CNN.com reports that a judge in Washington state has ordered a 35-year-old woman to pose nude for evidence photos sought by the prosecution. The defendant has been charged with third-degree child rape for allegedly having sex with a 14-year-old boy. Prosecutors say that their case will be strengthened if the boy's description is matched by physical characteristics seen in photographs.

What do you guys think about this?

See CNN's story on http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/05/02/nude.photo.order.ap/index.html

Why would it be any different than requiring a defendant to provide voice or handwriting examplars, a sample of DNA, or business records? As long as we can make a showing of relevance, it should be allowed. For example, if the boy says he had sex with her and knows that she has a distinctive tatoo, body piercing, birthmark, etc., then the photo would be relevant to corroborate his testimony.

One would hope that the judge would take steps to ensure that the photos were taken in such a way that the lowest-rated news station in the market has little to broadcast at 6 . . . Merely cutting off her face, as in this case, seems a little weak.

I just wouldn't want to be the one making or answering the Rule 403 arguments . . .

[This message was edited by John Rolater on 05-03-02 at .]

We've had good results with search warrants authorizing photos of defendants' genitals. When the child describes characteristics (such as warts, moles, uncircumcised, pubic hair shaved) having the jury see for themselves can be powerful corroboration.

But even with the most professional, non-snickering investigator, the experience of posing for the photos can often be uncomfortable and even humiliating. We're working on making the process more pleasant for our accused molesters.

Trying to make it more pleasant for the accused?
Not that I would be allowed to take the photos anyway, being that I AM a snickering, semi-professional investigator.

I was thinking it would be unpleasant for the sort of people who watch the lowest-rated news channel at 6--"Omigod--that's my sister" or "Hey, I had that tattoo first." Even better, "OUCH! that had to hurt!"

More likely, though, it would be unpleasant for the receptionist at the local DA's office who'd have to take about a thousand phone calls and explain how it was the lowest-rated tv station that put Janey Jean Doe's barely blurred tattooed whatever on the tv, not the DA's office, and yeah we really do need that kind of evidence, and no the giggling investigators don't do it just to add to their collection of nasty photos of poor sex offenders.

Well, sometimes they do. We have a treasured photo of a penis with square warts that has been frequently circulated among some of our less mature colleagues. Just part of the perv's punishment -- that we can laugh at his privates for the next few years.

yuk.

John has said it best, but I'll add a "blech" just for fun.

Do any of you happen to have handy the cites of good cases that you use to respond to a defendant's response that he doesn't want to drop his drawers?

Very early in my careeer I assisted an even younger prosecutor in trying an indecent exposure case where it was alleged that the defendant was frolicking alone in a public park, with his pants around his ankles, and his . . . ummm . . . little soldier . . . was at full attention. An identity issue arose about the . . . ummm . . . "religious preference" . . . of that little soldier. To resolve the issue, the judge ordered the bailiff and a random police officer from the hallway to conduct a private identity hearing in the judge's chambers and report their findings to the court.

I know this adds nothing to the discussion on the original question, but it was very funny. You should have seen the look on the OB/GYN juror's face when the defendant testified that he couldn't possibly have been running around like everyone said because if his little soldier had been at full attention it would have drawn too much blood from the rest of his body to have performed such a phsyical feat!

Oh yeah. We still lost that case.

Undoubtedly he will not want to show his stuff. We use a search warrant. I have a sample that's nothing fancy but got the job done. E-mail me if you'd like a copy.

The element of surprise is important and sometimes produces surprising results. One defendant had the words "Lord please help me" written in ink on his upper right thigh (he was left handed). Something to meditate on while he was staring in the direction of his bare lap.

Okay Allison, you got me. what exactly was he praying for???

Probably praying for a case cite that said photos of his penis (or, alternatively, his square-shaped genital warts) could be kept out of the hands of the jury or the Travis County DA's office.

Just a guess.

I was planning to argue he was praying for God to take away his sick desire to molest his 8 year old neighbor boy, who he was also thinking about while meditating (or whatever) on his bare lap.

After he made an unsuccessful attempt at self-prosecution (suicide attempt) on the morning of trial, he was evaluated by Dr. Coons, who said the ballpoint message to the Almighty was more likely related to the defendant's fear of going to trial.

Oh well.

Maybe he was just "flicking his Bic," as the old commercial used to say.

I have a rapist with a self-inflicted tattoo on the head of his penis. (We got a warrant to photograph it, but we were also getting a DNA sample.) His tattoo said, "YOUR." The story was that he thought it would be a funny joke to tell someone, "I'll bet you I've got your name on my [penis]." When the unsuspecting person takes the bait, then the defendant would drop his drawers and reveal a tattoo that said, "YOUR NAME." Trouble is, I guess it hurt so much he quit after "Y-O-U-R."

You know.. I thought people in the country were weird with cows and sheep, but we don't have anything on you city folks.