[Epiph]

A girl was dancing a Girl's Gone Wild party, was asked to show her tits, declined, and had her shirt pulled down. Years later, she found out she was on a GGW video and sued. The jury ruled that just being there was implied consent.

Quote

Mo. woman loses lawsuit over 'Girls Gone Wild’ video

ST. LOUIS -- A jury on Thursday rejected a young woman's claim that the producers of a "Girls Gone Wild" video damaged her reputation by showing her tank top being pulled down by another person in a Laclede's Landing bar.

A St. Louis Circuit Court jury deliberated 90 minutes before ruling against the woman, 26, on the third day of the trial. Lawyers on both sides argued the key issue was consent, with her side saying she absolutely refused to give it and the defense claiming she silently approved by taking part in the party.

The woman, identified in court files as Jane Doe, was 20 when she went to the former Rum Jungle bar in May 2004 and was filmed by a "Girls Gone Wild" video photographer. Now married, the mother of two girls and living in the St. Charles area, Doe sued in 2008 after a friend of her husband's reported that she was in one of the videos.

"I am stunned that this company can get away with this," Doe said after the verdict. "Justice has not been served. I just don't understand. I gave no consent."

But Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, told a reporter later that an 11-member majority decided that Doe had in effect consented by being in the bar and dancing for the photographer. In a trial such as this one, agreement by nine of 12 jurors is enough for a verdict.

"Through her actions, she gave implied consent," O'Brien said. "She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."

Told of that reasoning, the tearful woman said, "I was having fun until my top was pulled off. And now this thing is out there for the world to see forever."

David A. Dalton II of St. Peters, lawyer for the defendants, said, "The jury listened to the evidence and made the right decision." Dalton said he knew before the trial began that the general reputation of "Girls Gone Wild" videos presented him with a challenge.

Crews that produce them travel to taverns, beaches and other tourist spots and publicly encourage young women to disrobe. The videos include other sexually charged episodes.

The woman's lawyers had asked for about $5 million, including the $1.5 million they estimated the company has made on the video in question, called "Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy."

Stephen Evans of St. Louis, her lawyer, argued Thursday that Doe never gave consent — and even could be heard in original footage saying "no" when asked to show her breasts shortly before another woman suddenly pulled Doe's top down. Evans said the company usually gets women to sign consent forms or give verbal consent with cameras rolling.

"Other girls said it was OK. Not one other one said, 'No, no,'" Evans said. "She is entitled to go out with friends and have a good time and not have her top pulled down and get that in a video."

Doe filed suit against MRA Holding LLC and Mantra Films Inc. of Tulsa, Okla. No executives testified.

Just had to share my misanthropic disgust.

[Tapper]

Odd, cause consent to be taped while getting undressed by someone else can't be given implicitly, imho.
I also think that if it had been a guy pulling her top up, the world would have been turned upside down.

Then again... sueing for $5 million?? That is also a bit over the top... (pun intentional).

[Epiph]

Yeah, that's a lot of money. Some people around the internets have made some comments that the real person to go after would have been the person who pulled her top down, as that was the assault, and she didn't, which I suppose is fair, but I doubt that would have occurred to a 20 year old girl at a GGW party, and now, how do you find that person to sue them?

[Primateus]

In my opinion there is no such thing as "implied consent" It is either consent or not! There is no middle ground. She either consented, or she did not. And if she did not no amount of dancing will change that.

This is a small step away from justifying rape because the woman was wearing revealing clothes.

I'm gonna crawl back into my corner now.

[HoosierDaddy]

Interesting.

I was under the impression that consent had to be signed in a form, both to prove they are of legal age and to use their pictures in their movies.

Implied consent is a term of art; one that is necessary for the law to function in the shades of gray that the world is colored in. However, if in fact, she did say "no" and could be heard saying "no" on the video, hadn't signed a consent form or anything like this, well I'm somewhat confused.

Would love to know the composition of the jury and the facts surrounding the party itself and what else was taking place during the party (was she drunk?), the answer to these questions could be found there.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 02 August 2010 - 07:26 PM

[amphibian]

Usually what a production crew for a tv show/movie will do when they're filming in a bar is to have everyone sign a consent form when they walk in. If she signed it and walked in, she can still revoke that by saying "No." and attempting to leave. This article obviously doesn't give H.D. (the lawyer) or me (the almost-lawyer) enough facts to figure out what exactly happened.

[RodeoRanch]

I keep having this image of amphibian and H.D. bumping fists and shouting "Form of Almost-Super Lawyer!"
I need to cut back on the booze.

In other news, Joe Francis, the founder of "Girls Gone Wild" is a real shit-ball.

[worry]

I see no difference here between filming and marketing a rape. The jury's decision seems to be based on the "she was asking for it" reasoning, as the foreman states outright "Through her actions, she gave implied consent," O'Brien said. "She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing." In other words, the jury is attempting to use an unfamiliar legal "term of art" to justify a verdict based on social mores. I make this claim because attending an event where there will be nudity is not the same as consenting to be nude, so the jury simply cannot understand the concept of consent and still explain their verdict in this way.

[HoosierDaddy]

It has the smell of juror sexism, I'd agree. It's why I'm curious as to the composition of the jury. However, while those quotes point to this possibility, we can't really know without having seen the video or heard the facts whether those quotes are out of context when considering the rest of the evidence presented.

As to whether or not the damages sought were appropriate, you shoot for the stars if you are going to sue. I imagine if settlement negotiations occurred, and i see no reason why they wouldn't, the number being discussed was far short of the $5,000,000. Any juror with common sense nowadays would have to know that the damages being sought aren't necessarily the damages they have to award to a plaintiff.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 02 August 2010 - 09:15 PM

[worry]

Well, you're right about the details being important, but I'm not sure anyone in the case is disputing the basic series of events: she attended a GGW event, she danced in front of the camera, perhaps even seductively, she refused to show any nudity, and subsequent to that an unfamiliar assailant forced her to bare her breasts. The top of the article does say: "Lawyers on both sides argued the key issue was consent, with her side saying she absolutely refused to give it and the defense claiming she silently approved by taking part in the party." If those were the lawyers' arguments, and I see no reason not to take the jury foreman at his word on their reasoning either, I'm not sure how further context would change things in terms of her consent. Well, actually I do understand why you would prefer further scrutiny of the evidence before making up your mind, and perhaps you're right, but I don't think it likely that there's anything different beneath face value. Nobody is arguing that she gave consent at the time and now regrets it as she gets older, they are saying she provided "silent consent" to essentially a free-for-all. She declined to be nude, and somebody else forced her to be nude. If that wasn't apparent on camera (I haven't seen the video either) I think it likely that GGW's lawyer would dispute the account of events and not simply the consent issue.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 02 August 2010 - 09:38 PM

[Shinrei]

H.D., on 02 August 2010 - 09:12 PM, said:

It has the smell of juror sexism, I'd agree. It's why I'm curious as to the composition of the jury. However, while those quotes point to this possibility, we can't really know without having seen the video or heard the facts whether those quotes are out of context when considering the rest of the evidence presented.

Translation: "I must do some in depth research which will involve watching as many Girl Gone Wild videos as possible, exploring every detail, in order to understand what is going on."

[HoosierDaddy]

You are free to draw forth your own conclusions from the material that you have. I think there is a possibility that we aren't hearing the entire story, and am unwilling to trust a single news article that quotes only one juror for their reasoning, to put the entire case in context.

Does the jury foreman sound like an ass? Yes. He sounds sexist, and that colors the entire article with the smell of sexism. If you are willing to judge the entire case on this article, it is hard to argue against any more context being necessary as to whether this was unjust. Perhaps I am simply projecting my hope that 9 scumbag sexists didn't simply think, "she was asking for it," and were willing to throw aside the facts of the case so simply, in my reasoning.

Simply put, if this were a jury of 8 women and 4 men, I think that might start to raise more interesting questions as to whether this was simply sexism run amok. If it was 9 men and 3 women, and the vote was 9 to 3 in respective order, I'd think it'd lend credence in a different way.

Does the fact that the reporter state that the "key issue" was consent, implying there were other issues, and then only go on to talk about consent raise an eyebrow? Yes it does.

I also don't like the fact that the jury foreman is the only one quoted. Is that because the other juror's declined to talk or because the journalist is angling for a certain position? I don't know. More information on the case could make ths irrelevant.

Further, the judge could have provided shoddy instructions, and she wins through appeal.

I don't know any of these things, and I won't until I've read far more about the case. I guess I just immediately have more questions about the entire thing than you do, and am thus much less inclined to label the jury as patently sexist by justifying "marketed rape" with their decision.

Edit @Shin: You want to be my research assistant?

This post has been edited by H.D.: 02 August 2010 - 10:04 PM

[worry]

I found an article with a little more information, in terms someone who describes the events in the video. Not sure it changes my mind, but it's food for thought: http://blogs.riverfr...and_jezebel.php

This post has been edited by worrywort: 02 August 2010 - 10:26 PM

[Shinrei]

@HD

I'm a little suspicious as to what I'm supposed to be "assisting" with...

[Cold Iron]

Don't be shocked if women are just as likely or more to make the claim that she was asking for it. That she went to a GGW party would immediately make her a 'slut' in the eyes of many women I know.

She could have done more at the time to prevent the tape from circulating, that she didn't lends weight to the implied consent case. I'm sure the case was put that the fact that she's now changed her mind does not revoke the consent she implied at the time.

It would certainly be telling if she continued to dance without a top on or immediately covered up.

As far as I'm concerned the social stigma that has caused her to regret her actions needs to be changed, nudity is not something to be ashamed of, the law obviously needs to protect people but it shouldn't encourage shame.

EDIT: Not my best post but I believe this was where I clocked over into the 2000 club. Been a long time coming. Yay me.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 04 August 2010 - 10:58 PM

[amphibian]

The journalists who work at most newspapers are really bad at picking out the actual legal reasons for why cases have the results that they do. They're more interested in constructing a small narrative that sort of gives an idea of what the thing was takes up space than explaining what actually happened. I'm fully convinced that this particular article leaves out an enormous chunk of the decision-making process in service of that interest.

The article Worrywort linked to has a bit more information on the recorded video, but has zero input as to what happened in the courtroom, how the lawyers argued, what they seized upon as bones of contention or what swayed the jury.

[HoosierDaddy]

The comments are interesting at both sites.

Let me elaborate. They seem to break down into three sections:

(1) People immediately rushing to the woman's defense, without knowing the facts or having seen the video;
(2) People immediately saying her mere presence at a GGW event was implied consent, without knowing the facts or having seen the video;
(3) Other random comments

The problem is that 1 and 2 are rather black and white opinions. The jury room is about as gray as it gets. It is a morass of weighed and competing evidence, different legal interpretations being argued, common sense, and completely different personalities going in, that must then be agreed upon by at least 9 different people. It is never so easy as it seems from the outside.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 02 August 2010 - 11:11 PM

[Silencer]

H.D., on 02 August 2010 - 09:12 PM, said:

It has the smell of juror sexism, I'd agree. It's why I'm curious as to the composition of the jury. However, while those quotes point to this possibility, we can't really know without having seen the video or heard the facts whether those quotes are out of context when considering the rest of the evidence presented.

As to whether or not the damages sought were appropriate, you shoot for the stars if you are going to sue. I imagine if settlement negotiations occurred, and i see no reason why they wouldn't, the number being discussed was far short of the $5,000,000. Any juror with common sense nowadays would have to know that the damages being sought aren't necessarily the damages they have to award to a plaintiff.

You think jurors have common sense by default? D:

H.D., on 02 August 2010 - 10:03 PM, said:

You are free to draw forth your own conclusions from the material that you have. I think there is a possibility that we aren't hearing the entire story, and am unwilling to trust a single news article that quotes only one juror for their reasoning, to put the entire case in context.

Does the jury foreman sound like an ass? Yes. He sounds sexist, and that colors the entire article with the smell of sexism. If you are willing to judge the entire case on this article, it is hard to argue against any more context being necessary as to whether this was unjust. Perhaps I am simply projecting my hope that 9 scumbag sexists didn't simply think, "she was asking for it," and were willing to throw aside the facts of the case so simply, in my reasoning.

Simply put, if this were a jury of 8 women and 4 men, I think that might start to raise more interesting questions as to whether this was simply sexism run amok. If it was 9 men and 3 women, and the vote was 9 to 3 in respective order, I'd think it'd lend credence in a different way.

Does the fact that the reporter state that the "key issue" was consent, implying there were other issues, and then only go on to talk about consent raise an eyebrow? Yes it does.

I also don't like the fact that the jury foreman is the only one quoted. Is that because the other juror's declined to talk or because the journalist is angling for a certain position? I don't know. More information on the case could make ths irrelevant.

Further, the judge could have provided shoddy instructions, and she wins through appeal.

I don't know any of these things, and I won't until I've read far more about the case. I guess I just immediately have more questions about the entire thing than you do, and am thus much less inclined to label the jury as patently sexist by justifying "marketed rape" with their decision.

Edit @Shin: You want to be my research assistant?

Wouldn't the lawyer be able to object to the constitution of the jury if there was an imbalance in terms of gender?

However, my personal take on this whole issue is a bit different to 'did she or didn't she' - it stems more from the ridiculous trend we seem to be getting of people pursuing legal action "years later". Not so extreme in this case, it's six years or so, but perhaps the most notable one for me was down here in NZ, where a woman sued a police officer(s) for rape almost two decades after the event. OK, 'social pressure' or 'shame' or some such rubbish prevented her from doing it earlier, but to then bring it back up, almost TWENTY YEARS on, where there is no chance of forensic evidence, memories make details foggy and accounts inconsistent by the very nature of the brain...it's either vindictive, bullshit, or quite simply unfair.
I'm not saying that, if the woman was raped, that was at all fair - it probably ruined her life - but to bring it back up that far on? Even ten years, five years, whatever...especially because it leaves open the possibility that you just changed your mind. It's terrible, imo, that someone can just suddenly up and demand compensation for something that may or may not have happened with little chance of supporting evidence, what basically turns into a 'he said she said' battle, after such a long time.

Someone posted further up about a twenty-something chick not thinking of suing the guy who pulled her top off...but that's exactly what the problem is, imo, if she was just in it for 'justice', she would, if she's in it for compensation, for money, and so forth, then she ain't going to get that much out of the one guy unless he happens to be rich somehow.

That being said, I agree we just honestly don't know enough to draw anything out of it. 'Trial by media' is becoming increasingly common, to the point where some retrials and such are incredibly subject to preformed opinions, and it's something that probably should get stamped out ASAP...

[HoosierDaddy]

Quick set up: Jury rosters are randomly chosen from public rolls, usually voter and drivers license lists. They are randomly assigned a number. This is the sum total of the jury pool for this case. They fill the jury box up to the limit, and seat the rest in the viewing area. I had duty a couple weeks ago, I was prospect #5 of 40 (39 showed), was therefore seated with the top 15 (the guy missing was #3), and was empaneled. Three people in front of and behind me were challenged, such that juror's 1-11 were the panel of jurors.

There are two ways of getting rid of possible jurors during voir dire. After having been sworn in and questioned by the judge and both attorneys, each party is allowed a certain amount of peremptory challenges. Meaning, they have to give no reason to the judge or the other attorney as to their reason for striking the juror from the panel. The other challenge is a challenge for cause, meaning you must give a valid reason as to why you believe the person is not fit for jury duty.

Peremptory challenges that are in the eyes of the law used to dilute a jury pool of a certain race or gender can be cause for appeal and overturning a decision for remand. This is post-trial though, and would have had to have been objected to at the time of the use of peremptory challenges being used to whittle out a race or gender from the pool.

That would be fairly hard to prove here, where women outnumbered men on the panel.

Outside of this, a situation where a completely random generation of names and a subsequent generation of numerical order for the possible jury, the only thing I can think up that would indicate an unconstitutional empaneling of a jury would be a case of a jury that does not have the numbers requisite to empanel a jury, such that the court clerk has to order the law to go out and grab random citizens. If it could be shown that the law enforcement officers who obtained the jurors were purposefully attempting to influence the juries decision through their choices, a case could be made. I'd have to stress how rare that would be though.

Frankly, if you believe the random selection from a jury pool is likely to result in a group that is not in your interests, you argue for a change in venue before a jury pool is every collected. Otherwise, you are stuck with what you got.

Edit @common sense: Also, I think you'd be surprised at jury dynamics and knowledge. Usually, people with stronger opinions who can back those opinions up with more evidence generally collect the undecided along the way. The jurors without common senses will roll along with the rest of group. For the most part. Hung-juries do happen, but they are rare because of that snowball effect.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 03 August 2010 - 02:43 AM

[amphibian]

Silencer, on 03 August 2010 - 02:14 AM, said:

Wouldn't the lawyer be able to object to the constitution of the jury if there was an imbalance in terms of gender?

Each side has a certain amount of strikes. What that means is that when evaluating potential jurors, a side can object to a limited amount of people (three, four or whatever the jurisdiction area regulations say) before the jury is finalized. Those are intended to be used strategically, but strange things do happen when a juror either performs counter to expectations or gets by the lawyer's "juror/verdict detectors".

Quote

However, my personal take on this whole issue is a bit different to 'did she or didn't she' - it stems more from the ridiculous trend we seem to be getting of people pursuing legal action "years later". Not so extreme in this case, it's six years or so, but perhaps the most notable one for me was down here in NZ, where a woman sued a police officer(s) for rape almost two decades after the event. OK, 'social pressure' or 'shame' or some such rubbish prevented her from doing it earlier, but to then bring it back up, almost TWENTY YEARS on, where there is no chance of forensic evidence, memories make details foggy and accounts inconsistent by the very nature of the brain...it's either vindictive, bullshit, or quite simply unfair.
I'm not saying that, if the woman was raped, that was at all fair - it probably ruined her life - but to bring it back up that far on? Even ten years, five years, whatever...especially because it leaves open the possibility that you just changed your mind. It's terrible, imo, that someone can just suddenly up and demand compensation for something that may or may not have happened with little chance of supporting evidence, what basically turns into a 'he said she said' battle, after such a long time.

Forensic evidence can be turned up in decades old evidence. Several exonerations and new convictions have resulted from finding DNA evidence in old, old cases.

Furthermore, it sometimes takes years to gather the evidence to build an actionable case. Imagine going through all of Madoff's paperwork, putting together the framework for Brown v. Board of Education or figuring out the morass of federal, state and local regulations for something like an environmental action against BP for "letting the oil well rupture". There's a discovery process that takes time, there's a scheduling process that takes time and there's all kinds of other things that require time and man-hours to complete. That's why some cases take years to arrive at a resolution. Sometimes a case can take five years and be settled five minutes before they walk into court for the first time. Sometimes a case can get appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Death penalty cases usually take a long while to finally arrive at a resolution.

The arc of justice is long, but it generally grinds towards the truth. Except when it doesn't, but that's a topic for another time.