[Online exclusive] Charges dismissed in rape trial; one defendant faces retrial

Individual charges of rape and forced oral sex were dismissed
for two of the three men accused of raping a UCLA student in 2002,
a judge ruled Monday. The third defendant will be retried on the
same charges, the court also determined.

Attorneys representing Chuwan Anthony, Jamar Dawson and DeShawn
Stringer, along with prosecution lawyers, returned to court Monday
to settle individual charges against each defendant. In a trial
against the three men last month, jurors were deadlocked on
individual charges of forced rape and forced oral copulation. At
the same time, the defendants were found not guilty on charges of
collectively contributing to forced rape, oral sex and
burglary.

Only Stringer will be retried on one count of forcible rape and
forcible oral copulation, said Jane Robison, a spokeswoman for the
Los Angeles County District Attorney. If found guilty, Stringer
faces a maximum 16 years in prison, Robison also said. The new
trial date for Stringer is scheduled for July 13.

Stringer was also scheduled Monday to be sentenced for one count
of sexual battery for which he was convicted last month. But the
sentencing was postponed also until July 13, Robison said.

The deadlocked verdict against Stringer had been the closest of
the three in the previous trial, with jurors split 6-6 on his
charge of forced rape and 7-5 on that of forced oral sex. Seven
jurors had found Stringer guilty on the latter charge.

The jury vote on individual charges against the other two
defendants had been more one-sided, with 11 votes not guilty to one
vote guilty on Dawson and Anthony’s charges of forced rape
and oral sex.

Anthony’s attorney, Eugene Matthews, said both he and his
client were pleased with the ruling. When asked his reaction to the
court ruling later in the day Monday, Matthews ““ who had
previously told the Daily Bruin he expected the outcome ““
cheered over the phone.

“The judge and the prosecutor were both wise “¦ in
granting a motion to dismiss (charges) with regards to Anthony and
Dawson,” he said, adding that his client is pleased he will
now have the opportunity to continue with his college
education.

During the trial last month, the prosecution had accused the
three men of entering the dorm room of the UCLA student ““ who
the court referred to as “Jane Doe” in order to protect
her identity ““ on Dec. 5, 2002 and forced her to have sex
with them.

The defense had maintained the sex had been consensual.

The three defendants, students of Carson High School at the
time, were visiting UCLA on a field trip. They separated from the
larger group and proceeded into the dorm rooms in De Neve
Plaza.

After having visited several rooms, the three men entered the
student’s room in the Fir building. Stringer had sex with the
woman while the other two defendants were not in the room. After
Stringer left, Dawson and Anthony had sex and performed oral
copulation with the woman ““ sometimes concurrently.

The woman had testified during last month’s trial that she
had said “no” to Stringer, but had not said
“no” or fought back during the encounter with Dawson
and Anthony.

Defense attorneys maintained that their clients could have had
no indication of the woman’s resistance if she did not say
“no.” But the prosecution had attributed the
woman’s actions to “frozen fright.”

Prosecuting attorney Alyson Messenger had said during the
closing arguments that it was ridiculous to believe a woman would
have unprotected sex with three men whom she knew for less than 10
minutes.

After the May 27 verdict, several UCLA students and community
residents expressed their support for the woman through buttons,
petitions and Internet forums.

Matthews said though he believes justice was served in
Monday’s ruling, he still feels sympathy for the woman

It was an “emotionally difficult case for me,”
Matthews said. “Based upon the (alleged) victim’s own
testimony, my client is not guilty of rape “¦ but something
questionable went on in that room.”

Matthews explained that as a father, he would not want his
daughter in “Jane Doe’s” position.

“As an attorney, it was a difficult victory,” he
said.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *