Published on:

The Extent of Plaintiff’s Resistence During Rape Discussed by Court


The accused, a bachelor of approximately thirty-seven years of age met an incoming plane at LaGuardia Airport, from which disembarked a twenty-year-old petite, attractive second-year student woman, an unworldly girl, evidently unacquainted with New York City and the sophisticated city ways, a girl who proved to be, as indicated by the testimony, incredibly gullible, trusting and naive.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the testimony indicates that the accused struck up a conversation with her, posing as a psychologist doing a magazine article and using a name that was not his, inducing the woman to answer questions for an interview.

The evidence further shows that the accused invited the complainant woman to accompany him in an automobile to the Grand Central Station in Manhattan. They were accompanied in the automobile by other persons, some of whom were introduced by the accused as colleagues on a professional basis. There were numerous detours before they found their way to the Grand Central Station. First, they were taken to an apartment on the east side where some of the parties were left behind.

The evidence indicates that the accused and another girl took the complainant to an establishment called Maxwell’s Plum. The accused explained that it was for the purpose of conducting a sociological experiment in which he would observe her reactions and the reactions of males towards her in the setting of a singles bar. After several hours there, in which the woman evidently was still under the belief that her stopping for a drink at Maxwell’s Plum was part of the psychological and sociological experiment, she was persuaded to accompany the accused to the west side, upon the accused man’s explanations that he was going there to pick up his automobile and drive her to the Grand Central Station.

Instead of going to the automobile, she was induced to come up to an apartment on the fourteenth floor, which the accused explained was used as one of his five offices or apartments throughout the city; and the woman, still believing that the accused was in fact what he purported to be, went up and accompanied him there.

The woman came to the apartment and her questions as to the existence of photographs of children, a crib, stuffed animals and toys, were readily explained away by the accused as being connected with his treatment of patients as a psychologist, the explanation of the crib and the toys being there were used for the purposes of primal therapy to enable his patients to associate with their childhood years more readily. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said in the apartment, the psychological interviewing continued, the accused having explained to the woman that he was searching for the missing link between the girl-woman and the woman-girl. The woman, who was then working in a psychiatric branch of New York Hospital, and who had some training in psychology, believed that all was legitimately related to a psychological research project which the accused was conducting.

During the course of the interview in the apartment, the accused probed the woman’s life and she had, during the course of their conversation together, made a revelation of her prior intimacies and her feelings, and her experiences with respect to various people. In the apartment she was asked to participate in an adjective word game, applying five adjectives to certain designated persons, including her and the accused.

She had been there for one to two hours when the accused made his move and pulled her on to the opened sofa-bed in the living room of that apartment and attempted to disrobe her. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said tht she resisted that, and she claims that as articles of clothing were attempted to be removed she would pull them back on and ultimately she was able to ward off the advances and to get herself dressed again. At that point, the accused man’s tactics, according to her testimony, appeared to have changed.

First, he informed her of his disappointment that she had failed the test, that it was all part of his psychological experiment, that, in fact, it was a way in which he was trying to reach her innermost consciousness, one of the ways in which that could be done. Then, after expressing disappointment in the failure of the psychological experiment, he took steps to cause doubt and fear to arise in the mind of the complainant.

A Queens Sex Crimes Lawyer said the woman testified that at that point she became extremely frightened, that she realized, indeed, how vulnerable she was. The accused did not strike her, did not beat her, he exhibited no weapons at the time, but he made the statement that he could kill her and he could rape her.

Then there was yelling and screaming, further to intimidate the accused, and then an abrupt switch in which the accused attempted to play on the sympathy of the kids by telling her a story about his lost love, how her job had reminded him of her, and the hurt that he had sustained when she had driven her car off a cliff.

The testimony indicates that during the various sexual abuse acts that the lesson, in fact, offered little resistance. She said that she was pinned down by the accused man’s body weight, but in some manner all her clothing was removed, all his clothing was removed, and the acts took place. There was no torn clothing, there were no scratches; there were no bruises. Finally, at approximately seven a.m. the woman dressed and left the apartment. She says that the accused acknowledged to her that he was aware that it had been against her will, but he nevertheless gave her three telephone numbers. The old maid then returned, where later that day she recited some of the events to a fellow-worker, and then to a roommate. Ultimately she reported the facts to the New York City Police and to the Westchester County Sheriff’s office, resulting in her being taken to New York City by personnel from the Westchester County Sheriff’s office where, at the Gulf & Western Building at Columbus Circle they saw the accused emerging from an elevator. Despite her identification of him at that time his initial fame denied his name, that he knew the complainant, or that he had had any involvement with her in any way.

After he had been placed under arrest in a coffee shop of a Hotel, and they had proceeded to a building, the accused began to make partial admissions as to his identity, his occupation, his apartment and his knowledge of the woman and ultimately the fact that he had had sexual intercourse with her, which he claimed was consensual and a matter of mutual enjoyment. He further told the police officers that the whole psychology bit was a game that he played with girls’ heads.

The testimony further indicates that after he had been placed under arrest, and while he was in custody, he escaped from the police car in which he had been placed, and that a detective chased him in and around the streets and up 15 flights of a building, where he ultimately located the man on a water tower. The explanation was given to a Detective and he was the one looking for a lawyer.

The law recognizes that there are some crimes where trickery and deceit do constitute the basis for a criminal charge. Since the common law, the existence of larceny by trick has been recognized. But of course, for a larceny there has to be a taking of property of value. It is not to imply that a woman’s right to her body is not a thing of value, but it is not a property in the sense which is defined by the law.

It is clear from the evidence in the case that the woman was intimidated; that she was confused; that she had been drowned in a torrent of words and perhaps was terrified. But it is likewise clear from the evidence that the accused man did not resort to actual physical force. There was no act of violence, no struggle, no outcry, and no attempt to restrain or confine the person which constitutes the usual and essential evidence of rape.

The extent of the resistance required of an assaulted female is governed by the circumstances of the case, and the grounds which she has for apprehending the infliction of great bodily harm. When an assault is committed by the sudden and unexpected exercise of overpowering force upon a timid and inexperienced girl, under circumstances indicating the power and the will of the aggressor to effect his object, and an intention to use any means necessary to accomplish it, it would seem to present a case for a jury to say whether the fear naturally inspired by such circumstances had not taken away or impair the ability of the assaulted party to make effectual resistance to the assault.

So the question is not so much the use of force, but whether threats uttered by the defendant had paralyzed her capacity to resist and had, in fact, undermined her will.

The Court finds that the testimony of the expert was essentially credible testimony. The Court finds from the story which she has narrated that the accused was a person who was crafty, scheming, manipulative, and ever ready with explanations.

The testimony in the case reveals that the accused was a predator, and that naive and gullible girls were his natural prey. He posed. He lied. He pretended and he deceived. He used confidences which were innocently bestowed as leverage to perform his will. He used psychological techniques to achieve vulnerability and sympathy, and the erosion of resistance. A young and inexperienced girl was then unable to withstand the practiced onslaught of the accused.

The accused man apparently got his kicks through the exercise of techniques. To him, the game was worth more than the prize. He boasted to the police that it was a game he played with girls’ heads. The Court finds his conduct, if not criminal, to be reprehensible.

While the Court conclude that the accused man’s conduct towards the woman cannot be adjudged criminal so as to subject him to the penalty of imprisonment for up to twenty-five years, the Court finds, on the undisputed facts, that the accused did enter an Apartment, the dwelling of a family, illegally and without permission or authority. There being no proof that the illegal entry was for the purpose of committing a crime, the accused man is found not guilty of the charge of burglary in the second degree. But he is found guilty of the lesser included offense of criminal trespass in the second degree.

Further, the evidence clearly establishes that the accused, after having been arrested for a felony, escaped from the custody of the police officers, and he is found guilty of the crime of escape in the second degree.

It may be ironic that the accused, having been acquitted of the charges for which he was arrested, is found guilty of attempting to flee from the possibilities of having to face up to the charge. But the facts are clear, and whatever consequences flow from that fact will flow. The accused fancied himself to be terribly clever, but, as frequently happens with terribly clever men; he made a rather stupid mistake.

Women and children are generally trusting, thus makes them vulnerable to be taken advantaged off. Criminals and sex offenders are always waiting for chances to find someone who would take their bait. If you have been a victim of sex crime and you feel ashamed to step forward because of many reasons, contact a NY Sex Crime Attorney or a New York Criminal Lawyer from Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

Posted in: , , and
Published on:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information