or faculty. They can go either way -- i.e. the Stanford guy who was convicted. If this episode chills the hook-up culture on campus, so be it. I suggest the taxi two stop as a great ploy to end an evening politely and firmly. On campus, go to your room, alone.
20
In The Philadelphia Story (1940) the characters played by Katherine Hepburn and Jimmy Stewart get very drunk, and she says to him, "Put me in your pocket, Mike," and they run off together. The next morning, when she asks what happened (she can't remember), Jimmy Stewart reports that they shared two kisses, after which he escorted her to her bedroom and left her there, alone, because "you were extremely attractive and far from distant or forbidding. But you were also, well, pretty pixilated, and there are rules about that." Seventy-odd years later, this is still the basic script decent men follow. Doesn't matter how far-from-distant, or not-forbidding the woman may be, what dress, or what demeanor. There are rules. Period.
143
following them is good, kind, moral, the right thing to do.......and, when people are drunk, they don't necessarily act that way whether they are female or male. I recall being so drunk with a fellow college student the night before that to this day I don't know if we had sex though we awakened naked in bed beside each other. Did i do something, or the other person do something? Did i take my or the other person's clothes off, or did the other person do it? Did we have intercourse? Did the other person or I say this or that, yes or no? I have no idea? Too drunk is too drunk and "reliable memory" is not reliable. So, Yes, Jimmy Stewart, the character, read his lines right, but he was not and Kate was not actually drunk, or even having a date. They were actors.
19
You totally misquoted James Stewart's character. Also, his character in the film is 30 years old, not a young college student. The man is usually the one blamed in these situations because he has a you-know-what and the woman doesn't. I suspect the extremely low percentage of these incidents that women report is due in large part to many of them recognizing that both parties acted irresponsibly and neither deserves to have their whole life ruined because of it.
25
Yep, decent. These are still the rules for a high standard of behavior (the highest standard might be not drinking or getting stoned at all, or only a bit tipsy but not drunk).
But it's not sufficient to convict. Perhaps a judge will instruct a rape-trial jury to apply the Jimmy Stewart standard, and the jury will do so, setting a new precedent.
1
Shame on most of our commenters. They advocate politics masquerading as law.*
In the United States, it is black letter law: in a criminal prosecution, every essential element of the offense must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and, further, absent extraordinary tampering or similar compromise, a verdict of acquittal in a criminal case is final.
The accuser here has a remedy available. She can bring a civil action for damages where the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of evidence.
*Phrase in another context: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/04/nuremberg-a-fair-tr...
22
In most of those civil cases, the [usually male] judge will throw the case out before it ever gets to a jury.
There is no real remedy for victims of sexual assault. Seeking one only brings more abuse down on the victim.
14
Are you suggesting that judges (who probably do tend to be men who have obtained JD degrees) are somehow acting improperly? Or are you opposed to due process and the justice system, because in your mind "the ends justify the means"?
4
Provide some proof about that. Show us that "in most of those civil cases" male judges dismiss civil cases before the cases are heard by a jury.
Provide proof, please.
1
I am one of the few male members of my local women's bar association. I joined the march to protest the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment. And I strongly support the #MeToo movement.
I also strongly support our judicial system (which, contrary to Donald Trump, is outstanding and anything other than "a laughing xtock" or "a disgrace".)
You cannot pick and choose in the law. This defendant was presumed innocent. He was entitled to, and received, a thorough, professionally zealous and competent defense. The prosecutor had the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That didn't happen.
You my not like the result. But we must never permit any case to threaten the integrity of the American judicial system.
135
It's interesting, we hear the argument that women should take personal responsibility not to let themselves be put in these situations, which many people find objectionable. But the same advice applies equally to men. They shouldn't let themselves be put in these situations lest they be wrongly accused of rape.
76
Yes. Why isn't this pointed out more? It's exhausting to read the repeated back-and-forth about how a woman who's drinking should take responsibility for herself, with little on how men should also check themselves. Young people do stupid things --I know I did way back when-- and alcohol makes it worse. It's very sad when the "stupid thing" is as damaging as rape (perceived rape?).
I'm not even a teetotaler and I hate our drinking culture. Note throughout our general U.S. culture how often drinking is portrayed as a shorthand for cool and bravado --and "being one of the boys" for women-- in television and movies. It starts to become ridiculous: a character deals with the slightest emotional turmoil by picking up a drink, and drinking to excess seems to be the only way people have a good time (blame lazy storytelling). Inoculating oneself against these messages is a difficult and important task of growing up.
1
Really John? When a female friend of mine knocked at my dorm room door at 3AM falling down drunk and covered in her own vomit I was wrong to take her down the hall to the communal bathroom, strip off her clothes, shower her off, take her back to my room, put her in my bed, and go to sleep? That's what friends do rather than worry about some theoretical accusation of rape at some point in the future. It's interesting that you would leave a friend in such a state alone and defenseless in a heap in the hallway. Sometimes you have to do the right thing instead of nothing.
It is almost impossible for the woman to prevail in a "he said she said" situation. By definition, there's a lack of evidence, much less proof.
It's not that women who are victimized shouldn't make complaints, even if the odds are against them. As we've seen with the #MeToo movement, it's only when multiple victims come forward that men, whether teachers or students, are held accountable.
But to reduce sexual assault on campus, schools need to prevent attacks before they happen. This means ongoing education of the young men and women - barely adults - who are on campus. It means changing the drinking-hookup culture. It means giving female students a safe way to bring complaints against professors. And it means no longer giving star professors - or any professors - a free pass.
Yes there will be sex on campus. There are steps colleges can and must take to make sure it's between two sober and consenting people.
11
I like your comment.
I just wanted to add that in this particular case there was some fairly compelling evidence in support of the defendant's version of events.
The New Haven Register has quite a few articles following the case.
8
Difficult cases should make prosecutors suss out better strategies.
It is not beyond a prosecutor's power to refer an indicted felony to a misdemeanor (e.g, reduce the charge to a sexual touching). Misdemeanors are typically judge tried cases with a year or less incarceration as the potential penalty. College rapes with fact patterns like this may be better argued in front of a judge rather than a lay jury. The defendant is typically a first time offender (at least first time caught). The average conviction for rape leads to a 5.4 year sentence (actual time served). I don't know the numbers, but I think there is a reasonable likelihood that campus rapists get a softer sentence. Anyhow, a referred felony rape usually can be charged as two misdemeanors with a potential year of incarceration at play. A potential loss of 4.4 years of incarceration. That is a lot to give up, but there is a method to the madness.
There is a significantly better chance of conviction in judge tried cases. A judge understands facts and the law better than most juries. Judges hear all the evidence, admissible and inadmissible. In one major city in the US, this was the practice for child sexual assault cases....where 5 and 6 year olds on the stand weren't believed by juries, but were found more credible by judges. We won most of those cases and the defendants were put on the National Sex Offender Registry....almost more important than the time behind bars.
2
Factually, it seems that every detail in this case has been looked at, and the complainant failed to show that her testimony made any sense. As the article states no one is happy about what happened, but the facts are that substantial doubt emanating from the complainant's own testimony shows that Mr Khan is innocent.
13
In US courts defendants who are not convicted are found "not guilty".
Innocence is not pronounced.
Let us all remember the statistics. 1 out of every 4 women attending college will experience some form of sexual assault. How many of these victims will report their assaults? Many will not because of a lack of faith in their colleges to do right by them. And as documentaries such as The Hunting Ground reveal, colleges go out of their way to protect their institutional reputation and deny that sexual assault occurs on their campuses. Consider Jon Krakauers Missoula which analyzed prosecutorial habits in sexual assault cases on college campuses, revealing that only 20 percent of sexual assault cases made it to trial, and only half of those cases resulted in a conviction.
Is it any wonder our national sexual assault statistics are so underrepresented? Is it any wonder that victims of sexual assault are skeptical to report their assaults? We live in a system in which perpetrators are consistently given the benefit of the doubt while victims are underserved by our judicial system.
So while many commenters want to have conversations about how alcohol confuses the conversation, just remember that while you have your debates, young people continue to be raped. And they dont feel comfortable coming forward, perhaps because we dont have a justice system that supports them.
And so while you root for the Yale guy to not be a monster, we are silencing the stories of rape victims every day. We need to rewrite the narrative.
14
I am silencing no one. I STRONGLY encourage ALL of those victims of assault to press charges to the fullest. Now one else can or will do it for them.
I also support our justice system that presumes innocence. That presumption was one of the founding ideas on which our country was built.
I abhor "trial by media", of which this article is a classic example, because it reports only a small segment of the evidence shown to the jury.
I strongly encourage anyone who wants to assume Khan's guilt solely on the basis of this article to read the numerous articles in the New Haven Register, which tracked the full trial and described most of the testimony.
Side by side with our right to form our own opinions comes the responsibility of doing so based on as much evidence and knowledge as we can acquire... And we can easily acquire much more than is present in this article.
13
Yes, the statistics are indeed very disturbing. But how ever disturbing they might be, if we permit any individual case to become a referendum on all other rape cases rightly or wrongly decided, we do violence to the very notion that accusations must be proved by sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Note that this article omits a number of critically important details about the evidence presented at trial. Others have mentioned it, and I would second the recommendation, to check out the coverage of the case in the New Haven Register for a more thorough accounting of the case.
11
1/4 is the stats for a sexual assault, which encompasses many acts other than rape. You can't conflate the two.
While deploring the questioning about the woman’s clothing, I think that the real hole in the prosecution’s case was that both people had been drinking heavily, so that the woman’s recollection - that she fell asleep, or maybe passed out, clothed, and woke up naked - could not be relied upon by the jury. The jury did not find the defendant innocent, and did not have to credit the defense’s suggestion that the alleged victim’s clothing undermined her accusation to find reasonable doubt.
What the defense did was establish that the two had been out socially, the woman at one point had been drunk, and the woman couldn’t remember all that had occurred, including having had sex, consensual or not, with the defendant. It doesn’t sound as though the verdict was based on a conclusion that the woman’s prior behavior or clothing suggested consent. It sounds as though that it was impossible for the jury to find lack of consent - rape - beyond reasonable doubt -when the alleged victim admitted that she’d been impaired, both agreed they had been in a social setting - were consensually associating - earlier in the evening, and the victim did not recall the actual assault.
Reasonable doubt is a high standard. You can’t expect a conviction when the victim was impaired and couldn’t recall what said or done at the critical moment. She thinks she was asleep; he says she woke up and consented. Drunk people do things that they later don’t remember, hence reasonable doubt.
17
My rapist didn't remember raping me until I described for him what he did. (Apparently he was in a blackout state when he attacked me.) Then he made up a new story to fit his "consensual sex" claim.
He never bothered to tell me about my "reputation" as a smut-talking, sexually aggressive, post-menopausal woman. I had no idea that I HAD a reputation, but he used a neighborhood frenzy of defamatory talk about me as his excuse for pinning me down and sexually penetrating me. (He outweighed me by 200 pounds. There is no way I could have fought him off.)
Women cannot win in these situations.
9
It's dangerous to be a young person out on their own without parents or rules for the first few years. They are like baby birds who have left the nest, but haven't mastered flying yet. To make it more complicated, each generation has new dangers that parents haven't even dreamed of. We adults could try to do a better job of warning them. Both these young people seem to have stumbled into a terrible misunderstanding and made serious mistakes. At least no one died.
7
Unless we women insist on self determination one of two outcomes is inevitable. Either women will become victims of crime or wards of the state. Regretful consensual sex is not rape.
19
Is Saifullah Khan one of those rapists that are being allowed to sneak into this country and commit crimes? Who would take the word of an Arab or Afghani anyway? Ooops,I can't say that!
I can say that the victim was dressed provocatively,smiled once or twice, and did not have her male family members nearby to protect her.
It's no wonder that the proportion of rape victims who take their rapist to court is a small subset of the less than 40% of victims who even file a police report. I suppose they ALL must be "asking for IT" subconsciously.
Am I right?
7
Drunken sex, which I have engaged in years ago, is not rape. It may be a mistake, but it is not rape. Those who engage in it should reflect upon their choices, and make better choices. But it's not rape.
27
Drunk people cannot consent. You are flat wrong.
16
You can have an opinion. But your opinion has nothing to do with fact. Drunken sex is not rape. There is NO LAW ON THE BOOKS that states this. Drunken sex is not a good idea, but it's not rape. PERIOD.
4
Not rape? Right, the guy taking her back to her room after she threw up three times? Of course she passed out with her clothes on. Or, maybe he was pawing her and coercing her and she took them off herself? Or he 'helped' her? What college freshman not previously exposed to alcohol never had that experience. As a man, he should have recognised the problem and let her be, sleep it off. Instead, he took advantage of her intoxicated state.
8
Her lawyer should have said that the inconsistencies noted (whether or not he specifically invited her to her room) had no bearing on the question of whether or not his actions qualified as rape. His saying "That was a different demeanor" tells you what kind of person he is - obviously he wants to make her feel guilty and discredit her in one stroke at her own rape trial. I will make sure to tell friends who are employers this name. Thank you for reporting this NYT. Women need to know what kind of a person he is and employers should know too. What a vicious and despicable human being.
13
And attitudes like this are why it is such an injustice that his name is publicized while hers is not. He was found not guilty-yet clearly he will be punished by people like you even though you don’t even know him-or what really happened.
27
Carla - Before you try to destroy his future you may want to consider reading the entire trial transcript. That is, after all, what the jury of 3 men and 3 women reviewed before finding him "not guilty".
If you are unwilling to do that, then you may at least want to read the more thorough coverage provided in the New Haven Register. I have provided a link to one of their many articles below. You will find accounts of the arguments of both sides in the Register coverage.
Please remember that due process and the rights of the defendant are at the roots of the philosophy that founded our country. Trial by media is NOT a path to justice.
https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Defendant-in-Yale-sex-assault-tr...
43
Sober woman will have nothing to fear from this guy. For all we know the woman in this story actually did consent, nobody will ever know that's why he walked.
Maybe it was consensual sex, followed by intense morning-after hangover remorse. Just the fact that I can entertain this thought suggests that there's "reasonable doubt" here which precludes a conviction. However, the slut-shaming cross-examination is repugnant and if the woman was in fact raped, she has been psychologically and emotionally violated again by the trial and it could easily push a person over the edge of sanity and even impel her to employ "Second Amendment remedies" to satisfy her notion of justice. 2 important takeaways: for the woman--control yourself. Stop getting stinking drunk and expecting a knight in shining armor to protect you. For the man--dude, if a chick pukes her guts out and is on the verge of passing out and you do the deed with her twice, you are a loser and the lowest of the low.
24
What's interesting is that only college women need to be protected from rape. In fact, the real effect of colleges punishing sexual assault is to keep privileged college students, male and female, out of the criminal justice system. The same reason college cops cooperate with college officials for other crimes by students.
There is no similar protection for other women. Their only option is going to the police. And the chances this crime would have been prosecuted in these circumstances is zip. And her friends might have recognized that if she was unsafely drunk and vulnerable it was their job to protect her.
7
I largely agree with you that the idea of campus kangaroo courts (in my humble opinion) are stupid--send these types of cases to real local courts where both sides can get their due process. If this was more emphasized, I think it would encourage non-college women to go to the police themselves. I can't imagine how humiliating it must be for a young woman to describe sexual assault to a local PD, probably first having to describe it to a bunch of men. We need to get more trained sexual assault counselors on the police forces to deal with the initial first claim.
But, yes, at the end of the day if you want true justice, you have to work through the justice system. However, that doesn't mean we can't reform our justice system. We can, we should, and we will.
Maybe the FACT that another man's DNA (Not Mr. Khan's) was found on the accuser's anal swab from the night in question or the FACT that Mr. Khan testified that the accuser asked if he had condoms and he left her room, went to his own and brought back 2 condoms (Card swipe records confirm he left her room when he said he did and returned when he said he did) was the nail in the accuser's coffin.
The jury was in the court room every single day they saw the FACTS of the case and those FACTS allowed JUSTICE to be served in rendering a NOT GUILTY verdict! Regretted sex is NOT a crime, it is NOT rape and a woman cannot accuse a man of rape because she regrets the sex she had with him drunk or not.
202
You left another part out. After Khan swipes back in, he swipes back out to check on the complainants friend who was missing in action from the party but who never knew Khan per his and the complainants (friend) testimony. The complaint was supposed to be passed out based on her testimony, not asking to check on her friends. Khan is innocent.
14
This is the most relevant information offered.
3
Out of curiosity, where did you get this information?
1
Now it's time to retry Mr Khan in the court of public opinion.
6
I don't know Saifullah Khan but having read this article, I'm ashamed of his lawyers on his behalf.
13
It isn't pretty, but the lawyers were fulfilling their duty to their client, which is the ONLY duty they have in our adversarial criminal justice system. Any lawyer who does not aggressively challenge his client's accuser has failed in his professional obligation to his client.
11
I am ashamed of all the people who apparently believe a lynch mob is superior to a fair trial.
21
I think most of us are responding to the details presented here, less than the verdict. It should be illegal to use the defendant's dress as evidence that it wasn't a rape.
Wonder who paid the bill for Khan's legal defense. Norman Pattis does not come cheap. Google him. "A regular in the national media" "Leading American Lawyer" "Million Dollar Verdicts" "Syndicated Blog"
Have a hunch this defense was similar to O.J. Simpson's "Dream Team".
10
I suspect that there are a lot of "men's rights" groups which contributed. Men have, for the last 8 years, been railroaded very unfairly by Obama Admin rules and guidelines. Parents of men are outraged by the unfair rules, and many of them probably contributed. Men have rights too.
6
There is no scandal in the fact that any particular defendant may have the resources to hire a top notch lawyer to represent him in a criminal case. Anybody accused of a crime who does NOT hire the best attorney his or her resources will allow is a fool, because the state has virtually unlimited resources at its disposal for the prosecution of the case.
If there is any scandal, it lies in the fact that the great majority of criminal defendants cannot afford, and are not provided, with the same kind of top notch defense.
6
Sadly Legal Services (legal services for the poor) is just about gone. "Equal Justice Under Law", as inscribed on the Supreme Court building, works only if all have equal access to legal representation.
As Gil Scott-Heron sang so many decades ago, "The rich go to San Clemente; the poor to San Quentin".
If the woman was drunk & passed out how could she possibly give consent to anything? Simply, she could not. Start teaching your sons not to rape. Now.
26
Or put themselves in situations where they can be wrongly accused of rape.
7
By this logic a woman could get black-out drunk, beg a man to have sex with her, regret it the next morning, and accuse him of rape. How would such a standard be enforced? Would a man have to know a woman’s blood alcohol level before acting on her apparent consent?
7
Is that how you think this happens? Quite an interesting scenario there.
You were not on the jury and you did not hear all the evidence and you were not in the courtroom: You have no leg to stand on offering your opinions on this verdict. Period.
21
What sort of evidence sympathetic to him might have been presented? Evidence showing some sort of prior grudge between them? It seems like they were strangers before the night of the "alleged" assault.
Carla it is not even an alleged assault: nothing illegal happened.
3
Carla, if you would like to know "what sort of evidence" supports Khan's "not guilty" plea, I suggest you read the articles in the New Haven Register. Those articles covered all the testimony in the case and there was plenty of evidence that supported his version of the events of the evening.
Here's one article to start you off. Search and you will find several others.
https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Defendant-in-Yale-sex-assault-tr...
7
NYT - in an earlier article about this you called the woman the "victim " throughout the article. That bothered me then; "accuser" would have been a more precise term. Now you are switching to "complainant" with full anonymity continuing. At this point, after a jury verdict finding her allegations not rising to a crime, she should be named just as the person she accused who was found not to have committed any crime. This is not even-handed reporting.
55
The comments, as always, reflect the happiness or displeasure of individuals' political beliefs. People who wanted this man convicted will wail about the victim being tried. If he had been convicted men would have been howling about the impossibility of navigating the #metoo world. The truth is, none of us knows anything at all about the man or the woman involved here. We believe what we want to, based upon our preconceived notions. The only truth here is between the two of them and we are not privy to it. We only know what they tell us, to serve their interests. Let's get off our high horses.
9
If he'd been convicted I would have been pretty sure of his guilt, since the jury clearly took their duty to find the defendant guilty only if his guilt had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems it wasn't, despite the Times's barely concealed displeasure, and so I agree that don't know what happened. But I would be pretty sure that he was guilty if he'd been found guilty.
4
Hopefully this story will convince some people not to get so drunk that this kind of thing happens. If the woman was so drunk that she passed out, she might not remember consenting. Any guy who takes advantage of a girl this drunk is a pig. Though I can see why the jury voted not guilty. They didn't know for sure what happened hence the reasonable doubt. The defendant does not seem like a decent human being, but the rule is you have to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
15
Obviously, an Afghan male stood no chance against a white girl in the court of public opinion, but it’s heartening to know that, quite often, the US legal system is objective.
40
"Obviously, an Afghan male stood no chance against a white girl in the court of public opinion...." An interesting assumption. Having read many articles about this case, here and elsewhere, I find no mention of the woman's race or the color of her skin. Perhaps you can point us to a piece that makes that clear.
8
Just shows that woman's rights come. As Yoko Ono said.
NY Times, when will you learn how to report impartially and fairly, without misogynistic bias, on a rape case? When will colleges and universities understand that what someone wears is not consent to be raped?
4
No but it could make it harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was.
1
They were reporting what questions were asked not condoning the questions.
4
The woman threw up three times, was having difficulty walking and passed out. What man would think that she had the capacity to consent to sex? Make sure she's safe and leave her alone. Here's a great video that should be mandatory viewing in high schools and universities across the nation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
24
Couldn't agree with you more. His behavior seems like calculated predator impersonating a white night
If the victim is that drunk that they vomit several times and need to be helped back to her dorm and then pass out, they are too drunk to consent. And any half decent "man" would have realized that.
35
So perhaps the best way of courtship would be "The Bachelor[ette]" model. Sort of a modified version of arranged marriage. (I like the movies where the suitors come to the house to be vetted.) That said, even without alcohol males can turn violent (male avoids the boy/men distinction) and demand sex not resistingnature's urge. Most are more powerful than the sexual object who may aquiesce or simply be penetrated while being held done because s/he is afraid of being beat up OK that sounds like rape... but what does one do?? (and PS it happens in marriage as well.).. the guy used condoms at least... not very tidy... I don't know that I think our courts should be clogged with cases of this sort of date rape... or collegiate rape. I do think the drinking needs to cease. Persons all need to learn to defend themselves.. but even old friends can turn very nasty. It's pretty complicated.. BTW the women I am most sorry for in the entire metoo movement are both Monica Lewinsky and HRC... shamed in front of the entire world. I suppose I should feel sorry for WJC but men wear their conquests like medals on their chests or they did (Lauren was happy that Ari dumpted Becca and then chose here rather than as she said -- she would have wondered if he had initially chosen here over Becca... I had a very liberated cousint who wrote the name of every guy she kissed in high school on the doorframe of her room in about 1959. Julie was/is a toughie. What;s your story.
We live in a deeply misogynist culture where women are objects for men's pleasure, not full human beings. Today yet once again proved this, not innocence.
18
Nope. It just proved the jury didn’t think he was guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing else.
32
There are doubtless many misogynistic elements that abound in our society. But at the same time, assuming that every man who is accused of rape is necessarily guilty of it could be called misandristic.
1
The complainant vomited three times. Each time she was in the defendant's presence. She vomited twice at a concert of the Yale Symphony Orchestra, first while sitting next to him (according to her version, because he had discovered her drunk at the door -- too drunk to scan her ticket from her phone -- and after helping her scan her ticket he had appointed himself as her companion for the evening), later while in the lobby. After he escorted her back to her dorm room and wound up inside (how he got there is disputed), she vomited into her own lap and his.
And yet the defendant -- supposedly intelligent enough to be a Hotchkiss graduate and Yale student -- nevertheless had sex with her? What is WRONG with young men that they would even consider having sex with a person that inebriated?
What is WRONG with the parents who raise such young men?
38
This is what predators do, and it has been going on since the beginning of time. Men find women who are inebriated, or ply them with alcohol, and take advantage of them. Which is why the concept that women cannot consent if they are severely impaired is so important!
7
He may not have been found guilty, but he’s definitely not innocent.
I have never heard of bruising on one's legs occurring in the course of consensual sex.
So, lots of negative insinuations regarding the victim. How about the defendant? Seems fair to bring up his background, his values, his past behavior, his success with women. How many times has he been dumped? How long do his relationships last? How about the values of his culture?
This sounds like another travesty of justice - were any of the lawyers/judges involved women? This story doesn't even mention any of that.
11
My daughter has been a black cat for Halloween every year since she was four. She loves cats and says it's a simple costume. Now that she's 12, I guess I should warn her that her attire will be used against her if, God forbid, she should be raped while wearing it, or by someone who saw her wearing it and thought it was an invitation to non-consensual sex.
This country has far, far to go.
29
So sad; I thought we were beyond what was she wearing, how much did she have to drink . . .
7
why would we ever be beyond how much they've had to drink? How much you have had to drink affects your ability to recollect what happened. It will always be relevant in testimony.
1
sounds like the prosecutor, was out of his depth or worse incompetent . "Footage of the two walking back to her dorm, in which the complainant appeared to be leaning on Mr. Khan, her leg dragging slightly behind her.", the bruising on her leg and her testimony should have been more then enough to secure a guilty verdict. It also sound like he didn't explain the concept of a brown out to the jury. Just an fyi for mr. khan if you have to drag a girl back to her dorm room after you've sat with her as she thew up means she's probably not up for consensual sex
17
There was a lot of other evidence not discussed in this article, that supported Khan's version of events, including key card access records that suggest he was out of the building at the time she believes she was raped.
The jury will have based its decision on ALL of the evidence, of which only cherry-picked bits have been included in this article.
11
Here's another" Not Guilty" verdict from a couple of weeks ago in Oregon, this time issued by a judge. Please read his reasoning towards the end of the article. His reasoning could apply to a notorious past case 25 years ago from Connecticut . http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2018/02/sex_abuse_ca...
1
Very similar. When we make choices to drink heavily, stuff happens. In the cold light of the morning after, we tell ourselves a story. "I'm not that kind of girl". "There's no way I would do that". Well, that's morning-after rethinking.
4
“Sex happens, especially on college campuses,” he [ the lawyer] said.
Sure, IT happens, but if it's coerced, it's not just sex; it's rape. Sure IT happens, but if one participant is passed out; it's rape. Sure IT happens, but if someone wore a sexy outfit, or texted flirtatiously,- that's not an invitation to sex without consent. Might be bad judgement, but don't conflate the two.
I remember a night in college where I drank way too much and don't remember a thing until the next morning. Then I still didn't remember a thing about the previous night. Except that at 18 -where the legal age was 18 - I was at a bar with fellow college newspaper journalists. I later learned one of the women (I was with an all women group) got me home. That was the first and last time I drank to such excess. But if something sexual had happened somewhere, there would have been no way I could have consented.
7
Blacking out and passing out are different. In black-out situations, which I have been in a time or 2, you do stuff, and may even seem quite rational. You can drive (but shouldn't). You can walk and talk. You just don't remember stuff the next day. That is NOT having been passed out.
10
The article makes a valid point that the complainant was seemingly badgered by defense counsel. But the article doesn't go far enough in making it clear that this is quite another issue from the guilt or innocence of the accused.
6
The New Haven Register has published MUCH more detailed testimony that goes far beyond the pieces selected by the authors of this article.
I encourage readers to read at least the link below and keep in mind that the jury will have based their decision on ALL of the evidence, not just the bits mentioned in this article.
https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Defendant-in-Yale-sex-assault-tr...
22
Several drInks should not cause blackouts and being unable to walk without dragging ones leg. Maybe she was slipped a Mickey Finn.
5
You can black out for a number of reasons, like not eating enough, high ammonia levels, and it sounds like this was late at night. If there was a bruise on her leg, it's possible he violently attacked her.
2
Has anybody considered that Mr. Khan's lawyers were infinitely better than our underpaid and overworked prosecutors? Specifically, in (1) jury selection from a large pool of people and (2) tying the legal definition of rape to the provable facts? from a retired trial attorney: The State got out-lawyered--again.
"reported from New Haven" where the desperately poor and deprived/depraved live cheek to jowel with the Yale oasis.
4
I am surprised by the comments. So any man or woman who gets drunk at a party deserves to be raped? Good to know.
I suppose it must be legally impossible to rape a person in a coma, or in a nursing home, or a child. They rarely put up much of a fight.
18
Victim blaming is alive and well where men assaulting women is concerned. I was kidnapped and assaulted at 14 years old when I agreed to a ride after a long pressured conversation in which I repeatedly declined the ride and then finally acquiesced when the man 25 to 30 years my senior assured me he would transport me safely to my destination. Safe I was not, a fact that this navy brat would soon discover.
As the daughter of a Master Chief in the 1960's I was carefully groomed to do as adults, and especially men, directed. Resistance was met with a belt across the legs, shaming and ridicule. The idea that I would openly revolt was as foreign to me as the idea that a man would take the opportunity to drive me down a deserted road and continually lock the door I was trying to open to escape. That I was lucky to escape at all is not lost on me today as it was then.
That I suffered lingering trauma that colored my future should be apparent to all but my experience tells me differently. What troubles me the most now is a comment made by my adult daughter a few years ago. When I broached the experience with her the following words actually left her mouth "You should have known better". Denial of the terror, humiliation and trauma by my own daughter. Why would any sexual assault survivor come forward if my own flesh and blood blames me?
16
Your experience is horrifying and tragic.
But it tells us nothing of the guilt or lack of guilt of Khan. He should be judged solely on the facts relevant to his case.
13
She did not consent. He took advantage of her. The legal system favors the accused in issues of sexual assault because of the extreme difficulty of the burden of proof. That does not mean he did not rape her, only that the legal system gave him a pass.
14
"She did not consent."
How do you know that?
Did you read the entire court transcript of ALL the testimony?
The jury heard all the testimony and came to a different conclusion. Before second-guessing their conclusion don't you think perhaps you should review it all as well?
7
The accuser shows up on film so drunk she cannot walk by herself...and yet she 'gave consent' ? It isn't legally possible.
I'd love to know how the judge in this case charged the jury.
11
It's Alice in Wonderland type logic!
1
what kind of shoes was she wearing? I can walk much better drunk in a pair of flats than I can walk in a pair of heels. Personally, I could be drunk enough to struggle walking in heels, but still be sober enough to consent. And I've performed in a play where I was drinking and threw up on the back stage manager, and still was totally sober enough to consent, and actually never missed a line in the rest of the performance.
Point being- don't make too many assumptions- especially that your experience is the only kind.
1
She should have worn a Cinderella outfit instead of a sexy cat outfit? My god, we really are all supposed to be princesses, aren't we, just waiting demurely until the prince comes along to marry us. If we women do other than wait passively and demurely in our princess outfits (and personas), then we deserve everything we get, I suppose is the message we are supposed to take away from this.
How could the question about her costume even have been allowed in a rape trial, in this day and age? Seriously, the victim's clothing is still allowed to be brought up? How is this even possible? Aren't there legal guidelines against such questions nowadays? American Bar Assoc., are you listening?
17
My bias, and it is a bias, is in favor of the woman. Nonetheless, if we want to circumvent the criminal justice system because of verdicts like these, how will anyone ever be punished for rape?
I'm sure college men would love it if all college women wore burkhas so as not to be accused of being attractive or anything. How about men learn to enjoy looking at women without taking each outfit on each lady as a personal call to arms?
6
Who knows? The woman could have blacked out (and it is hard to tell when a person is in that state—especially when both parties have been drinking) and consented only to wake up without memory of consent. Such a thing did happen to me in college—luckily, my now wife believed me. I will say that it was quite a shock to me that she didn’t remember what I thought of as a fun night between consenting adults, especially since she had initiated the sexual activity.
11
As we all know, the standard for conviction in a criminal trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So it is not surprising that a jury in a case like this, presented with only limited and hazy evidence, will fail to agree on conviction. This article does not go into detail on all the evidence brought out, but it is easy to imagine that the jury reasonably decided it was not sufficient to convict - cat suit or no cat suit.
5
Many of the comments decry the tactic of "putting the victim on trial." Notably the article focuses almost exclusively on the victim. The article spends almost no time on the testimony of the defendant (couple of sentences buried at the end) which, one must assume, was an important reason for his acquittal.
9
The complainant was not credible. The totality of all the evidence diluted the strength of the states case including the complainants own witnesses. What she was wearing was not even discussed. This jury was mature, successful and intelligent with most over age 50 with (3) women on it. The system worked perfectly. Video, texts and testimony fully supported the decision. Any other opinions to supports ones own narrative is irrelevant.
7
Um...so you genuinely believe she gave him consent, such as by walking all the way back across campus to find him? That was not stated anywhere in the story and it's stated in the text that she had a bruise on her leg after sex with him. You did read the story right?
1
Thorough coverage provided by the New Haven Register supports your statements. Anyone wishing to know more can start with the link to the article below and look up the many other articles that cover the rest of the trial.
https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Defendant-in-Yale-sex-assault-tr...
4
Yes. The key swipes between her and Khan's room and the complainants friends room after 1:00 tell a much different story. The jury did not believe the bruises were caused by the alleged assault, they were too old.
2
Why is it that I have to lock my car every time I park it in the street. Should it not be societies responsibility to teach people not to break into cars that don't belong to them.
12
What would you suggest, a chastity belt? Regardess, your logic is faulty--if someone takes your radio whether your car is locked or unlocked, it is still theft. I'm not quite sure how she could have "locked" her vagina.
Rather than focus on women's "personal responsibility" not to wear sexy clothes or sit on a man's lap or drink, let's focus on all men's personal responsibility not to rape!
42
That's what is known as begging the question--if anyone can still remember what begging the question means.
2
I believe a jury of his peers just determined that we're not talking about rape here. So now do we have to focus on women's personal responsibility not to make false allegations of rape? Or is he still guilty despite the verdict?
8
And not let themselves be put in a situation where they will be wrongly accused of rape.
1
An intoxicated person cannot give consent! Dragging her leg????? Flirting and wearing a cat costume on Halloween is not a sign that a woman wants to sleep with anyone! What's worse is that we have been explaining this since before the plaintiff and the rapist were born! It's time to bar defense attorneys from using these tactics by law. Period. And how about if we go back to that old comparison of robbery or burglary? "You know, Mr. Defense Attorney, if you didn't want your house robbed, you never should have left it alone over the holidays."
Watch out, men. The calendar may read March, but I see a blizzard like you never imagined looming. And if the only way you're getting sex with her is when she's drunk, then you aren't worthy of the term "man."
While I'm here, let me thank Harvard mid-80s grad Jon King for being the perfect gentleman when he shepherded a drunk teen safely home. We don't get to celebrate the good guys often enough, because they are just doing the right thing.
43
She was not drunk. The jury looked at how much she drank, when she drank it, and what she did over the course of the evening and did not believe she was incapacitated.
4
In that vein, let me thank the quarterback at my undergraduate university, whose name escapes me, who when I was 20yo apprehended the man who reached under my skirt and grabbed me from behind while I was walking down the street with a friend. He then he held onto the guy until the police came. My hero.
2
What infuritates me the most about this defense of men is that most men are perfect gentlemen! So why defend the bad apples? It's mystifying to me. The vast majority of men would never rape a woman so drunk she can barely walk. Most men are your Jon King, thank God.
1
Do we really expect the criminal justice system to be sensitive in any real way to the #metoo movement? The defense attorney's primary focus is to sow reasonable doubt. In that context, there are many legitimate, logical and strategic reasons for questioning witnesses about what the victim was wearing, how much she had to drink, and other behavior.
But we should also keep in mind that a not-guilty verdict doesn't mean she wasn't raped. It doesn't mean that he is innocent of any wrongdoing. It just means that the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. None of us would want to find ourselves serving any kind of sentence without that level of proof being satisfied.
18
A not guilty verdict does not mean that that he did not rape, but the fact that the verdict doesn't rule out that rape occured doesn't mean that rape occured either. The general point is that especially with respect to these situations, you can't have someone found guilty unless there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that fact, don't count on the courts to give you solace should you decide to engage in slutty behavior and things go to far. The courts can't have such a fine-tuned function. So you have to adjust your behavior accordingly. As a separate matter, there is the ethics of how men should deal with women who are engaging in slutty behavior. Even prostitutes should not be raped. But given sexual desires, intoxication, youth, human frailties, the differences between the sexes, and ambiguities of situations and communication, one can expect that this sort of thing will happen.
3
"... there are many legitimate, logical and strategic reasons for questioning witnesses about what the victim was wearing, how much she had to drink, and other behavior."
No. No, no, no. There is no reason to point out that she was wearing a cat costume and not a Cinderella costume. I don't care if she were drunk and naked. He didn't have a right to rape her.
3
Your last sentence is what matters the most!
2
Giving the name of the (cleared) defendant, but not the accuser? Really? How is that remotely fair?
85
I think the word you were looking for was "victim" rather than accuser.
2
Because the defendant's name is public record, and the accuser's name was sealed by the court. It's one of the first things in the article.
2
Why should her name be made public if she requested anonymity? The reporter's job is to report the facts of the story, not provide absolutely any and all information to a gossip-hungry public which they demand. Also, employers should know this story. And so should the people near him, especially women and other vulnerable people. It is likely if not technically proven that not only did he commit violence, he has no remorse and is extremely clear and vocal about that. And not only did he commit violence, and then express a total and happy freedom from remorse, but he is willing to discredit the woman he took advantage of by his own admission publicly and in trial court. I would say all of those facts about him add up to information that the public should know. Thank you Mr. Khan for making clear your utter remorselessness - you have done us all a great service!
4
I think it is completely disgraceful that one person's name is protected and the other not. Further the NYT publishes a photo of someone who has not been convicted of the crime he committed.
I don't know the specifics of this case and I can only go by my experience as a resident advisor in coed dorms when they first started long ago. Men and women got very drunk and did things they wouldn't have done otherwise. In some cases women AND men regretted these lapses of judgement. Unfortunately no one has learned anything in the intervening decades.
126
They published a photo of a man who was acquitted. How is that a bad thing? He's innocent. And why would a new generation of young people learn from the mistakes of their predecessors who are no longer there unless some older person taught them? That would have been a resident advisor's job.
I agree with the comments about the Cinderella dress. It's so over-the-top bad that it's almost a caricature. But I have to ask again, even though no one is listening, why so many NYT commenters pointed out Leann Tweeden's past and talked about her stint at Hooter's and the fact that she posed nude. The hypocrisy is astonishing. Maybe if just one person could answer why a woman's past is relevant depending on her political affiliation, I would shut up about it.
10
Leann Tweeden sold her naked body for profit to teach boys and young men that women's should be regarded as objects of their sexual desire. For her to then be astonished that a man treats her as such is pure hypocricy.
4
Without talking about this case in particular, I feel compelled to ask the following question.
Is it right to claim that a drunk victim is unable to give consent but a drunk offender is supposed to recognize the lack of consent?
It is a question that never seems to get addressed.
303
It's the same reason drunk drivers don't get off because they were too drunk to know what they were doing. When you choose to drink, you're legally responsible for your actions. Being the victim of a crime isn't the same.
7
There's degrees of drunkenness. A clearly stumbling drunk women who is having trouble walking isn't cognizant enough to give consent. The drunk guy carrying her is not so inebriated that he lost his friends, threw up multiple times, and needed help back to the dorm. He is aware of the difference and took advantage. If they were both stumbling drunk messes that would be one thing, but they weren't. And it truly amazes me, although at this point it shouldn't, that a woman is responsible because she was drunk but a man isn't responsible because he was drunk.
5
great point. there is a mass hysteria going on with this me too movement. Two intoxicated college kids having sex is just that. If the accuser was so drunk to not remember parts of the night, isn't it possible that she couldn't remember wanting to have sex with him. And really, getting kicked out of college? He should sue Yale.
These boys are getting steamrollered by the colleges. The one thing I agree with the Trump administration is Betsy DeVos's acknowledgment that these young men are getting a raw deal on our campuses.
7
Alleged "victim" has name stricken from public records, meanwhile the acquitted defendant has his name and photograph broadcast around the globe. Justice?
73
It's essentially modern day bullying.
6
I served on a jury that acquitted a man of rape. Never did his defense stoop to character assassination of the victim, like bringing up her attire. So it CAN be done. That the defendant and his lawyers in this case went after the victim in such a personal, sexist way says a lot about the defendant, in my opinion.
21
On the contrary, you know it was possible only the case for which you were a juror. And as for what a lawyer's aggressive defense of his client "says about the defendant," a defense counsel's SOLE responsibility is to his client under our adversarial criminal justice system. In a system where there are few limitations on the resources the state can put at the disposal of a prosecutor, any defense attorney who does not provide the most aggressive challenge he or she possibly can to his client's accuser and to the prosecution's case has failed in his or her professional duty to that client.
Now, if you want to argue that perhaps we need to rethink the adversarial system, I will stand ready to agree with that assessment. But so long as the adversarial system is in place, no one has any right to criticize defense attorneys for aggressively defending their clients.
2
Six jurors said not guilty.
The end. The prosecution did not convince a single juror. Not one.
Why six and not twelve?
15
12 jurors is based on custom. It is not a part of our Constitutional law. Florida and Connecticut often use 6 person juries.
No jury ever decides on "innocence." The issue is whether a defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty" of a certain accusation.
2
To detail a step further: proven beyond any reasonable doubt to have committed the act charged, or not.
1
well, how could he possibly be innocent? After all, the accuser is a female; he's a male so he must be guilty of something right? Maybe just sexism, racism, ageism, etc. etc. etc.
24
Well yep, history has shown that women have been believed at all times without a doubt, held up as paragons of truth and men have suffered under the matriarchy. Suffered so so much at the hands of evil vindictive women who just want to ruin their lives. Men didn't write the laws, especially all those rape laws that so obviously favor women! As they say, it's a woman's world and girls will be girls.
5
Well, the question is whether or not he actually bruised her and got her drunk...
in no other area of crime are victims grilled as relentlessly about their behavior as in the case of rape. we don't ask victims of burglaries why they were walking around with an iPhone, we don't ask murder victims if they were asking to be bludgeoned to death, we don't pull up exchanges between a homeowner and an arsonist to prove that their prior existing relationship meant of course the arsonist had license to burn the home down, none of that. in every other criminal case, victims are given deference and the benefit of the doubt. only in rape do we assume that a victim's choices justified the crime.
12
Consent is not a defense in the cases you list. Moreover, the prior contact and relationship between the defendant and complaining witness is examined to the degree it is relevant to establish intent, identification and other factors. Finally, in a court of law the defendant is presumed innocent, he receives the 'benefit of the doubt' rather than assuming there was a crime that needs to be 'justified.'
20
Would any of this happened if alcohol was not involved? Also was the victim under 21 (legal drinking age in the USA) ?. Yale has some culpability in this on both sides. Innocent until proven guilty must remain in effect.
12
I myself have no idea of the guilt or innocence of the accused. But a court of law and a jury has spoken. That's our legal system, for better or worse.
But I find the accusatory questions asked on behalf of the defendant by his lawyers (about a Halloween costume among other things, crike!) to be more than troubling--in fact, appalling, and even sickening. This attack mode speaks volumes about the defense lawyer, and perhaps the defendant who implicitly sanctions such questions.
And what sort of "Impartial court" allows this sort of thing? Haven't other courts disallowed this sort of "questioning"?
The defendant is entitled to his day in court -- and a court found insufficient evidence to convict him. But a plaintiff -- and the possible victim of a crime of the worst sort -- is entitled to her/his rights in court too. And one of them is -- or should be -- the right not to be verbally assaulted in court by a suit-for-hire lawyer and apparently victimized all over again in a public setting of a court moreover! No wonder our faith in our justice system is at an all-time low!
12
The plaintiff in a criminal case is the state, not the victim of the crime. If the victim wishes to be a plaintiff, the venue for that is civil court.
3
The prosecutor said the gaps in her memory prove that she didn't make up the assault. That appears to be stretching things a great deal. A person who was in fact raped may have gaps in memory. But gaps in memory don't prove someone is telling the truth.
From the little information provided in the article, it appears that the case didn't show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
12
Whether or not he was guilty beyond the necessary shadow of a doubt, what became clear in the reporting on this case, especially in the Yale Daily News, was that a number of women had had very uncomfortable encounters with him. A huge problem in our society is that women who are drunk or on drugs are almost by definition unable to prove rape, and so it is almost open season on them if one feels predatory enough.
18
The legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," NOT "beyond a shadow of a doubt". There's a big difference.
5
The legal standard is reasonable not shadow.
1
The plain fact is that alcohol lowers inhibitions. You do things when drunk that you might otherwise not do. So, the point is to understand yourself, have buddies, leave with your friends. When you drink too much, you do things you regret. I certainly have learned that, and I have learned to moderate my drinking. I did not charge others with crimes. My own choices led me to make errors. Drunken sex is not a crime. It's dumb for sure.
2
Many commenters express shock at what the defense put forward. On the other hand, do you think in the era of metoo the jurors didn't see through that? Still, they decided that the prosecution didn't prove that the rape took place. I am happy that we live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. It is way worse sending an innocent person to jail than letting a guilty person go. Even with this verdict, this guy, I'm sure, hasn't been having any fun since halloween 2015. And this will hunt him the rest of his life.
10
This is disgraceful -- They showed off her Halloween costume, a black cat outfit, and asked her why she had not chosen a more modest one, such as “Cinderella in a long flowing gown.”
Seriously? Why did he not take "no" for an answer? How is her choice of clothing any one else's business, and in what world is it proxy for consent?
And then we wonder why sexual abuse victims don't speak up sooner.
6
It sounds like they weren’t able to prove the fact she said no beyond a reasonable doubt. She couldn’t remember if she actually said it or not.
3
How in the world do you know, or assume, that the accuser ever said no. How about she might have said yes. How about she doesn't remember because she was drunk. I'm confused by your comment Nishant, how does anyone know what was said that night, least of all you.
3
It says everything that this defendant's attorney views himself as a crusader against women who stand up for themselves and tell.
I don't know what the jury was thinking, but not being found guilty in a court of law isn't the same thing as a recommendation that the defendant be allowed to return to Yale.
He shouldn't be permitted to return, and it will speak volumes to Yale's women students ablut the adminstration's priorities if he is allowed to do so.
7
The Yale Daily News has published further reporting on the trial for those who are interested. Some key elements of the trial in the YDN reporting that has not appeared in NYT coverage - the complainant and a witness testified that she was "8/10" intoxicated and vomited shortly before Khan led her back to her room. Additionally, a forensic expert from the State of CT testified that two condoms found on the floor of the complainant's room the following morning tested positive for Khan's DNA. It appears beyond a doubt that sexual acts occurred in the room that night; the jury did not conclude that the acts in question constituted rape.
I was an undergrad at Yale at the time of the alleged incident. I heard from several female friends and classmates, many of whom did not know each other, that Mr. Khan (or Saif as he's known) exhibited a pattern of questionable, coercive behavior in the presence of women. My own view is this: I have very strong faith and admiration in our justice system, but trying rape in court is still an incredibly uncertain undertaking due to the reality of traumatized victims, little or no physical evidence that must be collected within days if it does exist, and a host of other factors. In the eyes of the law, Mr. Khan is a free man, and I accept that, but until we have a better solution, such "whisper networks" about serial predators will continue to be the primary way women protect themselves against assault.
38
So, let me get this straight. The women of Yale knew that Khan exhibited coercive behavior in the presence of women yet they willingly chose to get drunk, flirt, kiss, and invite the guy back to their room and then wonder why there are a couple of condoms on the floor the next morning?
If I sit on a jury and am told that a rapist stops in the middle of raping a woman so he can go back to his room and get a couple of condoms, she doesn't lock the door behind him, and then he leaves them on the floor for the police to find, I should find him guilty? I do not think so.
It is America, where you are guilty until proven guilty. There is no way that anyone charged with a crime is innocent, and that is a plain and hard fact of American jurisprudence. This man, and women, will take this to their grave.
6
The defendant in this case was proven not guilty - even though I feel the tactics used by his lawyers were sexist by implying what the plaintiff wore somehow contributed to her "alleged rape". Based on this article, I feel the defendant took advantage of her drunkenness - which is something that honest men don't do. It is unfortunate that the plaintiff's attorneys did not prove her case to the satisfaction of the jury as I believe what the defendant did was dishonest and the rumors about him may well be true.
Your difficulties with the U.S. justice system seem a bit more clear cut - as a contractor, you were obliged to keep the information you were privy to a secret and you decided not to, which appears to be the reason why you are now living in Russia rather than facing the charges brought against you here in the U.S. There are many here who think you are a Patriot and many who disagree with what you have done. Even though the information you leaked may prove government impropriety, I still have questions regarding your dishonesty in not maintaining the secrecy of the documents you had at hand. After all, leaking documents belonging to the government can have ramifications beyond what the general public may know and could possibly endanger the lives of people working on the subject matter of the documents. Much wrongdoing usually becomes known and we don't always have to take it upon ourselves to reveal it.
2
The jury found there was not enough evidence to prove rape "beyond a reasonable doubt".
They certainly did not find that he did not do it, it even find that it wasn't more likely than not that he did it. He could have been lying and then there are no witnesses, the victim was impaired and bam he's free.
Now he's loose. Do you see why there is a determination if he's a likely threat to other students now by the university? Otherwise you have to let OJ have free reign of the dorms.
It also shows how disgusting when it IS proven beyond a reasonable doubt that rape has occurred that the rapist gets a slap in the wrist.
1
Personal responsibility does matter.
.
How can anyone really suggest that in matters of young adult sexual encounters in a college environment that context - the behaviors of both participants - are irrelevant to making a fair judgment?
.
Many listed comments seem to imply that she made an accusation and therefore she is credible.
.
Please don't misinterpret my advocacy of the examination of the evidence in order to allow an objective judgment by a jury.
.
But what if she is NOT CREDIBLE? ... What if she has a history of manipulation? ... What if she simply feels guilty about her decision to consume too much intoxicating beverage or weed? ... What if she's just feeling empowered by peer pressure to lash out for her own indiscretion? ... What if she's vengeful about disappointments in life having nothing to do with this encounter?
.
It is all so very tragic for both of these two young adults. But the rush to judge the man and disregard this woman's behaviors is astounding.
.
Also, how do we justify that now - after a verdict has been rendered - that the accuser's identity should be shielded? Let's just assume for argument that she is the malicious one (which none of us can know at this point). Well, if that be the case, then she has certainly been treated lightly by the judicial process.
.
No winners here ... that's for sure. But perhaps there is more fairness in this process than those in the would-be hangman's mob are willing to acknowledge.
25
"They showed off her Halloween costume, a black cat outfit, and asked her why she had not chosen a more modest one...”
Um, because it shouldn't matter what you wear as a costume.
9
This is the proper way to adjudicate these kinds of cases. The plaintiff must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant, if found guilty, must face a more forceful punishment than simple expulsion/suspension.
20
Proper? Really? To question what the victim was wearing? If she flirted beforehand? I guess if you flirt you’d better be prepared for sex and don’t even think of wearing anything but a burka or drink!!
3
It's worth noting (from the original NYT article, before the trial) that the Yale police report on the incident already referred to "the victim", as opposed to "accuser" or "complainant". It's hard to claim to be conducting an objective investigation when your language is prejudging yet-to-be-determined facts.
32
Yes, I noticed that too, that they (police) referred to her as victim. I figured it was because of the bruises her thighs.
The woman whom the jury didn't believe, her outfit matters quite a bit if you care about human nature. Climate change for leftists is the bible, but when scientists speak about the wiring and differences between genders, or social norms that at times create these issues, well, the leftists then do not trust science at all. Keep up the progressive lie leftists, you're doing a great job at destroying humanity and ruining the culture. They rail against the Religious Right, and I say, the left is far worst. I'm a life long Democrat, and I understand how Trump was elected. I'm starting to believe he may not be so crazy after all. I'm also not alone.
11
Women (anybody actually) should be able to wear whatever they want, they should be able to walk stark naked down Main Street, and not be harassed. It's as simple as that.
People seeing it may find it sexy, shocking, exciting ... but that does not give them the right to harass that person.
Yes, it MAY be "human nature" for men to whistle catcalls at women in mini-skirts. But that doesn't make it right. It is time that we all grow up and learn to stop acting like a bunch of ill-behaved teenagers.
4
True, but such actions may make your case more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court. Even if he is guilty, as far as I can tell there is very little hard evidence that he’s guilty, only an accusation and hearsay that he had a bad reputation.
3
If you are a lifelong Democrat, it's not a version I'm familiar with. I'm sorry, but your muddled analysis and pulling in climate change and "progressive lies" doesn't amount to an argument. As for Trump not being "so crazy after all"....
4
As a court reporter who was assigned, you cannot make this up, a death penalty case for rape in the US Army, and given American history (432 of the 433 men executed for rape in the US were men of color, and in an amazing statistical curiosity not one was even accused of raping a woman of color), and given most rape trials are a joke inasmuch as they rely on discredited eye-witness testimony, there is a simple scientific solution: there can be no rape charge unless there is a quality control DNA test proving there was at least some actual sexual contact between the charged defendant and the complainant. Linked with this should be the outlawing of the term "victim" until there is some demonstrated probable cause there actually was a sexual assault, i.e, DNA evidence linked with bodily proof of assault.
This does not settle the issue of consent, but it will help the Innocence Project in proving bogus cases other than rape.
8
I am with you on that.
The article refers to an unnamed person as a "victim". But it also says that a court process resulted in a verdict of "not guilty". If no crime was committed, what was the unnamed person a "victim" of?
32
The article refers to her as "the alleged victim," which she undoubtedly was, and quotes a spokeswoman for the National Sexual Violence Resource Center who used the word.
2
Based on the other article (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/nyregion/yale-campus-rape-trial.html), the victim was vomiting so much that Mr. Khan *assumed* she had sobered up. Some men really do think from below their waist. The fact that the court bought that explanation in addition to the victim blaming that ensued makes this appalling.
Yet the society wonders why more women don't go to court.
25
The defendant here is not only a Yale student, but also an Afghan of some accomplishment. As with the Stanford swimmer, I believe that their distinguished past weighs heavily in their favor. While there may be no basis in fact, I think that a jury would give the benefit of the doubt to a defendant who is accomplished. The real harmful prejudice here, I suspect, is that jurors believe rapists look like career criminals, not like distinguished students.
7
The "only" problem with your reasoning is that the same treatment would then have to apply to the complainant, who is also a distinguished student from Yale. Actually, these days I think Ivy League students and alumni (in addition to others who have benefitted from institutions of wealth and privilege) have a larger target on their backs than others.
3
I don't understand and don't feel comfortable with the suggestion laced through the article that this MAY have been a miscarriage of justice. Was it or wasn't it?
Why question the verdict if there isn't evidence it was the wrong verdict? Why query defense attorney tactics if they aren't illegal? Why NOT question the whole system a lot more in depth if that sort of thing is common place? This type of reporting seems to want to have it both ways - a man was found innocent of rape, yet we are supposed to feel sorry for a woman who was found not to have been raped. I just don't think this is right. Either we accept the verdict if everything was done under the law, or if we feel the law got in the way of justice, we fight to change it. Some issues have to be looked up and down just a little bit longer and harder than this story was.
10
Arthur, situations in life are rarely all or nothing, black or white.
The man in this case was not found innocent. He was simply found not guilty under the law. There was evidence that this was the wrong verdict, but the jury found that evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Many rapists and other criminals walk free because of this very high standard of proof.
1
I think people are questioning the verdict b/c the prosecutor's argument relies on the fact that because the plaintiff cannot remember all the details of exactly what happened on a night when she experienced something traumatic and was very drunk, this means she was lying. This seems to be a flaw in logical reasoning, as misremembering minor details about what happened a night ago does not mean that a person is misremembering the whole picture of what happened a night ago. This seems to be the prosecutor's (and the jury's) assumption, but what many commenters here believe, is that that assumption is erroneous, or at least represents an extremely tenuous leap in logic. This single argument is the entire basis for the prosecutor's argument, and apparently, it has not convinced - well just about anyone on this comments section!
1
Right, that's a good way of phasing it. He was not found innocent, but rather, not guilty under the law. These two terms are quite different, even as they may seem to the casual reader to be the same
One, defense lawyers are required to defend their client in every way the law permits, so venting at them for doing their job is wrong.
Two, the Times has given no context for their questioning. Maybe the outfit the woman was wearing was relevant in some way the article doesn’t reveal. Maybe when she was questioned initially she claimed to be wearing something else, so the question of her attire was relevant to her credibility.
Three, if the question of consent was relevant, as I expect it was, surely knowing the woman sat on the man’s lap and kissed him is relevant. Not dispositive, because of course kissing and having sex are two different things. But still relevant, meaning that an impartial juror trying to decide whether the woman consented to sex would want to know about the kissing.
Four, the article doesn’t say anything about the case the prosecutor put on. Don’t you think the prosecutor tried to present the man and his actions in the most unfavorable light possible, in a way that his friends and family thought was prejudicial and unfair? That’s how our “adversarial” system of justice works: each side makes its best case, then impartial jurors decide.
Five, for those leaping to believe the man is guilty, imagine if this were your brother or son, and he claimed he was innocent. Wouldn’t you like to see him defended robustly?
The Times, for whatever reason, has chosen to present a decidedly one-sided perspective of the case. Why?
48
Sitting on man's lap and/or kissing him do *not* mean a woman is consenting to sexual intercourse. If men think that a woman who sits on their lap or kisses them is signalling "do whatever you want to me," that is rape culture talking, not the woman sending a consent signal. Flip it around to test the assumption. Suppose a man in a bar got drunk and kisses and fondled a woman, and the next thing he knew she forcibly had sexual intercourse with him - would you really say he had consented??
1
Agreed on all counts. This article appears to me as a hot take by journalists that leaves out tons of potentially relevant information. I found myself finishing this article with my mouth open thinking "what? but what about the rest of it?"
3
Possibly, there was not much evidence in his favor for the Times to report? The reporting seems quite thorough, with exact quotes from the man and the woman, as well as quotes from the lawyers and a fairly detailed record of what exactly happened in court. Late in the evening during a Halloween party it's not really common for women to change clothes. Of course, it is possible she did - would you find the article to be more balanced if it had included that information? It's cold on Halloween so if she had changed clothes, it's likely that she would have wanted to wear something warmer (= more modest - not really good for the prosecutor's case).
The NYT published a previous article on this case giving the details, for those who like to weep while they are reading. It just shows that there is a lot more work to be done before women who accuse men of raping them and are brave enough to bring their cases to trail can hope for fair proceedings.
As a side note, I wonder who paid Mr. Khan's legal fees?
7
Common sense has won! No university should ever take the place of a court of law. Thank you, Betsy DeVos.
15
Lawyers are going to ask all sorts of questions to undermine the credibility of a witness. It is a JUDGE who determines whether those questions must be answered. The judge is the arbiter of what evidence is allowed or disallowed. Many times a question is not answered but the fact that the jury heard it influences them. If the judge thought that the questioning was improper or too aggressive, he should have done something. Did the DA object to these questions about manner of dress? There is a lot left out in the article in terms of how this all happened.
6
Catch 22: omit to the cops and prosecutors your number of drinks, if you flirted with perpetrator prior to rape and discussions during previous encounters in order to convince them that there was a crime (not woman's fault), then have defence lawyers pick at circumstantial inconsistencies to disprove there was a crime at all. I would be curious to see the conviction rate of alleged rapists that did not cause obvious injuries.
1
The defense's supposed references to clothing and kissing are simply irrelevant. I am not sure if this was the thrust of the defense argument, or it was played up by the author of this article. That said, no means no at any point during the "proceedings." I think there is an excellent chance that in this case there was no consent and thus a rape was committed. But on such a serious charge, we cannot convict on chance. Unfortunately, rape is not going away anytime soon, so it would be advisable for two people to refrain from being alone in a room together unless they are pretty sure they want sex. Otherwise, it is too easy to become the victim of rape, and in the absence of witnesses, there is no way to know for sure what happened, and thus no way to convict.
6
I don't know enough details to be able to offer any judgement about the facts of the case but I thought we had moved past a time when a defendent's lawyers would ask about what a woman was wearing. They offered suggestions on what she should have worn for Halloween?!? If you wonder sometimes why women are so angry these days, this should give you some insight. Flirting is not "asking for it", wearing a sexy costume is not "asking for it", kissing is not "asking for it". Has a lawyer ever asked someone - why did you but such a nice house if you didn't want to be robbed?
11
This is such a tired, inaccurate analogy. People don't generally give away their possessions, so in theft, robbery, burglary, etc. cases, consent isn't an issue. People do, however, consent to sex. What makes cases like this one more nuanced than some like to believe is that it is only rape if one of the parties wasn't consenting. And since human beings don't usually (notwithstanding recent attempts to codify this) ask for explicit consent in sexual situations, a jury has to infer consent or lack thereof from all of the surrounding circumstances. So yes, flirting and kissing are relevant, because they make it more likely that the person consented than if they were, for example, edging away from the person or pushing them away when they tried to kiss them. It's not dispositive, but it is most certainly relevant to the sometimes very tricky question of consent.
13
Expensive defense lawyers doing their best to rip the accuser to shreds by going after her dress, her demeanor, her drinking, etc. The defense was allowed to use the depressingly familiar insinuation that 'she asked for it'. Based on the newspaper coverage this look like much more of an indictment of the legal system than of the woman's accusation. The defendent may not have met the extremely high standards of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that he committed rape, but he comes out looking like a complete tool. Roll on civil case.
7
Based on the questions these lawyers posed to the complainant, I think they should be disbarred. How is it legal to hold her costume, her previous flirtations, even the amount she drank, accountable for HIS behavior? Do we ask murderers if their victims made them angry? I cannot say this man did or did not rape her, but if lawyers "proved" his innocence by blaming his behavior on his victim, then the law needs to be changed.
7
What you are asking to change is due process and it starts with our Constitution. If you want to change things you'll need to go back to that.
"The presumption of innocence..."
"reasonable doubt"
Please keep in mind that the entire testimony was not included in this article. It only covered some small pieces of the defense argument. There was more. And the sum total was enough to convince the jury.
Before jumping to conclusions and second-guessing the jury's decision I encourage you to read other, more comprehensive articles about the case.
5
It's unethical not illegal.
1
It would be great if a feminist would write an article outlining what evidence would be satisfactory to establish that a woman who claimed that she had not consented is lying. I feel like the Metoo movement is against any type of criticism of a woman who claims she did not consent.
14
She "lost her friends"? They left her with Mr. Khan? Some friends. He sounds guilty to me. But, the bottom line seems to be personal responsibility.
3
Felony crimes belong in our sophisticated court system. When two people are drinking or drug'n, they sometimes do things they wouldn't do if they weren't drinking or drug'n. Socially, we seem willing to ignore one person drinking or drug'n and blame the other person drinking or drug'n.
6
I believe firmly that a courtroom is the right setting for this type of issue. It protects the rights of both the plaintiff and the defendant and those rights are at the very basis of the founding philosophy of our country.
Knowing nothing about this case other than what is in this article I would say that it is a wake up call to plaintiffs' attorneys in future rape cases. They MUST expect the kind of defense seen here and they must be prepared to counter that defense even more forcefully.
Flirting is NOT an invitation to sex. Neither is "provocative" dress. People under the influence of alcohol to that extent are NOT capable of giving consent. However that last is a double-edged sword because very drunk defendants can use the same argument to say that they are not responsible for their own actions, being in an unfit state of mind.
Rape needs to be tried in courtrooms and plaintiffs' attorneys need to learn how to argue their complaints.
298
It's one among many problems.
This article also only presents a small fraction of the case in support of the defendant. The jury based its decision on ALL of the evidence.
I find arguments like "well she was wearing a sexy dress, what do you expect?" to be despicable. As I've stated in other comments it's my view that a woman should be able to walk down the street stark naked if she chooses to, and NOT be harassed by anyone.
But despicable arguments will continue to be made by defendants' attorneys in cases like this and plaintiffs' attorneys need to be much better prepared to argue them down.
For a broader picture of the arguments in this case I encourage you to read the reporting in the New Haven Register. Here is a link to get you started.
https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Defendant-in-Yale-sex-assault-tr...
1
How is this chosen as a NYT pick? There is no such thing as a "plaintiff's attorney." This is a criminal trial and all victims of crime are represented by the state. NY or CT or NJ brings the case, not the woman.
And defendants CANNOT use intoxication as a defense. "Sorry I killed her while I was driving, but I was drunk." "Oops, didn't mean to shoot him, but I had soo much to drink."
The NYS law says NOTHING about allowing the defendant's intoxication as a defense to rape. The allowable defenses are enumerated, and intoxication is not one of them. (Check CT - I'm quite sure it would be the same.)
This is part of why rapists and murderers and molesters get off in front of juries - because people think they know the law, but they don't understand it at all. Including NYT employees, it seems.
9
You're right. Everything in a courtroom. Like the Bill Cosby case where his multiple victims have testified. Like the Dr. Larry Nassar case, where over 100 female victims testified.
2
When talking about these cases to women, I always ask, "Would you have ever found yourself in this situation?" I've yet to find one who angrily replies, "No, but that doesn't matter." Because it does matter. Ask a parent, "Would your daughter have ever found herself in this situation?" Most will proudly, yes proudly, say no because these are two adults who both have culpability. I'm sure women aren't saying that women are too weak-minded to take responsibility. If force is used, then, my God, that's clearly abominable. But are women less capable of thinking clearly than men?
323
You cannot obtain consent from someone who is passed out drunk. What you are saying is that the incident is her responsibility for getting drunk in the first place. No. Whether she voluntarily got drunk, or he got her drunk--with or without her knowledge (not exactly an uncommon occurrence on campus)--a person too drunk to consent is still too drunk to consent.
I recognize that relationship beginners will cross signals as they learn to read them, and that alcohol will make this worse. Perfect description of a college campus. It has been ever thus. Add in women taught to let men down easy and men taught to persist and try to change "no" or "I'm not sure" to "yes," and you have an even worse problem. The result there can truly be gray: he thought she was ok with it, she thought she was clearly not. In those cases, we must resist the temptation to find someone to blame.
But not when she is passed out drunk. That's a bright line.
The courtroom scene the article described is why women don't come forward. Consent is given in the relevant moment: it is not about what the outfit you put on that night or the text you sent yesterday. It's right at the moment: I want this or I don't. What kind of guy wants to have sex with a woman who does not affirmatively desire him? Plenty, apparently. Especially when drunk themselves.
15
So if you park your car in the grocery store parking lot and come out to find it stolen, is that your fault for parking your car there? If a burgler breaks a window to steal your stuff, is that your fault for having windows? Or if you were drunk and crossing the street and got hit by a sober driver running a red light, would that be your fault because you were drunk? No, women are not saying that women are weak minded, but you seem to be saying that men are weak minded, and therefore not culpable, for still having sex with someone who is clearly unable to give consent. It's not that far a step from accepting husbands that say, "I don't want to beat my wife senseless, but she's just asking for it all the time."
15
hmmm.
1) It's not a matter of whether men "think more clearly" than women in this situation, because men can't end up in this situation. They are not going to get raped if they get drunk.
2) As you've probably heard hundreds of times, but obviously never absorbed: whether a woman is drunk or not, or dressed attractively or not, it is still rape if someone rapes her.
11
The defendant may well be guilty but it doesn't sound like the complainant had a very strong case. I wonder if prosecutors appropriately advised her of her odds of prevailing in court and the difficult circumstances she would likely face during the trial.
5
Is there a legal definition for 'consensual sex?' Or is consent assumed unless proven otherwise? Because the defense did not prove there was consent, and apparently the victim was supposed to prove non-consent. My college criminal investigation class was once asked - late 70s when male students far outnumbered female - how many of the women in class would report it if they were raped. 'Date rate' was not a concept yet, and the discussion boiled down to stranger vs. non-stranger, and how any realtionship would affect a court case. Lack of consent has always favord the defendent. It's still true.
8
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think the defense has to prove consent. It's up to the prosecution to prove non-consent beyond a reasonable doubt.
2
In all criminal trials, the burden is on the prosecution to prove all elements of a crime. The defense doesn't have to do anything. Nothing at all, if they don't want to. So, while it may seem strange for the lay person, this is actually a foundational tenet of criminal law.
I don't know about CT, but in NY, consent is defined, as are the various available defenses. The only one really relevant (most go to statutory rape) is that the defendant "lacked knowledge of victim's incapacity to consent based on a mental disability, mental incapacitation or physical helplessness." In other words, didn't realize the victim was too drunk or passed out to consent.
Still disgusted by the way this trial went down.
1
The prosecution has the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Darn that due process.
3
What many of the comments on this verdict show is that there's a big gap between what many advocates think is legally relevant and what the law, applied by judges, thinks is relevant. Thjis verdict underscores that it is easier in a court of public opinion or in a university tribunal to convict someone of rape than it is to do so in our judicial systyem. That's exactly the point that a large, representative group of the Harvard Law School faculty made in arguing that adjudicating whether someone has committed a crime belongs in the courts only. If that seems unacceptable, change the law, not who applies it.
63
Regardless of the facts and outcome in this case, Universities are not sanctuaries from Law Enforcement. All on campus rape allegations should be reported to and investigated by the local police. Any school applied actions should be separate and independent go the legal consequences.
31
Schools lack the expertise to make these determinations.
There is almost no rape on college campuses. Instead there is a lot of drunken bad sex that woman are encouraged to label as rape. Taking these unwinnable charges to the local police and forcing trials that cannot be won would clog courts and radicalize communities. There is not enough time or money to pursue this avenue, that is why local police are happy to leave these situations on the college campuses where they belong.
1
I'm sadly not surprised by the number of comments purporting outrage that a I
rape victim's behavior - her attire, her drinking, her behavior - was, so to speak, put on trial by the defendant's lawyers. First, it's the defense lawyer's job to make the best case possible for his client. More significant, a jury found the defendant not guilty. In spite of that, these comments reflect an assumption of rape and an implicit preference that the accused not be entitled to a defense. And that's why cases like this need to be adjudicated in courts and not on campus.
63
I'm not a lawyer, so I've always been curious why in a rape case the defendant's attire (or lack of it in a public or semi-public situation, such as a party), his drinking or other substances abuse then and previously, and his sexual history aren't brought up by the prosecution. Why aren't there "lack of character" witnesses? (I'm not referring to Mr. Khan specifically here, but to rape defendants in general.) Are there rules against this, but only for the accused rapist, so the rape victim can still be torn to shreds on the stand?
Yale and other universities have an obligation not to engage in sex discrimination, which includes promptly and equitably addressing claims of sexual assault and violations of college policies regarding sex and consent. That obligation is very different from that applicable to criminal prosecutions.
A student can violate a campus policy and be suspended or expelled without violating any criminal laws. For example, a student may be suspended for cheating on a test or plagiarism, but neither is a crime.
A crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a very high standard commensurate with the severity of criminal penalties, including possible lengthy incarceration and life-long status as a sex offender. Violations of campus rules, however, like most other non-criminal disputes, need only be demonstrated based on a preponderance of the evidence: is it more likely or not that the rule was violated? Given that being confronted on campus by their assailant would effectively deny a complainant of their right to an education, the preponderance standard is appropriate in these matters. So, it is not inconsistent for Yale to find that Mr. Khan more likely than not violated Yale rules against sexual assault and yet for a jury to determine that criminal sexual assault was not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.
14
You are certainly correct about their being different standards of proof. I don't know what standard is required to suspend someone from Yale. I also don't know whether their decision was tentative or not.
I think the question/concern is whether there was a preponderance of evidence and the process Yale used to make that conclusion. Since it all took place behind closed doors it's difficult to know, or to know whether the accused's civil rights were respected in the process, rights which I believe apply equally in both venues.
1
There is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Khan violated any Yale rules or sexually assaulted anyone. There is no preponderance of evidence that indicates otherwise. There is only a naked charge with no evidence behind it. Yale simply expelled him to keep the situation quiet. And this man went the extra mile to prove himself innocent of a baseless charge. Since he is now legally innocent it is not possible that he violated any Yale rules. Does Yale have a policy against false accusations?
1
After the defense attorney grilled the complainant on her clothing choices.
Starting with Connecticut, we need to force our state legislatures to amend their rules of evidence to forbid this line of questioning. The victim's clothing is simply irrelevant. Just as defense attorneys are no longer allowed to ask about a complainant's prior sexual history, they shouldn't be allowed to ask about clothing and other style choices.
31
In this case there was no other evidence available. If the court could not question the behavior and communication between the parties outside the room there would be no case, and no trial, at all.
1
Attorneys have an ethical obligation to zealously represent their clients. If the defendant was innocent but found guilty in court, it would be professional malpractice if his lawyers had failed to attempt to discredit the accuser, including by asking about the cat costume and flirty texts.
8
I went back and read the 2/25 article on the case, which describes the events of the evening in more detail. The young woman vomited several times that evening from all of her drinking. From that fact alone, wouldn’t any decent person assume she was unable to provide consent? And did she consent to the young man using her phone and discouraging contact with her friends?
64
If we're going prosecute people for having sex after people have been drinking, you're going to have to prosecute most sexual experiences that occur at U.S. universities.
Why don't we just pass laws saying that any university student who has sex will be expelled?
6
The issue is what happened in the room. He said she did consent. She said she didn't. How do you propose to decide which one is telling the truth?
1
I would be careful using the word decent. Where I was raised, no decent woman would get drunk and invite a guy back to her room, period. And no decent guy would have sex before marriage.
1
There needs to be some college preparation. Young women and men should be cautioned/advised against drinking. That is why colleges must control alcohol consumption on campus. Drunk women and men are impaired. It is difficult to believe in the accusations of the impaired. Regret doesn't mean that the the accused is guilty. If I cannot believe alcohol impaired young women and men why would a jury! Appropriate dressing is important for when both sides are impaired then messages exchanged are impaired too. Colleges may be are not in loco parentis but they have a responsibility for the well-being of their attending students (god knows they charge an arm and a leg for tuition!).
16
There seems to be a common thread to many of these unfortunate reports - excessive consumption of alcohol and/or other intoxicants, but the idea of teaching young people to look after themselves by not incapacitating themselves with alcohol or other drugs, so there is less chance that unscrupulous or criminal elements will take advantage of them? That's rendered lost by the chorus of "teach men not to rape!". An reasonable rational approach is to teach your kids not to get so messed-up that they can't look out for themselves. Personal responsibility.
935
This was clearly an alcohol-fueled disaster. Colleges must have policies about excessive drinking on campus and dedicated programs to teach students about the effects thereto. Commonly accepted joking about beer goggles or alcohol as lubricant undermine critical decisions to stay sober.
11
I also think that women should be taught to scream if they don't consent. I feel that a lot of these "date rapes" would be prevented if the women had started screaming because the men seemed to genuinely feel that the woman was consenting. If the woman had started screaming, however, he would have realized his error and bolted immediately.
4
So, what did the victim's attorney do to counter the defense attorney? Anything? Details are missing about this trial, that could shed light on whether the victim was treated fairly or not.
3
What "victim's attorney"? This was a criminal, not a civil, case. There was a prosecuting attorney.who was interested in convicting the defendant, but whose concern about the fairness of the treatment of the victim was a peripheral matter.
1
@stuckincali,
I don't know all of the details, but I would not expect the victim to have an attorney.
It is the prosecutor who is in opposition to the defense attorney, no?
The victim does not have a lawyer because she is a witness in the trial. The State is the prosecutor. The only way the victim would have a lawyer is a civil case. That is why more women are taking this route, if they can afford it.
1
I find the questioning about the complainant's clothing to be irrelevant. Defense assumed that all men would find a black cat costume sexier than a Cinderella princess outfit. I, for one, would be more attracted to woman in a princess outfit. The whole line of questioning is demeaning not only to women but also to men. It's disgraceful that this still goes on in this day and age.
9
It really doesn’t matter one bit how sexy most men or even the defendant think a cat outfit or a Cinderella outfit are. Being attracted by somebody’s outfit is no excuse for unwanted sexual advances or rape! And dressing in any style, way or fashion is not “asking” for anything, it is just dressing.
3
People dress up as people and things they aren't at Halloween parties. You'd think that would be widely known.
1
I dearly hope that the prosecution objected strenuously to all of these questions.
8
We all do need to remember that the Innocence Project proved through DNA testing of evidence that hundreds of men were rotting in prison for crimes they did not commit. (And who knows how higher that number really is for prisoners where there is no DNA evidence to test?)
That said, I do not understand why the Judge allowed the witness to be berated over her choice of Halloween costume. Unfortunately -- and it is really unfortunate -- texts to the accused and sitting on his lap are appropriate lines of inquiry in a search for the truth. But carping at her because she wasn't dressed as a Disney Princess is purely misogynistic.
19
Cat costumes are a universal symbol of sexiness. Maybe that's why.
There was once a time when careless behavior that could lead to unwanted consequences was called "Tempting Fate." After 50 plus years of feminism we seem to have arrived at a skewed place where women expect to be treated with respect no matter how they behave. Is this all the movement had to offer?
The Pill and legalized abortion could have elevated the status of women. Instead these new freedoms became an excuse to compete with men in the realm of promiscuity. It may be called sexual equality but there still seems to be the expectation that women require extra consideration and need not be required to act responsibly. We remain children who want men to be the grownups who control themselves.
We're still fighting for equal pay and the right to manage our own fertility. Real rape is a horrible crime, and society does what it can to penalize rapists and protect women from assault. But these incidents that seek the punishment of one participant when two people have made ridiculous mistakes are little more than salacious sideshows that empower no one.
70
If by "treated with respect no matter how they behave" you mean "not penetrated while unconscious no matter how they behave" then, yes, you are right. I do expect that. No matter how I behaved, or dressed, or flirted, I absolutely expect that.
(And, by the way, that's not expecting men to be the only grownups who control themselves. It's not like women should be allowed to penetrate a man while he's unconscious or make a man penetrate her while he's unconscious, no matter how he behaved.)
5
The problem with these situations is the nature of the crime. When rape or sexual assault occurs, there is often little to no hard evidence that it actually happened or that it was *not* consensual (unless it was videotaped, which I believe is only in a minority of cases). It’s not like a murder, where there’s a dead body, or a robbery, where an item can be traced.
I strongly believe in our society of laws and due process. However, as this system currently stands, it will continue to be challenging to prosecute sexual crimes due to the difficult nature of substantiating the claims. This is even when the crime has actually occurred. Along the same line, it will also be difficult for the accused to clear their name.
I wonder if we as a society can come up with a better way to address this issue.
9
Yes, we can all agree that asking an alleged victim about her dress or alcohol consumption is horrible. But I'm sure there were other aspects of the defense involving the details of what actually occurred, when they occurred, how soon after the incident was it reported, how the plaintiff initially described it to her friends, if she changed her story, her motivation, etc. etc. Can we agree that the way this article was written by Ms. Wang and Ms. Weinstock gives the impression that there was a lot of "victim blaming" going on and apparently not much else in the way of a defense? My point is: I'd like to see a better reported article worthy of the Times.
47
Why publish the name of someone who was not convicted of the crime? This accusation will now be with him for the rest of his life, even though he was cleared by a court of law.
17
Because that's how criminal cases are normally handled.
To me the bigger question is why for cases involving sex and domestic violence only, newspapers refuse to provide the names of the victims.
2
Courts are public and the public has a right to know what goes on in its courts. The only way the complainant can keep her name out of the record is if she is under age or if the judge seals the record. And even if the record is sealed it has to eventually be opened. Her name may not be available now, but it will be.
1
The Dear Colleague letter has denied an accused of his or her rights. Rape is a crime and belongs to be tried in a court, not by a university.
5
Of course, I have no knowledge of what actually transpired between these two people, but the means by which the accuser was discredited is offensive to me. It's my firm belief that regardless of whether one flirts, dresses provocatively, becomes intoxicated, or even kisses/touches consensually another person, an individual does NOT forfeit their right to say no and withdraw consent. To me, this verdict, based on what it says in this article, is a clear message to women that it is not safe to behave naturally as one does in modern dating - any indication of sexual interest gives a man carte blanche to do as he pleases with your body.
18
The defendant, although found not guilty, was suspended from (actually thrown out of) Yale and has been named and branded for the rest of his life. Although it does not compare to the horror of the alleged act, it is not incidental punishment.
The alleged victim has at least been spared both of those punishments. And if indeed, as our legal system found, there was no rape. It is the defendant who has ended up getting the unfair treatment.
I certainly don't see where that outcome "gives a man carte blanche to do as he pleases with your body."
3
He claimed that she consented. No one other than they saw what happened. The events that happened before they had sex provide some insight as to what may have happened.
3
A murky set of circumstances resulted in a bad outcome for both. Mr Khan was suspended from Yale and had to defend his conduct in court. Bad for him. The victim endured a unwanted sexual encounter and lost in court - bad for her.
A harsh learning lesson for both especially for the lady - maybe the price we have to pay to reset societal standards - both sides have to communicate expectations clearly (upfront?) to reduce possibility of these no-win situations.
But at least we can reduce/eliminate the Weinstein type assaults where there is lot more clarity.
5
The harshest experience was reserved for Mr. Khan. He was expelled from an ivy league college and had to pay for his defense in a public trial. His reputation is also now ruined. The woman is still anonymous and still in school. She hardly suffered at all.
3
Without fail, every single time I read NYTimes comments on articles about campus rape, the vast majority of commenters say something along the lines of "rape is a serious crime, it should be tried in a court of law like other serious crimes, victims need to report immediately to the police, not just to campus officials who are ill-equipped to deal with it, etc." In an ideal world, this would be true.
However, as a (somewhat) recent college graduate, and a rape victim who ultimately did not press charges, I find such comments incredibly frustrating to read. Many inevitably blame the women for their seemingly nonsensical decision to not go after their rapists through the justice system. THIS is what happens, more often than not. While I never got justice for what happened to me, I certainly do not regret avoiding a situation where lawyers would have grilled me about what I was wearing and how much I had to drink.
782
I'm sorry for what happened to you and I hope you find peace.
3
"THIS", as you put it, is what is commonly known a justice in a court of law: as it should be.
11
In a room with only two people who the next day have two different stories about what happened in the room, what outcome do you expect to occur? In every case when a situation like this is brought into a court room the only fair outcome is not guilty. In every case. The process of getting to this judgement will always call for a detailed questioning of the behavior and intent of both parties. This will always include sexual behavior and intent if the charge is a sexual charge such as rape. I understand completely why you did not want to take a situation like this into the justice system and I think it is only on college campuses that one can find anyone who does not understand.
5
I am so glad that I am not 20 years old and confronting these issues in the culture of 2018.
It was so much simpler in my youth(eons ago).
The dating process was so much slower. First a coffee at the student union. Then perhaps another. Possibly a movie and a long walk after that. Then maybe a meal together in a cheap student restaurant with a candle in an old chianti bottle.
By the time one got to the stage of "your place or mine" a lot of signaling had taken place.
If things weren't going to proceed to the physical stage, one had plenty of advance warning.
I'm sure there were occasional miscues along the way, but, by and large we were highly aware of the fact of consent (or not) and the level of consent.
Yes, the old process took a lot more time, but there was considerable joy in the process .... even when it ultimately led to a quiet parting of the ways.
166
This still takes place between lots of young people. Not everyone is hooked into the hookup culture.
3
And, 50 years later, when you encountered "Elizabeth" or "Anne" at some big social gathering in (say) New York, you didn't face an awkward moment. Yes you had gone out at few times and you held hands. Nothing to be embarrassed about.
Nothing you couldn't make light of in conversation with "Elizabeth's" husband.
Social norms exist for a reason.
We abandon them at our (and society's) peril.
1
I'm afraid dating has gone by the wayside in college, and it seems even more so in the ludicrous online dating world, where it is reported people meet for the first time and talk about what their safe word is before going to someone's apartment. Even if you met at a party and exchanged some kisses on the dance floor back in the day, it was much better when you met for brunch the next day, and if that was the last time you saw each other, it could be a relief instead of a freak out. So glad not to be part of today's dating scene.
Advocates for victims say that flirtation is not consent, wearing sexually provocative clothing, getting drunk in the company of drunken, randy young men, sitting on laps and kissing -- all are not consent. I agree. I agree completely. But I must say that those acts are STUPID. Stupidity is not consent -- much less is stupidity a crime. But stupidity is stupid.
140
All are not consent. Agreed.
But they all raise reasonable doubt.
2
I think the point is that the actions make it more difficult for the accuser to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. It’s called circumstantial evidence and it’s up to the judge to decide whether it’s relevant-whether an impartial person should legally be allowed to know this information before convicting someone of rape. You’re arguing they shouldn’t be. The judge thought they should. If the prosecution thinks the judge acted in error and therefore justice wasn’t served they should appeal.
Yes, one should not sit on another's lap, given that there are enough chairs in a room. But would you like to see all young ladies in head to toe sacks, so as not to seem sexy? Can men not learn to just enjoy the view without considering every outfit a personal siren call? For heaven's sake, the Rockettes dress sexy, and the whole male audience doesn't get to line up to man handle them. Get a grip, guys. A cute girl in a cute outfit is not your property; just good viewing.
1
If possible, please publish a link to the transcript of the proceeding so that we can read all the testimony and not just the bits selected by Ms Wang and Ms. Weinstock.
48
The transcript of a two-week trial would be hundreds of pages long. And since the defendant was acquitted, there won't be an appeal, and therefore there is no reason for any party to order a transcript. The court reporter won't transcribe it unless somebody orders it and pays for it.
2
Just horrible. And tomorrow is International Women's Day.
9
When is International Falsely Accused Men's Day?
7
Sorry Mr Goodell, but while neither of us was present at the trial it seems yet again women are being dismissed because our clothing...in this case not a modest princess outfit, our flirting....btw flirting does not mean I want to have sex with you, or our alcohol consumption, which we all know if a woman drinks more than a lady-like amount she is a obviously asking for it. Social media is pushing the country forward where the courts have failed us time and time again. I stand with change on this issue, it it so desperately needed.
15
Maybe college women should wear burkas all the time... or maybe we should just blame rapists for rape like we blame murderers for murder?
23
You're reasoning is circular. You first need to determine whether someone was raped before punishing the accused rapist.
7
In light of the kangaroo courts imposed by rabid #MeToo lynch mobs upon universities, business, and (gasp) major media, we should all be grateful for this rare resolution in accordance with Constitutional law.
36
This is appalling that any court trying these cases in 2018 allows the defense to ask "What were you wearing" with the subtext being "and don't you think that made it unavoidable that he couldn't help but rape you?"
What was the guy wearing? What did he have to drink? And since when did kissing a guy (hello 1950's morality again) mean you wanted to have sex with him???
No means no. Do not ask the girl what she was wearing. Stop making it about her actions and start asking the guy "Did she consent to having sex with you?"
23
Or in this case, too drunk to give consent means No. Unless this law does not apply in Connecticut. Regardless, the Khan is a cad to take advantage of the young woman's condition.
6
How do you know she said no? One article said she testified she couldn’t remember.
4
So despite the #metoo movement, the defense has demonstrated that you can still win a court case by slut shaming the victim. Glad we've got that worked out.
40
Or that despite the #metoo movement, juries still follow the innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
I personally don't know how the jury should have decided the case. I didn't hear the witness's testify. But I think we should be suspicious of the idea that we can read an article about a criminal case, even an article in an excellent newspaper like the New York Times, and know the correct verdict.
9
No, the prosecution just didn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of the accused's peers.
5
Well, she could give her consent at the moment, and regret afterwards. So how can anyone beyond these two persons know for sure whether there was consent? Only evidences you have are her behaviors prior to that event, which give you the likelihood of consent. Here comes the dress, the flirting, the kissing...Yes, she might reject it at the moment, but her words alone were not enough to prove it.
15
Interesting to note male vs female reaction to this story...
4
Disgusting that the lawyers would insinuate that provocative clothing and flirtatious behaviour indicates consent. By that logic anyone who behaves like a jerk is consenting to physical assault and shouldn't be allowed to press charges. Flirting doesn't equal consent to sex just as being cruel doesn't equal consent to be punched in the face.
16
I don't think that the lawyers argued that provocative clothing and flirtatious behavior constituted consent. I believe they argued that those things tended to support the defendant's testimony, which included the fact of consent.
6
Disgusting, yes, but defense lawyers will continue to use it, claiming that certain kinds of dress and behavior support a defendant's claim of consent on the part of the plaintiff.
"She consented. She dressed sexy for our date. She hung on my arm all evening. She invited me back to her apartment... she said "yes"."
All those details appear to support a claim of consistency on the part of the plaintiff, pointing towards "yes".
The solution is that plaintiffs' attorneys need to become more effective at countering that defense.
"A woman has the right to walk stark naked across a college campus and to claim harassment if someone touches her without her explicit consent. What she chooses to wear is her choice entirely and for her to be limited in that choice out of fear of harassment is an infringement of her rights."
The courts are only beginning to start dealing with these issues. I hope over the next generation some of this gets sorted out.
2
Out come the fanatics who scream all men are guilty
Her BEHAVIOR on that night is material
* Was she out with him (yes both at a party & drinking & then at a concert together)
* Was she behaving so as to suggest sexual interest (yes by her cuddling, snuggling, manner of dress & inviting him to her room) NOTE: Yes her style of dress is material as to what she took off when alone with him &, when considered with her behavior, suggestive of receptiveness. This is NOT stranger rape at knife point in an alley with the defense of 'look at what she was wearing she was asking for it.' This was a dating situation)
All of that goes to whether or not she was likely to have consented to sex
The jury concluded from the testimony that based upon the totality of the circumstances she more likely than not consented to - & even initiated -the sex & was able to do so (not unconscious on the bed)
This was the typical 'he said she said' when 2 drunk young adults end up in bed & then is next day remorse for drunken stupidity
Unless the person is unconscious when sex occurs, it is THEIR own responsibility for whatever they do while drunk
Get drunk. Drive a car. Go to jail
Get drunk, Fall into bed with someone. It is not rape but you are an irresponsible fool - deal with that
No excuses for someone who gets drunk. They are still responsible for their actions.
Of course if both the male & female are drunk when sex occurs, shouldn't the female be charged if the male is charged?
69
I like the general gist of your comments but I wanted to mention one thing. Based only on what this article reported, it appears that was indeed "unconscious on the bed" when the sex began.
"In the middle of the night, the complainant said, she woke up to find Mr. Khan on top of her..."
In general I think issues such as physical behavior and what people were wearing CAN suggest their intentions.
Personally, I feel we need to establish a legal precedent that when one person involved is VERY drunk and the other is not, the other has a responsibility not to engage in sex, as an acknowledgement that consent cannot be truly given by someone mentally incompetent (drunk). However that precedent has not been set in stone yet.
When both people are very drunk that opens up another type of problem, the "mental incompetence" defense.
1
She was wearing a Halloween costume. She was not wearing a sign with the words, "I want to have sex with an acquaintance, after he cuts me off from my friends."
1
I dont disagree with your line of reasoning but it's unacceptable this man had sex with someone who unequivocally couldn't give full consent. There needs to be some campus sanctions for that nonsense, bad judgement, and in this case there was.
Guilty or not guilty of rape , the lawyers of this guy are solidifying the stereotypes! Shame on the jury, just for this following statement porferred by this guy lawyers, he should have been found guilty, unless, we women have to wear a burka, not allow to drive and be pure and caste.Disgusting! Here goes the "defense" of the lawyers for the innocence of this guy accused of rape: "They showed off her Halloween costume, a black cat outfit, and asked her why she had not chosen a more modest one, such as “Cinderella in a long flowing gown.” Gee, ladies, Cinderellas OK? Cinderellas!
5
"...to closely held university panels or among friends." Is this oxymoronic phrase supposed to be a pun at "confidential?" The humor is surely there but surely was not intended, especially when these"confidential" arbiters of justice can serve as pathways to a NYT feature article.
If you think that being a fairy tale princess protects you against sexual assault, I suggest you Google Sleeping Beauty.
What an absurd accusation on the part of the prosecution. Shows how little we've advanced. This is what we mean when we talk about rape culture.
10
So our society tells women and girls that, if they want to be considered attractive, they need to wear miniskirts, push-up bras, high heels, make-up, and low-cut tops that reveal cleavage. If not miniskirt, then at least form-fitting yoga pants or spanx. On Halloween or St. Pat's, it's "sexy" costumes for all females, or else you're a shlub, while men can wear whatever.
But if a man rapes them, the defense attorney will use their clothing and style choices to paint them as a slut and/or argue they must've consented to sex.
16
Disturbing recounting of the defense's line of attack against the complainant - reads like To Kill a Mockingbird. Shameful flirting, costume, drinking? Saudi Arabia, step aside.
13
When readers question the use defense's tactic of attacking the victim's credibility, do they realize that the rules of evidence and civil procedure permit these tactics? Anytime a person takes the witness stand, their credibility is at issue. Most NYT readers are liberals who want defendants to receive due process of law, but some want to disallow attacks on credibility when a woman accuses a man of rape. The suddenly become law and order convict them conservatives, when the issue is rape. They want to put men accused of rape in the same position that Black men accused of raping a white women in the old South were put in, the Black was automatically deemed guilty by most white people and subsequent conviction was a foregone conclusion.
45
As a white woman, I agree! We women will never be taken seriously, if we insist on different rules in a court of law! Until we change the principles of jurisprudence: The defendant is innocent until proven guilty by the jury!
As to besmirching the reputation of the victim, that is a tried and true defense tactic in any trial.
If I were on trial for any crime, I also would expect my defense lawyer to use all available means to defend me.
2
If you think that asking what a woman wore that night has anything to do with probing her credibility, you have lost all credibility with me. Everyone knows that we have huge social issues around women "asking for it." Just as it's irrelevant if Trayvon Martin was wearing a hoodie, so too are the victim's clothes.
And news alert for you: the rules of evidence and civil procedure were written by men. During law school I was disgusted to realize just how many laws were drafted to favor men over women. It's so pervasive. most people don't even see it.
6
At least in California, the defense would not have been able to bring up the clothing of the complaining witness.
2
The defendant clearly had superior counsel. The defense attorney is a veteran with over 100 jury trials, while Maura Crossin graduated law school in 2013 and doesn't seem to have much litigation experience. I don't know the quality of the state's attorney's office.
4
Is it NY Times policy across the board to share the name of an exonerated defendant but to keep the plaintiff’s name confidential? Just curious what your policy is.
78
@ Nate It's called leftist insanity and gender bias against men. Women are always protected, always the victim and when they're glaringly not, the whole matter is treated as non-event. This is their idea of progress.
8
All women are sacrosanct, all men are fair game. Policy explained.
6
It's called a rape shield law.
How does one determine consent? In this case, like in most things, context seems to have played a role. Does this seem unreasonable?
15
The fact that an attorney asked why she wore a skimpy costume is cringe worthy. But it does not make the student guilty.
28
I agree, but it doesn't make him innocent either.
3
Absolutely. But engaging in sexual activity with someone who is too inebriated to give consent does make him guilty of rape. Too bad the state's attorney couldn't figure that one out.
1
I see a number of comments about what the alleged victim was wearing, that she texted the defendant and that they kissed. I presume that the defense asks these questions not merely to argue consent - which is a tenuous argument - but also to show the defendant's state of mind; that is, because of the alleged victims actions the defendant had at least a reasonable basis to assume consent.
The real issue is how is consent defined and, if it includes non-verbal clues, what is the set of such non-verbal cues that a person can reasonably determine as consent.
59
The real issue is that consent cannot be defined. It is different in every situation and is a personal judgement. Mistakes about consent between two people who are drunk is inevitable and predictable. But mistakes are not rape. College campuses are places where young single people are struggling through the mating rituals that define this period of life. Instead of criminalizing miscommunication schools should be encouraging healthy life styles and mating codes that help their students navigate these encounters. People at this age need all the help they can get.
2
The type of clothing she wore or the fact that she texted or kissed him--or even the amount of alcohol she drank--are not invitations to be raped. How many times must we say that??
1
My clothing choices do not represent consent for someone to penetrate my body, not even if I am running naked through the Yale quad.
2
Appalling in the extreme that the victim’s outfit was even mentioned by the defense and that that line of “she was asking for it” victim-blaming was allowed.
507
I agree that it is appalling. However, if Mr. Khan had been found guilty and his lawyers had not brought up every avenue of defense- even the truly appalling ones- Mr. Khan would have grounds for his conviction to be overturned.
4
Agreed - free and open societies just like free and open legal defences are such a stumbling block towards pre-determined guilty verdicts presided over by Judge-Twitter.
13
Din, look up judicial review boards. Refusing to allow a defendant to defend himself/herself is cause for removal from the bench.
6
No matter how much a victim flirted with him, how much she kissed him, what she was wearing, or how much she was drinking - none of that is consent. Nothing but the fact that the victim said "no" and he did it anyway matters. Flirting with someone, kissing them, wearing provocative clothing to entice them - does not entitle them to your body.
388
This is true, and certainly the costume questioning is ridiculous. But if it's one person's word against another, and that can never be proven or disproven, what else are you supposed to look at? It's unfortunate that flirting and kissing (in view of others, presumably) has to be used, but is there a better indicator of whether or not consent was likely? How much she'd had to drink is absolutely a valid question...in college virtually everybody - myself, and my friends male and female, included - has nights they don't fully remember. I wouldn't want a witness who was blackout drunk testifying against me for any crime.
16
the point is, did she have too much to drink for her to remember accurately what went on between the two? That's probably why the jury found the defendant not guilty. Too many doubts and that's the heart of our legal system: guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt. A good lawyer does what he /she is trained to do: use every available means to discredit the witness(es) and cast doubt. If it were illegal for him to bring up the outfit she was wearing the judge would have disallowed that line of questioning, so it was legal for him to ask. Don't like it- change the law and rules of evidence. Simple.
21
No, but they are indicators that the alleged victim might -- just might -- be lying about saying "no."
8
Flirty texts, sexy halloween outfits and kissing don't mean consent to sex. Reading this about the defense lawyers asking the claimant why she didn't wear something more modest is infuriating. ''Relentless" is how their questioning is described. No wonder so few cases go to trial.
244
Appalling. Flirty texts, sexy halloween outfits and kissing could apply to a lot of ten year olds. That doesn't make it consensual.
2
No. So few cases go to trial because the prosecutor controls the process and the accused is afraid (s)he won't get a fair trial. Thus, almost all criminal prosecutions end in guilty pleas, Here, the defendant got a fair trial, like the Constitution says he should.
6
No, they alone don't. But the question came to at the time of sex did she consent? He says yes, she doesn't remember. Given the pattern of behavior leading up to the act, what is the least unlikely scenario?
4
you mean his lawyers put forth a robust defense? how shocking. The metoo movement seems to believe that accusation is absolute guilt. The prosecution made it's case and the Jury of his peers said not guilty. perhaps he really is innocent, but his life is still ruined just by the accusation . The name of the acvuser is not used due to the unfortunate stigma associated with sexual assault. The same should be afforded to the defendant unless convicted. Every Google search will show his name. Do you think an employer won't think twice about hiring him , regardless of the verdict?
488
She said no.
6
Whether the court found him guilty or not, the fact is that this woman said no and was willing to go through a horrific trial experience to prove her case. She lost, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't think twice about trusting this guy.
8
good point.. he is at least equally a victim here until proven guilty. Double standard on the anonymity.
8
I am glad that this case was tried in a court of law. I don't know if Mr. Kahn is guilty. And the jury didn't find him innocent, it just found that there was a reasonable doubt that he was guilty -- and that is the way it should be. As the saying goes, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Rape is a serious, devastating accusation, and should be tried in the court of law. Not in the court of public opinion, and not in an ad-hoc university tribunal. Those guilty should be severely punished, but those who are accused deserve a fair trial with the right to question their accusers, the right to see evidence against them, the right to compel witnesses, and the right to be found not guilty if there is a reasonable doubt of their guilt.
Shouldn't this be something liberals and conservatives can agree on? If we can't, then what kind of country are we?
699
child rape is serious. having one's family cover up incest will drive the victim insane. i should know.
2
"And the jury didn't find him innocent"
There was no need for the jury to find him innocent as he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Because he has not been convicted, he is still innocent in the eyes of the law.
9
Of course I agree, not every rape accusation is true, and our justice system should remain as is, which is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What bothers me is the specifics of the defense. The fact that the lawyers chose to use the (you were drinking? You were wearing this? Did you flirt?) accusations as part of their defense strategy is because they had a strong feeling it would work to their benefit. And it appears it did. That shows how backwards and sexist our society still is, even with the progress we've made. That's a horrible reflection on us as a society, not on the lawyers just doing their job. It's disappointing, and men should be disappointed as well, unless you have no wife, daughter, sister, female friend, etc that you care about... Trust me, no woman on the face of this earth benefits from a society where what you were wearing is even a factor in determining whether you deserve to be raped or not.
3
Colleges are not legal institutions. For anything with truly serious consequences - such as expulsion - both plaintiff and defendant should have access to legal process and protection.
Financial considerations, however, always inject a measure of inequality. Would Brock Turner (the Stanford rapist) have fared as well if his upper middle class family had not been able to conduct a year long campaign to discredit his accuser? Not likely.
Conversely, would the poor and accused unable to mount a serious defense stand a serious chance under the circumstances of false accusation? Also not likely.
In a society dominated by power and wealth Justice is rarely blind.
50
Yes, our court system is far from perfect. But I think it is on the whole it is superior than a university tribunal and far superior the "trial by media". That being said, anything we can do to improve our justice system we should strive to do.
5
Simple, Brock Turner was not a rapist under California law, and as a result he could not be charged with rape. Maybe in some mythical metaphorical sense he was a rapist, but in the world of a court of law there was no basis for such a charge. Even the sexual assault charge was iffy since that was based upon eyewitness testimony.
4
Brock Turner was convicted of:
1) sexual penetration of an unconscious woman
2) sexual penetration of an intoxicated woman
3) assault with intent to commit rape
Digital penetration is now considered rape according to California law. And that is neither mythical nor metaphorical. The woman was open to some level of forgiveness until Turners family started spending resources to vilify her. Sad that terry thinks that the circumstances were iffy.
Good to know that the amount I drink, or if I flirt, or what I wear is my consent. I guess if you put on a skydiving outfit and get scared, we still get to push you out of the plane by that logic.
374
No - these things are not consent - but they do affect the defendant's state of mind, which is an important aspect in a criminal trial. To take it to the extreme - suppose you asked your date to let you take a shower in his/her hotel room and then exited the bathroom completely naked. That would also not be consent - but it would certainly affect your date's state of mind.
6
As it happens when you're up in the plane and wearing the suit, the skydiving instructors assume you really do want to do it and will, in fact, push you out.
6
Magnificent insight.thanks.
I don't know all of the facts, so can't comment on the propriety of the verdict. But, questioning about the modesty of her outfit was completely out of bounds. Doesn't Conneticut have rape shield laws? The lawyers should be ashamed as should the judge who allowed it.
209
Nonsense, the behavior and communication between the parties was the ONLY thing that the trial was based on. No one knows what happened in the room, they only know what happened outside the room.
2
Why is it out of bounds? This man is facing many years in jail and a ruined life. And you're worried the woman might be a little embarrassed? If it's not relevant, then that is for the prosecutors to point out. These one-sided comments are repulsive.
3
The defense lawyers should be sued for their abuse, and the judge should be punished for permitting it.
I'm only 3 paragraphs in and I'm already disgusted and infuriated. Defense attorneys asked the victim if she had flirted with her rapist via text (if she had, SO??), asked her why she wore a black cat Halloween outfit instead of "Cinderella in a long flowing gown", and they asked if she had sat on his lap and kissed him (as if that gives him the right to rape her).
This is one of the reasons women don't report rapes.
561
No, the reason they don't report rapes is that they usually happen in private and produce no evidence that can be used at a trial.
7
A flannel nightgown, tatty robe and Bugs Bunny slippers send one message as to what you are interested in doing
A nearly transparent negligee is a completely different message.
Dressing to expose the maximum amount of flesh (tube top, mini skirt), drinking, and flirting with the guy is sending the message that you could very interested in something way different than discussing quantum mechanics.
11
Was the sex consensual or not? That seems like a pretty important aspect of the trial. That's why the questions are relevant. That fact you are calling him a rapist seems to indicate you stopped thinking long ago and are just going by your emotions. Anything difficult for the women: bad. Anything that helps convict the man: good. And it's all OK because men are evil and women are abused.
7
In general: If a young woman is too impaired to consent, then why doesn’t anyone argue that the young man is too impaired to judge 1) if she’s impaired and 2) that he’s capable of understanding her consent or non-consent? If he’s drunk, what is his culpability? If she’s drunk also, don’t they share culpability?
488
Why? Because it should not be to anyone's legal advantage to be drunk. It would mean that if he succeeds in drinking enough, he can reward himself with a guilt free rape.
21
If you’re drunk and you commit a crime, you’re not culpable for it?
17
Just to be clear, you are saying that drinking too much alcohol is tantamount to giving sexual consent in the woman’s case, but also works as a defence for the man? Wow.
21
The defense reads like something from 1970. Are women still being blamed for their own rapes? Unbelievable!
217
Plaintiffs' attorneys obviously need to get better at making that clear to juries.
Blamed for rape? No. Contributing to confusing consensual sexual signals? Yes, its called being a responsible rational adult.
8
No, they’re just being asked to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt as the law requires.
5