HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017346.jpg
977 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Manuscript draft / legal analysis
File Size:
977 KB
Summary
This document appears to be a page (259) from a manuscript draft dated April 2, 2012. It discusses legal ethics and the 'no free lunch' doctrine regarding the defense of sexual crime suspects. The text analyzes a specific instance where a 'feminist lawyer' successfully argued an appeal for a defendant, prioritizing her duty to the client over the broader cause of women's rights, despite acknowledging the victory was a 'step back for women' regarding the privacy of victim counseling records.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Unnamed Feminist Lawyer | Defense Attorney/Appellant |
Successfully argued an appeal for a defendant but had mixed feelings about the impact on women's rights.
|
| Unnamed Defendant | Client |
Client of the feminist lawyer; beneficiary of the appeal victory.
|
| Victims of sexual crimes | General Group |
Discussed in the context of legal protections and impeachment via counseling records.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| House Oversight Committee |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017346'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (1)
The feminist lawyer
→
Attorney-Client
→
The defendant
her responsibility in this case was to this defendant
Key Quotes (4)
"Because victims of sexual crimes are likely to suffer a ‘depth and range of emotion and psychological disturbance...not felt by the victims felt by most other crimes’ we remind lawyers and judges that the mere fact that such victims sought counseling may not be used for impeachment purposes."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017346.jpg
Quote #1
"she 'had hurt the cause,' and that her victory for her client was 'a step back for women.'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017346.jpg
Quote #2
"But she understood that her responsibility in this case was to this defendant, rather than to future rape victims who she cared deeply about but who were not her clients."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017346.jpg
Quote #3
"This is another example of the 'no free lunch' doctrine, in which doubts were resolved in favor of defendants and against the victims of rape."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017346.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,129 characters)
4.2.12
WC: 191694
WC: 191694
“Because victims of sexual crimes are likely to suffer a ‘depth and range of emotion and psychological disturbance...not felt by the victims felt by most other crimes’ we remind lawyers and judges that the mere fact that such victims sought counseling may not be used for impeachment purposes.”
Notwithstanding this warning, it seems quite likely that at least some rape victims would decline to press charges if they knew that their treatment records could be rummaged through by defense lawyers eager to discredit them.
The feminist lawyer, who successfully argued the appeal, had mixed feelings about the results, acknowledging that she “had hurt the cause,” and that her victory for her client was “a step back for women.” But she understood that her responsibility in this case was to this defendant, rather than to future rape victims who she cared deeply about but who were not her clients. She did her job, and she did it well.
This is another example of the “no free lunch” doctrine, in which doubts were resolved in favor of defendants and against the victims of rape.
259
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017346
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document