• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

what to do when da wont file charges?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

misscruella16

Junior Member
i live in california. I was recently sexually assaulted and reported it. there was bruises on my body, a tear in my vagina, some vaginal bleeding, and scratches on my neck where the man held a metal object to my neck. the medical examiner wrote down on the report 'apparent menstrual blood". I wasnt on my period but there were no internal scratches. i believe i was bleeding from my cervix as a result of the rape. the detective who questioned me seemed like he didnt care nor believed what had happened to me. i reported him, but that didnt go anywhere. when i was questioned, i said that i had consented to sex with the man at first but then told him to stop when it had become violent. he then asked me to drink alcohol and marijuana and i did it because i was afraid. he then raped me again twice. i told all this to the detective and DA. the DA said he would not file charges because there was insufficient evidence. I think this is bull****. I think there is enough evidence to convict this man. the mans explanation was that it was "consensual rough sex". the detective told me that the man said when asked "did you ever hear her say no?" had said yes. he said that he admnitted to trying to force himself upon me, and i said no. when he did it again, his story was that i had said "not until you get a condom", he said that he went to the store, got a condom and came back but decided not to have sex with me because he couldnt perform. though this story is completely fabricated, i believe it is an admittance of attempted rape at least. i told this to the detective, he said "no, because it was without fear or force according to the man". i believe this to be untrue. ive researched a little and i have found that rape can be rape if someone has sex with someone when they are under the influence of drugs/alcohol. I was. the detective didnt bother to test me for the marijuana or alcohol, but the man said i took it and willingly. as for the physical evidence, i dont think that many women would consent to having rough sex to the extent of having tears in her vagina. so i think at least there should be charges filed at least. if not, any man can get away with raping women, the elderly, etc and say that it was "consensual rough sex". that is ridiculous. am i right about this? what can i do?
 


CdwJava

Senior Member
It takes more than being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, you have to be incapable of making a conscious decision.

You can always talk to the local prosecutor's supervisor and ask that they review the case. Maybe someone else can have a better way to pursue the investigation.

Unfortunately, not all cases can be prosecuted. And, there is no way you can force the DA to prosecute. However, you CAN engage an attorney and sue him and that requires a lower burden of proof and you just might prevail in a civil court where you would not in a criminal court.
 

misscruella16

Junior Member
thanks for replying, but i need to know if what the DA is doing is rop

unlawful. should the da be filing charges in this case if what im telling you is 100% truthful? and even if I did sue him, is it likely that I would win in this case? thanks in advance
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
What you don't seem to understand is your word isn't enough. There needs to be PROOF. And it seems there really isn't any.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
unlawful. should the da be filing charges in this case if what im telling you is 100% truthful? and even if I did sue him, is it likely that I would win in this case? thanks in advance
The DA has absolute charging discretion. What he SHOULD do and what he is lawfully required to do are different issues. If he does not think he can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, then he has an obligation NOT to waste time and money, and potentially ruin lives further by pursuing it. Going to court because you can accomplishes nothing and may well be considered malfeasance on his part if he has no case.

As I suggested, you might consider speaking to this particular DA's supervisor (assuming this is not a small county where the elected DA did not personally review your case).

Whether you will prevail in a lawsuit will depend on what you can prove and whether a jury believes you or him. But, the burden of proof is lower in a civil court, so if you ARE going to win, that would be the place to go.
 

misscruella16

Junior Member
well i dont have to deal with memorizing laws on a day-to-day basis, so I dont really know what sufficient proof is. I would think that based on the physical injuries I had, that that in itself is enough evidence. otherwise, again, any man could say that the woman "wanted it" and it was "rough, consensual" sex. men have been saying these things for years, but that doesnt mean people believe them. The DA knows this, and its his job to decide if a jury is going to find the defendant guilty or not. Im sure that based on my injuries, most jurors would say that it was not consensual sex. i think this is common sense. the jurors would look at the pictures and think, if i was in MY right mind I would never want the injuries that this woman suffered to be inflicted on ME during consensual sex. I think thats enough evidence.
 

Artemis_ofthe_Hunt

Senior Member
well i dont have to deal with memorizing laws on a day-to-day basis, so I dont really know what sufficient proof is. I would think that based on the physical injuries I had, that that in itself is enough evidence. otherwise, again, any man could say that the woman "wanted it" and it was "rough, consensual" sex. men have been saying these things for years, but that doesnt mean people believe them. The DA knows this, and its his job to decide if a jury is going to find the defendant guilty or not. Im sure that based on my injuries, most jurors would say that it was not consensual sex. i think this is common sense. the jurors would look at the pictures and think, if i was in MY right mind I would never want the injuries that this woman suffered to be inflicted on ME during consensual sex. I think thats enough evidence.
You still aren't getting it. What you think isn't going to matter in the long run. The DA, who is ostesibly experienced in his job, apparently doesn't feel (again, EXPERIENCED and QUALIFIED to make that kind of determination) that there is enough evidence to press this any further.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
well i dont have to deal with memorizing laws on a day-to-day basis, so I dont really know what sufficient proof is.
The burden for a conviction at trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So, if the defense can discredit or raise SOME doubt with the state's case, the burden may not be met.

I would think that based on the physical injuries I had, that that in itself is enough evidence.
Not necessarily. The defense will raise the one doctor's statement that the blood was consistent with menstrual blood and not blood from ripping or tearing. Or, that the sex was consensual but got out of hand ... maybe they will claim you liked it rough but it came across as TOO rough. Rough doesn't prove rape, that only proves rough sex.

If you had a prior sexual relationship with the man, that would play into the equation as well.

Rape is not a crime of rough sex so much as coerced intercourse or the attempt at intercourse utilizing force or fear. The state will have to show the whole picture ... why was he in your home? How did everyone get their clothes off? What did you do to convey "No!" to him? Etc ... The state has to prove that the suspect knew or reasonably should have known that you did not want to engage in sex

otherwise, again, any man could say that the woman "wanted it" and it was "rough, consensual" sex. men have been saying these things for years, but that doesnt mean people believe them.
Many rape cases include other evidence as well. Trauma to the vaginal region is but one piece of evidence, but, by itself, it still does not show that force or fear was utilized to attempt or complete the act.

The DA knows this, and its his job to decide if a jury is going to find the defendant guilty or not. Im sure that based on my injuries, most jurors would say that it was not consensual sex. i think this is common sense. the jurors would look at the pictures and think, if i was in MY right mind I would never want the injuries that this woman suffered to be inflicted on ME during consensual sex. I think thats enough evidence.
I have been through more than a few investigations and trials for forcible rape. One recent case involved a great deal of blood - so much that we thought the victim had been gravely injured, which was not the case. It turns out there may have been a history of rough sexual relation between the two parties, and that played out big in the evaluation as to whether or not to pursue criminal charges.

Like I said, you can go over this particular prosecutor's head and see what his boss has to say, or you can engage an attorney and sue the suspect in civil court ... or, both!
 

not2cleverRed

Obvious Observer
Please consider the advice of previous posters.

Go the civil route.

Yes, you've been through a lot. But if the DA doesn't want to file, then there's probably a reason. Limited resources means they only want to try cases they think they have a strong chance of winning.

The only way to get the book thrown at this guy, is for the DA to find other women with similar allegations. It's unlikely you're the 1st or last one...

There are loads of cases in CA that are stronger than yours that the state LOSES.

Example:
(1) Some high school students visiting a university break off from a tour group to scope out action in the dorms. A petite woman opens her door and alleges that 3 of these boys then raped her. Verdict: Not guilty. Jurors questioned whether there was lack of consent because she turned in her term paper before reporting it. (Los Angeles County)

(2) Some high school aged boys have a female friend over, get her drunk. She alleges she was unconscious, they allege she was conscious, the tapes of the sex was studied by the jury. Verdict: Not guilty. Jurors thought maybe she twitched, not involuntarily. Past statements by alleged victim that she wanted to be a porn star were taken into account. (Orange County)

Both of these cases have physical evidence that is far stronger than yours. In the right (or wrong) hands, anything can be twisted. Striking in the latter case was the states dependence on CA law which explicitly requires that one must be conscious in order to consent. (At least that's how it was explained in the media.) Merely impaired does not rise to that level. Being drunk to the point that you have a black out would not rise to the level, unless you were actually passed out during the act, and there was proof of that.

Please contact you local rape crisis center and get some counseling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top