CaféAuLait
This Space for Rent
- Thread starter
- #21
CaféAuLait;6608948 said:The prosecutor elected to charge him with impersonating her husband, not rape. Blame that idiot, not the judge.
NO, that is not what happened, perhaps you need to reread the OP article. He was charged with rape of an unconscious person. BUT the law says she was NOT raped since she was UNmarried. They did not charge him as impersonating her husband, she was not married. If she had been married then he woud have been convicted.
Read more: Julio Morales Rape Case Appeal Ruling - Business Insider
And for the person who keeps says that this was her getting "caught" and regreting sex, the man admitted that he was pretending to be her boyfriend to trick her for sex.
Julio Morales Rape Case Appeal Ruling - Business Insider
Perhaps you should read your link.
"A man enters the dark bedroom of an unmarried woman after seeing her boyfriend leave late at night, and has sexual intercourse with the woman while pretending to be the boyfriend," the court said in its ruling (emphasis ours). "Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no, even though, if the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband, the answer would be yes."
The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, said she woke up in the middle of the night "to the sensation of having sex," which confused her because she and her boyfriend had agreed not to have sex before he left for the night. When she was able to get a glimpse of the man's face, she says, she saw it wasn't her boyfriend but a man named Julio Morales.
Jane says she screamed and tried to push Morales away, and he eventually left the room.
Morales admitted he had sex with Jane and said "he also thought she believed he was her boyfriend," according to the appeals court ruling.
However, Morales' defense team said he didn't remember Jane trying to push him away, and that he did not try and continue having sex after he initially pulled out of her.
The prosecutor could have charged him with rape because he continued with the sex after she said no. He tried to avoid the he said/she said controversy and charge him with something he was not guilty of.
I did read it, he was charged with 'rape of an unconscious person through trickery', exactly what he was found guilty of and admitted to, tricking her into believing that he was her boyfirend. But such was overturned because of an archaic law which says he had to have trick raped her into believeing he was her husband, since she was not married, the trick rape charge did not hold up. He was not charged with "impersonating her husband" as you claimed in post 18. The proscutor charged him with exactly what he admitted to. Thus the charge of 'rape of an unconscious person through trickery'.
Last edited: