Maine's Rape Shield Law - Does it work?

Rape shield laws are rules of evidence intended to protect a rape victim from being discredited by her sexual history. They prevent a defendant in a rape trial from impugning the character of the victim through the "slut defense." In cases where there is clear, physical evidence to convict a rape suspect, rape shield laws work very well as a tool of justice. Where they can work against the interests of a defendant, however, is when evidence is either circumstantial or non-conclusive.

Maine's Rape Shield Law was improperly applied in the case of a homeless man convicted of a sexual assault in which no credible physical evidence was introduced. The most damning piece of evidence in the trial was a jacket found in Drewry's belongings 2 days before the issuance of a search warrant and identified by the victim as hers 13 months after the assault but differing widely from her original description.

I met Brandon Drewry in the Protective Custody Unit at Maine State Prison in the winter of 2008 and became so intrigued by his case that I spent 1 ½ years studying volumes of material, eventually writing a 200-pg manuscript that is now in the hands of the Innocence Project.

Drewry, a homeless man who had lived in a shelter for 3 days in Bayside – Portland, ME's answer to the Bowery, was arrested for gross sexual assault on a married woman with 2 children. The victim called police on the morning of August 30, 2004, and said she met a stranger around midnight and went on a walk with him to smoke marijuana. While the 911 transcript clearly claims rape, she later told police and testified that she was dragged down an alley with tall weeds and broken glass, choked, punched, forced to have oral sex for approximately 15 seconds and was digitally penetrated but not vaginally raped. In 2006, after 28 months in county jail, Drewry was convicted and sentenced to 30 years.

DNA was recovered from semen samples (possibly 2) taken from the victim - no match to Drewry, her husband or another individual with whom she was known to be having sex. The trial court, while allowing testimony that the semen was not a match for Drewry, refused to permit that it did not match the other 2 men. Their reason was that since there was no allegation of vaginal rape, its source was irrelevant. By allowing this "irrelevant" vaginal DNA evidence in the first place, however, the court introduced the character issue but left unresolved its possible link to other assailants.

Drewry suffers from PTSD and a social disorder. On the first day of his 4-day trial he suffered a heavy nose bleed in front of the jury. His attorneys asked the judge, on the record in chambers, that he be removed from the courtroom as a biohazard. In the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor derided him as a person with a GED high school diploma and "…having no redeeming qualities."

This case is a chronicle of suburban ethos, evidence tampering by the Portland Police Dept and elitism among Maine's judicial brotherhood. The Innocence Project currently is considering accepting Drewry's case for federal appeal. We can only hope.



Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/criminal-articles/maines-rape-sieve-law-2771945.html...
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution