Michael Weber wanted the jury to know that his daughter had sexual intercourse with her boyfriend and had undergone an abortion. He claimed that his daughter so feared what his reaction would be to finding this out that she fabricated a story of rape and sexual abuse at his hands. However, Mr. Weber's eagerness to reveal private details about his daughter's sexual experiences was stymied by Pennsylvania's Rape Shield Law.
The purpose of the Rape Shield Law is to "prevent a sexual assault trial from denigrating into an attack upon the victim's reputation for chastity" (see Commonwealth v. Johnsan, 638 A.2d 940, 942 (1994)). Evidence about the daughters abortion would normally be precluded by this law because it implied past sexual conduct. But Mr. Weber argued that his purpose for introducing the evidence was relevant to his defense of fabrication. The trial judge agreed to allow the inquiry into the daughter's abortion on the condition that Mr. Weber also provide evidence of his physical assaults on the girl that would have been sufficient to "engender a fabrication by the victim in an effort to prevent future assaults."
How would the father know her state of mind—unless he controlled it?
At trial, the daughter testified about the sexual and physical abuse she suffered at the hands of her father. She said that he would beat her for any reason and that the assaults continued after she moved into a college dorm. Her father, she said, forced her to return home on weekends and continued to beat her. The jury was shown photographs of bruises inflicted on a weekend beating.
Mr. Weber took the stand and testified that, except on rare occasions, he only verbally disciplined his daughter. He denied causing any of her bruises. His testimony was buttressed by that of his wife, grandmother and mother who told the jury that Mr. Weber and his child had a "typical father-daughter relationship" and that the girl had never shown fear of her father.
The trial judge then precluded Mr. Weber from inquiring into the girl's abortion on cross-examination referring to it during closing arguments. The defendant, he reasoned, was offering inconsistent defenses by claiming that he had never physically assaulted his daughter while also arguing that the girl was afraid of his reaction to news of her abortion and therefore fabricated charges of sexual abuse.
Mr. Weber was convicted of statutory rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and assault. He was sentenced to a prison term of 20-40 years. On appeal, he successfully argued that his attorney should have been allowed to inquire about his daughter's abortion and comment upon it during closing argument. The Superior Court ordered a new trial; holding that the jury was entitled to the opportunity to draw an inference that the victim fabricated the charges to avoid a beating from her father. The state of Pennsylvania appealed.
Holding: The jury verdict and sentence were reinstated. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by disallowing evidence about the victims abortion. The Court recognized that Mr. Weber bore the burden of establishing the admissibility and relevance of his daughter's abortion. By denying the foundation for his defense of bias or fabrication of the charges, Mr. Weber failed to show that the evidence was admissible.
| Ann Burgess, D.N.Sc. Psychiatric Nurse The Forensic Panel |
Dr. Burgess comments: This father attempted to raise a defense that purported to know what was in his daughter's mind. How would he know her state of mind—unless he controlled it? Power and control are at the root of all incest.
If the charges against this father were as true as the fact finders found them to be, this father's manipulation of his daughter was pervasive. He even threatened murder and suicide if she told of the sexual abuse.
I once treated a woman whose father repeatedly threatened to kill her and then himself. She finally began to question whether he really would kill himself after her. It is this questioning and independent thinking that marks a turnaround for the victim of incest. In some cases, it can take years.
The daughter in this matter alleged a 10-year relationship. The longest case I am aware of extended over a 24-year period. The woman was 32 years old and had given birth to two children that were the product of the abusive relationship. Change for her occurred when she reached the point when she planned to kill herself. She reasoned, "If I have enough control to kill myself, then I have the control to end the relationship."
What propelled this daughter to tell the authorities and end the abusive relationship? The precipitating event may have been leaving the family home for the independent experience of college—as her father forced her to come home on weekends and be subjected to more abuse. Her father may have acted the role of the spurned lover when she began to have relationships with men who were her own age. Her pregnancy may have triggered an explosive jealousy. These are all scenarios that may occur in such situations. What is clear is that someone, somewhere, gave the daughter the strength to come forward with her accusations. If we are to believe the father, it was not strength but fear of retaliation that propelled her charges.
We know that Rape Shield Laws assist victims in coming forward. Victims do ask if their prior sexual history will come into play and when they are reassured about the law there is an increased willingness to testify. Rape Shield Laws do have several exceptions, the most common being sexual activity with the defendant. However, there have been instances when even this testimony was excluded. The judge has the last word.
What we don't know is whether Rape Shield Laws have resulted in an increase in convictions. This remains an excellent area for further research.
