Lawyer Says 11-Year-Old Gang Rape Victim Was a ‘Spider’

Quote :

20-year-old Jared Len Cruse is accused of gang-raping an 11-year-old Cleveland, Texas girl along with twenty of his male friends over the course of four months; you may remember our coverage of the story last year. But because she said "yes" when defense attorney Steve Taylor asked if she had been a "willing participant" and acknowledged that she hadn't made an "outcry" until questioned after sex tapes of the assault started circulating around Cleveland High School, Taylor argued that she was "the reason" that twenty teenagers and adult men raped a child on videotape.

"Like the spider and the fly. Wasn't she saying, 'Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly?'" Taylor asked.

Not a lot to say about this one, mostly wordless anger.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Fuck that guy and the law degree he rode in on.

Just for THINKING something like he deserves to be permanently disbarred.

I love how the men were powerless to ignore their own boners and it's all her fault.

Yeah, it's kind of like that guy who kills his parents and then begs for mercy from the court on the grounds that he's an orphan.

Cyberwulf wrote:

I love how the men were powerless to ignore their own boners and it's all her fault.

YOU DON'T HAVE ONE CY - YOU DON'T KNOW!

I wonder what Mr. Taylor would do if people began to assume he was a paedophile based on his statements.

Probably whine like a 2-year-old.

The good news is that those convicted have been given heavy sentences so far.

Uh.

Wouldn't they still be charged with rape?

I mean, it'd be statutory rape instead of aggravated rape or something along those lines, but I don't see how "THE 11 YEAR OLD WAS ASKING FOR IT!!1!" gets them entirely (or even mostly) off the hook.

ETA: What the hell do you expect the defense attorney to say? He'd be a pretty shitty defense attorney if he walked into the court room and went "Your honor, my client is guilty as fuck and total human garbage and I recommend the death penalty."

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

ETA: What the hell do you expect the defense attorney to say? He'd be a pretty shitty defense attorney if he walked into the court room and went "Your honor, my client is guilty as fuck and total human garbage and I recommend the death penalty."

This. It's kind of his job to come up with the best defense for whatever clients he landed. Do you think he's pride of this line of defense? Maybe. Maybe not. However, the alternative is giving these folks no defense attorney at all, and I do believe the American legal system frowns on that. But sure, let's disbar the man for doing his job.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

ETA: What the hell do you expect the defense attorney to say? He'd be a pretty shitty defense attorney if he walked into the court room and went "Your honor, my client is guilty as fuck and total human garbage and I recommend the death penalty."

This. It's kind of his job to come up with the best defense for whatever clients he landed. Do you think he's pride of this line of defense? Maybe. Maybe not. However, the alternative is giving these folks no defense attorney at all, and I do believe the American legal system frowns on that. But sure, let's disbar the man for doing his job.

Seconded. Still, "My client was young/drunk/peer pressured and now he's very, very sorry of what he's done" would be IMHO a better line than "the victim was a slut and my client gave her what she deserved."
But that's why I'm not a lawyer and this guy is. I assume it's a guy.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

ETA: What the hell do you expect the defense attorney to say? He'd be a pretty shitty defense attorney if he walked into the court room and went "Your honor, my client is guilty as fuck and total human garbage and I recommend the death penalty."

This. It's kind of his job to come up with the best defense for whatever clients he landed. Do you think he's pride of this line of defense? Maybe. Maybe not. However, the alternative is giving these folks no defense attorney at all, and I do believe the American legal system frowns on that. But sure, let's disbar the man for doing his job.

Man, I am so glad you said this. I was just so blind with rage that I was lost in the big picture, my head swirling with ridiculous and hysterical thoughts, like "if it's kosher for a defence attorney to accuse an eleven year old, who can't consent in any legal way to anything, of precipitating her own brutal gang rape at the hands of several much older males, what will he do to the drunk girl who was raped at a frat party, or the woman who was raped by her boyfriend, or the man who was raped by someone he flirted with that evening? This is exactly the kind of despicable victim-blaming horseshit that discourages rape victims from coming forward, and makes it easier for rapists to get away with their crimes." I never even considered that it's perfectly fine to insinuate that an eleven year old child lured poor innocent helpless men into committing this heinous act like the devious slut she is, as long as the person doing it is a defence attorney in open court. Thank you so much for bringing me down out of the clouds. Sincerely.

ITT Cyberwulf disapproves of rapists having access to competent legal defense, shits on right to a fair trial.

Seriously, there's a reason lawyers are thought of as the scum of the earth: doing their job well necessitates coming up with arguments like this.

Nevermind, I suspect this would be a waste of time.

Cyberwulf wrote:

my head swirling with ridiculous and hysterical thoughts

Doesn't that happen every day? You are a feminist, after all.

Never mind whether or not the girl consented; I look at this and I see Team Pedobear abusing a defenceless kid. If the defense attorney said the girl was asking for it, he just inadvertently became a child molestation apologist. Nice Job Fixing It, Villain.

TheHedonist wrote:

ITT Cyberwulf disapproves of rapists having access to competent legal defense, shits on right to a fair trial.

No, no, I'm agreeing with you! It's totally fine for a defence attorney to insinuate that his client is completely powerless to control himself once he gets a boner, which is why he should be free instead of being locked up. Eleven year old girls everywhere have to realise it's up to them not to provoke men into getting boners, lest they be raped.

Cyberwulf wrote:

No, no, I'm agreeing with you! It's totally fine for a defence attorney to insinuate that his client is completely powerless to control himself once he gets a boner, which is why he should be free instead of being locked up. Eleven year old girls everywhere have to realise it's up to them not to provoke men into getting boners, lest they be raped.

I cannot quote this enough.

Srsly "that prepubecent is an evil succubus my client was helpless to resist" is not actually a good defense. This guy does not have an excuse for this aside from being a total fucking shit-head.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

No, no, I'm agreeing with you! It's totally fine for a defence attorney to insinuate that his client is completely powerless to control himself once he gets a boner, which is why he should be free instead of being locked up. Eleven year old girls everywhere have to realise it's up to them not to provoke men into getting boners, lest they be raped.

I cannot quote this enough.

Srsly "that prepubecent is an evil succubus my client was helpless to resist" is not actually a good defense. This guy does not have an excuse for this aside from being a total fucking shit-head.

I'm not saying it's a good defense; I'm saying what the accused did is indefensible and as a result, yeah, even the best defense is going to be godawful.

Though I agree that even under those conditions this is absurd.

I do not think that was the best defense. It would have been better to argue that his client was bullied or pressured into it, or was under the influance of drugs, or was legally blind and and insane and a complete idiot and honestly had no idea she was so young. Really ANYTHING would have been better.

^ Seriously. What happened to "My client didn't do it", "My client wasn't there", "My client was there but did not rape the victim", "My client had no idea the victim was so young" (still icky but a lot better than "she lured him there to trap him")?

Cyberwulf wrote:

TheHedonist wrote:

ITT Cyberwulf disapproves of rapists having access to competent legal defense, shits on right to a fair trial.

No, no, I'm agreeing with you! It's totally fine for a defence attorney to insinuate that his client is completely powerless to control himself once he gets a boner, which is why he should be free instead of being locked up. Eleven year old girls everywhere have to realise it's up to them not to provoke men into getting boners, lest they be raped.

You seem to think that the defense is duty bound to try this shit as a last ditch effort that everyone in The Patriarchy (tm) sincerely believes it.

The fact that the defense is using this defense is only a problem if it actually works. If the jury goes, "Yes, the 11 year old girl was clearly asking to be raped on camera several times, NOT GUILTY," then there is a serious problem. However, it's almost certain than the jury is going to hear that defense, make this face:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And convict him.

Reepy wrote:

Srsly "that prepubecent is an evil succubus my client was helpless to resist" is not actually a good defense. This guy does not have an excuse for this aside from being a total fucking shit-head.

Considering the crime appears to have been video taped several times, it's the only defense they have other than "That's actually my evil twin brother in the video tape, hell bent on ruining my good reputation." I suppose they could try "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, my client is a total fucking shit-head, and for that reason you must find him not guilty," but that has even less of a chance of working than "The 11 year old was asking for it."

Cyberwulf wrote:

^ Seriously. What happened to "My client didn't do it", "My client wasn't there", "My client was there but did not rape the victim", "My client had no idea the victim was so young" (still icky but a lot better than "she lured him there to trap him")?

Wasn't it video taped?

I think it was video taped.

ETA:

OP wrote:

But because she said "yes" when defense attorney Steve Taylor asked if she had been a "willing participant" and acknowledged that she hadn't made an "outcry" until questioned after sex tapes of the assault started circulating around Cleveland High School

It appears to have been taped.

Plus, they probably have other evidence or testimony to back it up.

Cyberwulf, is it possible that this defense is purely and completely the position of the lawyer's client and not the lawyer him/herself? I mean, come on. Do we even know what conversations happened between the lawyer and his client? It is entirely possible that the lawyer strongly advised the guy to plead guilty, but said rapist was insistent that he wasn't for reasons that only his fucked up mind could comprehend.

This case is as reason to be angry as any out there, but remember that everyone in the United States of America is granted the right to a legal defense. Everyone. Not just the innocent people.

Aggie wrote:

Cyberwulf, is it possible that this defense is purely and completely the position of the lawyer's client and not the lawyer him/herself? I mean, come on. Do we even know what conversations happened between the lawyer and his client? It is entirely possible that the lawyer strongly advised the guy to plead guilty, but said rapist was insistent that he wasn't for reasons that only his fucked up mind could comprehend.

This case is as reason to be angry as any out there, but remember that everyone in the United States of America is granted the right to a legal defense. Everyone. Not just the innocent people.

Well then we're right back to my last post up there, which you seem to have ignored. I'll restate it using a different crime. What kind of lawyer would mount this as a legal defence:

"Your Honour, the victim was standing across the room giving my client the finger. This provoked my client into such a rage that he couldn't control himself and assaulted the victim, unfortunately causing fatal injuries. Therefore my client is not guilty and the victim is responsible for his own death."

Do you get it? "I couldn't control myself, therefore I should be free to get into situations where I can't control myself again" is a bullshit defence that only confirms the fact that the defendant is a dangerous animal that should be locked away where he can't "lose control" and brutally rape another little girl. Why an attorney would essentially argue "my client's moral code evaporates once he gets an erection, please set him free" is something I can't understand. The defence of "honest mistake", while extremely loathesome, would at least make more sense. Unless the attorney is trying to throw the trial, in which case he absolutely should be disbarred.

Well he apparently isn't a very good lawyer. My uncle when he first started out as a lawyer had to be a defense attorney for murderers. He found himself defending people who he'd honestly rather see having heavy sentences. The excuses were often bad but its all the lawyer has. He would also go with what the defense said, and if they said the girl deserved it because she was a slut, he'd say it. Really there's nowhere to go with the defense except to do that. He'll, if it gets him paid and his time in the salt mines doing shitty ass cases backing up criminals

Cyberwulf wrote:

Aggie wrote:

Cyberwulf, is it possible that this defense is purely and completely the position of the lawyer's client and not the lawyer him/herself? I mean, come on. Do we even know what conversations happened between the lawyer and his client? It is entirely possible that the lawyer strongly advised the guy to plead guilty, but said rapist was insistent that he wasn't for reasons that only his fucked up mind could comprehend.

This case is as reason to be angry as any out there, but remember that everyone in the United States of America is granted the right to a legal defense. Everyone. Not just the innocent people.

Well then we're right back to my last post up there, which you seem to have ignored. I'll restate it using a different crime. What kind of lawyer would mount this as a legal defence:

"Your Honour, the victim was standing across the room giving my client the finger. This provoked my client into such a rage that he couldn't control himself and assaulted the victim, unfortunately causing fatal injuries. Therefore my client is not guilty and the victim is responsible for his own death."

Do you get it? "I couldn't control myself, therefore I should be free to get into situations where I can't control myself again" is a bullshit defence that only confirms the fact that the defendant is a dangerous animal that should be locked away where he can't "lose control" and brutally rape another little girl. Why an attorney would essentially argue "my client's moral code evaporates once he gets an erection, please set him free" is something I can't understand. The defence of "honest mistake", while extremely loathesome, would at least make more sense. Unless the attorney is trying to throw the trial, in which case he absolutely should be disbarred.

1.) They might very well try that, if for no other reason than to lower the charge down from first degree murder to second degree or even voluntary manslaughter. At least if there's no plausible way to imply that the accused didn't do it in the first place. If the accused was on video tape beating the victim senseless, it may be difficult to raise reasonable doubt.

2.) She's eleven. Any mistake at that point is pretty intentional.