by Abigail Soler
On the morning of February 16, the Lang Her retrial resumed. The defense attorney opened with cross-examination of the alleged victim, and concluded at 11:30 am. The prosecution’s next witness, Dr. Patrick, was called as an expert witness.
The Lang Her case went to trial in 2014, where the jury hung. The alleged victim and defendant are former UC Davis students. The alleged rape took place at a party on July 9, 2012, while the two were under the influence of alcohol.
The alleged victim’s testimony lasted over three hours last Thursday. Today the testimony concluded after both the defense and prosecution had a chance for cross-examination and re-direct examination.
Many of the defense’s questions were either unrecalled by the witness, or prompted her to request clarification. Defense Attorney Christopher Carlos repeatedly tried to get the alleged victim to admit that the allegation is false. Each time, the witness denied his claim.
The witness repeated the word “rape,” and “I was raped,” multiple times throughout her testimony. Carlos claimed that she wanted everyone to know that she “had been raped.” Again, the witness denied that.
Much of Carlos’ questioning aimed to show inconsistency in the alleged victim’s numerous statements with different law enforcement individuals, attorneys, and her previous testimony. Carlos also appeared to allude that she liked the positive support and attention which followed her claim.
The witness used the phrase, “I do not recall,” frequently. Her justification for not remembering was due to the amount of time that has passed since the alleged rape.
The defense began asking the witness detailed questions about her understanding of the Hmong culture, in which both the defendant’s and the witness’ families are very established.
Carlos explained that Lang Her’s family was engaging in a traditional “civil compromise,” which is very common among the Hmong culture. He went further to use the civil compromise as justification for Lang Her’s parents’ attempt to change the witness’ family’s decision of pressing charges.
The witness’ behavior was resistant during cross-examination. Alternatively, during the prosecutor’s questioning, her tone was low and scared-sounding. There were multiple times throughout the testimony where the alleged victim cried, most commonly when discussing her feelings towards the defendant and the alleged rape.
The expert witness, Dr. Patrick, was called to the stand by the prosecution. The testimony opened with the deputy district attorney asking her to explain her job history and training.
She is currently a nurse practitioner, but previously worked at the B.E.A.R. (Bridging Evidence Assessment & Resources) Center. At the center, she performed more than 300 evidentiary exams on patients regarding sexual assault claims and cases. She testified that her job was to perform the S.A.F.E. (Sexual Assault Forensic Examination) exam, and to “advocate what evidence [was] found.”
The court went to morning recess 25 minutes into Dr. Patrick’s testimony.
Medical Examination Inconclusive
By Haroutun Bejanyan
On February 16, in the Lang Her trial, the prosecution called as a witness Dr. Patrick, who had conducted a physical examination of the alleged victim three and one-half years ago.
During the examination, the alleged victim reported to Dr. Patrick that, on the night of the incident, she and some friends had been drinking at the defendant’s house. At some point in the night, she became intoxicated enough for her friends to put her to bed at the house.
However, when she eventually came to and regained her senses, she found that the defendant was on top of her. Dr. Patrick testified that the alleged victim reported penetration of the vagina, but was unsure about whether there was any penetration of the anus.
Upon an external physical examination, Dr. Patrick found no injuries to the body, face, or genitals. Dr. Patrick also swabbed the victim’s breasts, mouth, rectum, and vagina for any traces of DNA indicating sexual assault.
Although nothing of significance was found externally, an internal examination of the alleged victim’s anus revealed a minor case of petechia, a small red or purple spot caused by broken capillaries. The cause of the alleged victim’s petechia could not be determined.
I have been reading these articles, and don’t see any evidence that supports the notion that this woman was raped other than her statements, is that enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
“is that enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?”
I speak as a very strong advocate for women’s health, safety and wellness.
Without any evidence, including the lack of any substantiating medical evidence as presented in these articles, my response as a non lawyer is :
It should not be.
Wow, “Alleged Victim”? Thought this was a trial of the “alleged Rapist”?
How do you feel about that description, “alleged victim”?
If she is “alleged” this young woman sounds like the ones my dad warned me about…
We use the term alleged victim when we don’t know whether a crime occurred. So if a guy is beaten up, we know there is a victim. However, in this case, the point in question is whether a rape occurred, therefore, alleged victim.
Just saw this article for the first time and did a quick Google search and was wondering if this is a retrial? Saw articles from 2015 and wasn’t sure what the verdict was then. Thanks.
It was a hung jury, which is why it is being re-tried
“It was a hung jury, which is why it is being re-tried”
Which is a concept that I have a very hard time understanding. How many tries at the ring does the prosector get before having to give it up ? It doesn’t appear that after all this time new evidence is going to be found. Certainly the rape kit isn’t ever going to reveal any new information. Probably same for the bedroom. People’s memories are only going to deteriorate further as seems to be the case with the accuser according to the report of her testimony. Doubtful any new witnesses are likely to come forward. So just exactly what is to be gained here other than job security for the legal teams ?
Tia Will — Your comments here and elsewhere on this rape case have been consistently biased against the victim. Without providing any evidence, you seem readily comfortable making wild speculations and then jumping to even more wild conclusions based on nothing but those speculations. This is quite surprising and quite revealing to say the least, given your supposed background “as a very strong advocate for women’s health, safety and wellness” and as “a local obstetrician gynecologist with special interests in preventive medicine and public health and safety.”