Are men or women preferred as jurors in sex crimes cases?

First of all, I am sure my many readers (sarcasm) have probably been missing my blog entries. Well, today after bar review class I sat down to eat my lunch at home and as I was flipping through the channels on TV, I stumbled upon the documentary Sex Crimes Unit on HBO. It was very interesting and I highly recommend it! It is a documentary about the New York City Sex Crimes Unit that prosecutes sex crimes. It referenced a number of legal issues that I have been studying during bar review so I was inspired to add another blog entry and also promote this documentary.

One legal issue raised, which is the subject of this entry, was the conversation by some of the prosecutors that male jurors tend to be more empathetic to victims of sex crimes than female jurors. As such it would seem ideal for prosecutors of sex crimes to eliminate as many female jurors during jury selection through the use of "peremptory challenges" (i.e., each side is allowed a number of these challenges to remove any jurors without having to state reasons why they wish to eliminate that particular juror.). However, under the rules of Criminal Procedure these challenges cannot be used to exclude a juror on the basis of that juror's race or gender. As such, these challenges couldn't be used to eliminate as many female jurors as possible. I am not suggesting that the prosecutors in the film are violating this concept.

Another interesting point in the documentary was when one of the prosecutors was recalling an instance where a defense attorney asked a victim of a sex crime on the witness stand whether she was a virgin at the time of the rape. Wow! That defense attorney most have forgotten the rules of Evidence related to sexual assault cases, specifically the rules known as "Rape Shield" laws. In such instances, a victim's prior sexual conduct is inadmissible at trial. The only exceptions to this prohibition are: (1) to inquire about the Victim's past sexual activity (if any) with the Defendant but only if the Defendant is arguing that the sexual activity was consensual, or (2) the Victim's sexual activity with others but only to prove that those "others" may be the source of the physical evidence related to this case (i.e., injuries, semen, etc.) instead of the Defendant.

For purposes of the New York bar exam there is also an interesting peculiarity where a victim's sexual activity can be introduced. If a Victim has been arrested within the past 3 years for prostitution this is admissible. This was an aspect referenced in the documentary as well. One of the cases featured in the documentary was People v. Kevin Rios. That case involved a victim raped at gunpoint. That victim was also a prostitute. The prosecution addressed this matter head on in the opening statement. As such, the defense could then freely discuss this fact whether or not this particular victim had been arrested for prostitution in the past 3 years or not. However, I am wondering if it would have inevitably come up during the trial because it was the manner in which the Defendant and Victim met (i.e., he had picked up the Victim seeking her services but then decided to take by force as opposed to paying). My limited bar review outline does not address this particular peculiarity.

Alright, I better get back to my studies, but definitely check out this film if you get a chance.