Horrible Gelatinous Blob wrote:

Tansin A. Darcos (TDARCOS) wrote:

I have some familiarity over this because I remember reading a court case before the California Supreme Court, Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal.3d 202 (1991), 814 P.2d 1341, 285 Cal. Rptr. 99. Cop pulls over a woman for a traffic offense, and gives her a choice, screw him or go to jail (he wasn't even going to write her a ticket). So she ends up basically with no choice as he rapes her. She sues the city, and gets a judgement for something like $100,000. The judgement was upheld on technical grounds, basically the city's lawyers asked for a bad jury instruction that almost guaranteed they'd find for her, but, then on appeal. they can't then demand the jury's decision be thrown out because they selected a faulty set of instructions.

I know I told you this before, but that's a tort case. Different standard of proof, different rules of evidence, different legislation to guide the decision, different precedent to follow, different social goals to achieve. It's not comparable and trying to apply anything in its holding to a criminal context is dumb.