If you were on a jury would you likely convict a sexual assault crime that happened 3 years ago?

Question

If you were on a jury would it be harder to convict someone of sexual assault if it allegedly happened three years ago and he says it was consenual and she is now claiming rape?

Answer 1

The length of time since the crime was committed would have little bearing on my decision. As long as it is within the statute of limitations, a crime is a crime. I would have to see and hear all the evidence before making a decision.

Answer 2

If I were on the jury in a sexual assualt trial that happened 3 years ago I would do exactly what I would do if it happened 3 months ago. I would listen carefully to the evidence. If that evidence convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt, I would vote to convict. If not, I would vote to aquit. This alleged crime is within the statute if limitations, so it has to be persued as vigorously as if it happened yesterday. Since it wasn't reported when it happened there will probably be very little physical evidence, which in sexual assault cases makes for a difficult prosecution.

Answer 3

Obviously it would depend on the other evidence presented, the 3 years would not be a deciding factor in my decision, especially since there is no statute of limitations on felonies meaning you can be convicted of a felony no matter how long its been since it happened.

I would however wonder why it took 3 years for the woman to admit that it was rape, I know there are emotional factors and its not as easy as it sounds to report it to the police the next day, but 3 years is a long time, what finally changed her mind, and did she change her mind about keeping the rape quiet or sid she change her mind about whether or not she feels it was rape?

Unfourtunatly in a rape case there needs to be more evidence than the victumns testimony to prove "beyond a resonable doubt" that it was not consentual sex, a medical exam right after the incident can help prove it was forced penetration, but not 3 years later

Answer 4

That's an awfully vague question. It would depend, as it always should, on the evidence. If there is no evidence because she took no action immediately after the incident, such is life.

Women cannot expect the courts to simply take their word due to the heinous nature of the crime. Evidence is a necessity in any case. Rape is no different.

Answer 5

A crime is a crime...even if it happened 3 years ago. What will convince a jury is evidence. if she has no proof, you shouldn't have a problem. For her to go forward after 3 years she would have had to submit a rape test/samples 3 years ago. Otherwise, she couldn't prove anything in court.

Answer 6

Logically, if those three stipulations were present, it would be difficult to obtain a conviction, especially in the case of lack of physical evidence, such as DNA. But the legal system is far from perfect, and get enough psychologists spouting psychobabble involved, and sharp lawyers for the plaintiff, and anything can happen. When emotions rule, fairness often flies out of the window.

Answer 7

Regardless of the time frame, I would have to hear all the facts. If you are asking because she waited so long to say anything, I understand why you would ask, but some women have such a hard time emotionally dealing with a rape that they don't say anything forever out of shame. She could always be a big liar too, but again, that's why I would need all the facts.

Answer 8

No one can possibly determine from what you said whether they would convict or not. To say how a person would vote, one way or the other, is premature and unethical considering we have not seen any evidence, have not heard any witnesses testify, have not heard from expert witnesses, have not heard comments from both counsels, don't know if anything new came out during depositions, etc.

Answer 9

It would honestly depend on the evidence. The timeframe is less important than the evidence. Without knowing the details, I can't say if I would convict or not.

Answer 10

I think that if I was a jury member the timeframe would not be an overriding factor. I would have to take into account all the relevant evidence one factor on its own would not sway me either way.