I have a trial coming up where my victim chose a pseudonym. Problem is that her real name is all throughout 911 calls, etc. Any suggestions for how to handle this without having to make numerous edits? I have an idea but wanted to see what others think.

Instruct the jury to do "earmuffs" every time you say it out loud? (Think Old School).

We did have a trial with kids recently where names inevitably came out. The judge instructed the jury to keep the secret in the interest of family privacy and had the court reporter type up the record with substitutions for what was actually said in the event of a misstep. So kids' and parents' names became "father of the children", "oldest child", etc.

The last time I had a rape victim who was using a pseudonym, I just had her testify and state her real name, and we said that for the purposes of privacy in public documents, she's known as Jane Doe. Then we just proceeded to use her real name throughout the trial. She basically agreed to this, since we all agreed it's kind of strange to say "Raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth," then the answer to the first question "What's your name?" is a lie.

especially with child victims. First we put on the investigator to explain why pseudonyms are used, etc. Then we have him/her explain that family/victim in this case wanted one, so Jane Doe #___ was assigned to ________ (real name). The media also cooperates with us by not printing the victim's real name. It has worked out so far.

I think that pseudonyms are bogus. I knew a guy in college who would sit in court between classes at law school (trying to get tips for moot court, I guess) and he had a website where he would post the person's real name along with all the trial details just so that people would know.

What a fantastic human being. I hope they gave him a medal for outing rape victims for no reason at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by R_Smith:
I think that pseudonyms are bogus.

---

What an ironic statement.

+1

quote:

---

Originally posted by R_Smith:
I think that pseudonyms are bogus. I knew a guy in college who would sit in court between classes at law school (trying to get tips for moot court, I guess) and he had a website where he would post the person's real name along with all the trial details just so that people would know.

---

Why on Earth would he do that? Even newspapers -- and I scoff at the term "responsible journalism" these days -- don't print the names of rape victims.

The "people's right to know" is just code these days for "I want to do something hurtful and hide behind my own righteousness".

1. Using a pseudonym is a right under law, like it or not. AND
2. He must be a lowlife with a complete disregard for the luckless victims's plights.

JAS

quote:

---

Originally posted by R_Smith:
I think that pseudonyms are bogus. I knew a guy in college who would sit in court between classes at law school (trying to get tips for moot court, I guess) and he had a website where he would post the person's real name along with all the trial details just so that people would know.

---

I wonder if this great humanitarian has been disbarred yet?

Alternatively, I wonder if this is just (one of many) figments of the imagination of "Mr. Smith, a pseudonym"?

Hoover has re-emerged.

Hoover ain't daid.

The problem with the use of pseudonyms, and the reason why I avoid using them as much as possible, is that it sets a certain group of victims apart of other groups of victims. After all, we don't use pseudonym for robbery victims, theft victims, assault victims, or any other form of victim.

Why does a certain group of victims "deserve" anonymity? Okay, I can see the reason why this would apply with child victims, and I don't really have too much of a problem with that. But with adult victims, there is no good reason to do this. All it does, in my opinion, is somehow seperate them from the other types of victims and makes them feel special somehow. I am sure that many victims of home invasion, arson, robbery, et al., also feel extremely embarrassed by their plight. But they do not receive this 'special' status and I think that it bogus.

How about because the LAW ALLOWS FOR IT?

WHY? Because there is a HUGE difference in stigma attached for being a victim of sexual violence as opposed to a victim of some other crime.

Not that you will ever understand this concept.

R_Smith,

"Why does a certain group of victims deserve anonymity?" you ask.

Maybe because sexual assault victims have suffered substantially enough with the crime itself, without having to re-live torturous acts committed against them every time the news comes around or they go to the local grocery store or doctor's office or church service where people might point and whisper. Would you want your daughter or grandmother or son or god-father repeatedly and specifically identified as one having been tied up, sodomized, urinated on, forced to commit bestiality, have their nipples removed with a pair of pliers?
It's a rhetorical question, because I believe you might probably say, "No, I wouldn't mind that, since it takes a village and the news is part of life in the village, and the villagers deserve to know what goes on in the village."

There ARE different types/classes of victims: cutsomers who are rolled by prostitutes are not the same as those who lose property in an arson who are not the same as someone hit by a drunk driver who is not the same as one who has his wallet stolen who is not the same as a store owner who is given a bad check who is not the same as a farmer who has his favorite hog snatched.

No one asks a Robbery victim what they were wearing and did they lead the criminal on.

or why they drank so much, or what they were doing going to the guys house/letting him come to your house, or why anice good looking young man like that would have to force anyone.

I went to a seminar a couple of years ago and one of the presenters told us he asks panels in voir dire if they hear of a man getting a his Rolex stolen while walking at night to his car after happy hour if they ask themselves these questions. The answer, of course, is no.

Seems to me that justified or not, most victims of sexual assaults feel more ashamed about it than robbery victims. I know I would be much more apt to bring up in conversation with friends and strangers the fact that I had been burglarized that the fact that I had been raped. If you don't think people look at rape victims differently than they look at robbery victims, I think you're fooling yourself. I'm not saying that those victims should feel ashamed, or that people should look at them differently, but my experience with sexual assault victims is that they are far more likely to be concerned about who will know what happened to them than burglary victims are, and probably with good reason.