The point I am trying to make is not that difficult to understand. I will try again, but I'm not certain of getting through.

1) When the plaintiff in a case has a bad reputation and a distorted or incomplete recollection of the events, then it is going to be hard for that plaintiff to win, regardless of whether or not the defendant actually committed the crime.

2) The same is true of defendants. A defendant may be innocent, but reputation and inability to present a coherent version of the facts can cause the case to go against the defendant.

3) I agree with you about the defense attorney, I actually said so in my original. It is an excellent defense. In the hypothetical, a defense attorney would not only be liable to attack the reputation and recollections of the plaintiff, the defense would in some sense be obligated to do so, in that they have an obligation to try and win acquital for the defendant. I absolutely agree that the presumption of innocence is a bedrock principal in the courtroom -- wish it always happened that way.

I deliberately fashioned the hypothetical such that the defendant was guilty, and the plaintiff exhibited some of the facts that have been the most headlined in the case. A drugged, raped prostitute is still someone who has been drugged and raped, but is also someone who will have an incomplete or distorted recollection of events, will have semen from multiple sources on testing, and works in a profession that is repugnant to many, including probably some on a jury. The point of the hypothetical was to show that justice -- interpreted as truth found and proper punishment meted out -- would probably not occur in such a situation.

It was a hypothetical to argue that point. It was not an attempt at a courtroom argument for the plaintiff in the Duke case, it was not an interpretation of the facts of the Duke case.

I was trying to point out that when one sees such a complete destruction of a plaintiff's reputation and recollections in the press (or even in the courtroom), one need not be looking at Tawana Brawley, one can very conceivably just be looking at a good defense attorney doing their job (which includes handling appearances in the press).

I was also pointing out to the temperature/IQ person that just because a case goes before a judge and jury doesn't mean that the truth has been found or justice has been served. A situation in which it does not happen frequently is one in which there is a wide disparity in the representation of the two sides, such as when one side is economically much better off than the other, or in which one side has a lifestyle or occupation which is repugnant to many people.

All of that is in play in this case, and I was using a hypothetical trying to elicit some discussion on whether or not some plaintiffs could ever succeed. I think I have explained myself pretty clearly. If no one thinks such points are worthwhile, I can't help that.

I agree with what you said. My "bad feeling" was that if there really was criminal behavior by the defendants, by this time the defense had so totally destroyed the plaintiff that it might not be something that could get a conviction.

As for reputation being inadmissible, I agree...with reservation. I was on a jury once where the prosecution brought up the unsavory nature of the defendant over and over. Each time the defense objected, each time the judge sustained the objections. A couple of times the judge reminded the prosecutor that there was an agreement (to which we on the jury were not privy, of course) that the defendant's choices of friends and places to hang out had been circumscribed as inadmissible. Nevertheless, by the time we recessed to debate a verdict, we all knew what kind of friends he had, what kind of place he was arrested in, what such people were called, what the police thought of them, etc. We were told by the judge we weren't supposed to consider it, that it was not supposed to influence our decision. While I would wholeheartedly agree that the judge did his best, and we tried to do the same, and that the system is set up to try to do the best with the facts at hand, who knows whether it influenced anyone's vote?