There are few crimes that evoke the degree of anguish in a trial witness than rape, where the victim, assuming the witness to have indeed been a victim, must relive the experience with the eyes of the accused upon her. This was how the “victim” felt as she was questioned by the prosecutor, according to the Seattle Post Intelligencer.
[Senior Deputy Prosecutor Julie] Kays gently questioned the woman about that night, subtly blocking [defendant Sankarandi] Skanda’s line of sight to the witness box. Skanda was left to shift in his seat, trying to reacquire a view of his alleged victim.
But there is no trial more susceptible to wrongful conviction than the single eyewitness sexual assault, Whether due to fabricated accusations or mistaken identification, rapes are particularly suspect. But the efforts of the prosecutrix to block the defendant from being able to look into the eyes of his accuser were pointless.
Skanda, whose name was Frank Antill until he converted to Hinduism while serving a stretch in Idaho for a “similar assault,” was going to get his chance to look his accuser square in the face. He was pro se.
A self-described “religious doctor” who was attempting to found an Ecstasy-fueled “Temple of Love” when he was arrested, Skanda, 36, contends he and the woman had a long-running affair and had been propositioned by her to kill her husband. Three weeks into his trial, Skanda has offered scant evidence to support his claim, which prosecutors contend is entirely baseless.
Not surprisingly, the religious use of ecstasy does not tend to enhance one’s advocacy skills. It apparently didn’t do much for Skanda.
When given an opportunity to question his alleged victim, Skanda quickly violated pre-trial orders against raising certain unsupported allegations against the woman and her husband. Skanda had previously violated those restrictions in opening statements, but — to the consternation of prosecutors — had not received a contempt citation from King County Superior Court Judge Douglass A. North.
The limitations on the Skanda’s questioning are curious, given that they are characterized as “unsupported allegations.” As Skanda was the source of the allegations, and by his own accord the witness to his claims, they are every bit as supported as the allegations against him. Nutsy crazy, perhaps, but still supported. And if this fellow was sane enough to stand trial, and sane enough to represent himself, then why would his allegations be so unworthy of credit as to deny him his right to present his defense?
The prosecutrix was not amused by Skanda’s questioning of the victim, as one might well expect. If one believed the victim, as Julie Kays obviously did, then this trial was an outrage.
While it’s difficult not to feel for the witness, forced to take questions that impugn her credibility, dignity and sexual conduct, assuming that she was in fact raped at knife point by Skanda, this ugly and painful scene is precisely what’s demanded of a trial. Indeed, as long as they prosecution seeks to convict, and the defendant is deemed psychologically convictable, it would appear that the limitations placed by the judge on the pro se defendant are unjustifiable. He’s entitled to defend himself, and if he, as a person with actual knowledge, says it’s so, then he has a good faith basis to pursue a defense that involves attacking the purported victim based upon his rather bizarre claims.
Does it all sound too ridiculous and outrageous? Perhaps, but that’s the price of having a trial. Due process isn’t limited to situations where everybody feels happy and comfortable.
The limitations on the Skanda’s questioning are curious, given that they are characterized as “unsupported allegations.” As Skanda was the source of the allegations, and by his own accord the witness to his claims, they are every bit as supported as the allegations against him. Nutsy crazy, perhaps, but still supported. And if this fellow was sane enough to stand trial, and sane enough to represent himself, then why would his allegations be so unworthy of credit as to deny him his right to present his defense?
The prosecutrix was not amused by Skanda’s questioning of the victim, as one might well expect. If one believed the victim, as Julie Kays obviously did, then this trial was an outrage.
“This is the most offensive line of questioning I’ve heard in 10 years of practice,” said Kays, struggling to contain her disdain for Skanda and apparent anger over his failure to abide by North’s earlier orders.While it may well be that having a rapist question a victim constitutes “terrorizing this woman,” the defendant was hardly thumbing his nose at the process. As unseemly as it may be to the prosecutrix, the defendant has both the right to confront witnesses against him and the right to represent himself. That is the process.
“This is a court of law, not a court of terror for him, and I can’t help but believe he is getting off on terrorizing this woman again,” she added. “He is thumbing his nose at this process and he’s using it to terrorize this woman.”
While it’s difficult not to feel for the witness, forced to take questions that impugn her credibility, dignity and sexual conduct, assuming that she was in fact raped at knife point by Skanda, this ugly and painful scene is precisely what’s demanded of a trial. Indeed, as long as they prosecution seeks to convict, and the defendant is deemed psychologically convictable, it would appear that the limitations placed by the judge on the pro se defendant are unjustifiable. He’s entitled to defend himself, and if he, as a person with actual knowledge, says it’s so, then he has a good faith basis to pursue a defense that involves attacking the purported victim based upon his rather bizarre claims.
Does it all sound too ridiculous and outrageous? Perhaps, but that’s the price of having a trial. Due process isn’t limited to situations where everybody feels happy and comfortable.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Of course the prosecutor was outraged that anyone, much less the accused, would have the audacity to question the veracity of the alleged victim’s claims. I would also wager that our prosecutor friend has never given a second thought to the harm that false allegations cause to the accused and his or her family and loved ones.