November 22nd, 2010 by Emily Lubinski

---

Recently a woman in Seattle had the courage to report being repeatedly sexually abused as a child, bringing charges against her mother’s ex-boyfriend.

Earlier this month, traffic was stopped all around Avvo’s offices as police and passerby tried to persuade that same woman not to jump to her death from the roof of Seattle’s King County Courthouse.  Why?  Because the victim of years of rape and molestation was being forced to give her testimony in the case against alleged child rapist Salvador Cruz, to Cruz himself, who was acting as his own attorney.   She would have rather killed herself than to have been interrogated by her alleged abuser.

Police managed to get the woman safely (physically so, at least) from the roof.  But by way of legal and emotional protection, the system failed her miserably.  In order that she not be subjected to interrogation by her purported rapist, Salvador Cruz, she was forced to drop her charges against him.

Cruz’s trial continued, and several other young women claiming sexual abuse and assault by Cruz were grilled by him in court.  The sister of the woman who threatened to jump to her death to avoid confrontation with her accused rapist also claimed abuse and sexual assault by Cruz.  She testified that as a child she was so terrified of Cruz that she would hide under the bed whenever left in the family’s apartment with him.  On November 9, 2010, she was subjected to his hours of questioning by Cruz in the trial against him.

Any person accused of a crime has the right to face his or her accusers in court, and because Cruz was acting as his own lawyer, he had the right to question the five alleged victims in the case against him.  This is the second rape case in King County in the past year in which a defendant has been allowed to question his alleged victims in court.

While defendants’ rights must be upheld, witness intimidation is illegal.  So, just how does the court define intimidation?  If the court enters a no contact order, why is it suddenly void within the courtroom because a defendant chooses to act as his own counsel?  Cruz was appointed an attorney to assist him with his defense.  Why wasn’t that attorney appointed to confront and cross examine the women Cruz allegedly sexually abused?  Vulnerable parties deserve protection.  Allowing an alleged child rapist to drill his accusers with questions about the sexual assault they claim to have suffered at his hands certainly seems to be clear and active enabling of continued abuse.

To add further insult to deep injury, a bill that would have protected the victims of sexual assault from direct questioning by their abusers failed to pass in the state Legislature earlier this year.  That bill would have upheld the state’s interest in protecting the physical and psychological survival of child victims, while sustaining the defendant’s right to face his or her accusers in court.  Supporters of that bill say they will try again.  Let’s hope they succeed before the pressure of confronting one’s alleged rapist drives a victim over the edge.

This entry was posted on Monday, November 22nd, 2010 at 9:43 am by Emily Lubinski and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.