Arts centre founder David Fried-Oppenheim is in jail after being convicted on five counts of child rape by a Massachusetts court. The victim was 14 when she was involved in a ‘sexual relationship’ with Fried Oppenheim.
However trans campaigners are incensed at the implications of the defence’s use of a transgender witness who worked at the arts centre. The young man’s testimony was unreliable, according to the defence, because he was ‘in therapy’. In their summing up the defence described him as “a professional at fooling people”; thought to be a reference to his transgender status.
The comments were not challenged by the judge and after the conviction there was media speculation that the verdict was questionable because the case was “bizarre”.
In an article in Rainbow Times, Tynan Power questions the defence’s tactics. While it is agreed that a defendant’s team has the right to challenge his/her accusers, it does not follow that it has a right to conjure up stereotypes and prejudice to form those challenges.
Tynan refers to the Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act, introduced in California in 2006, enacted specifically in response to the practice of appealing to the jury’s assumed prejudices to question the veracity of the witness. That law amends jury instructions to state that the use of societal bias to influence the proceedings of criminal trials is not allowed.
Massachusetts, according to Tynan, needs to adopt equivalent legislation. To read the Rainbow Times article, go here