This is incredibly messed up.
I really cannot fathom what this man was thinking, but maybe one of you can shed some light on the matter.
Luis Munuzuri-Harris is currently on trial for sexual battery, aggravated assault and forced kidnapping. The prosecution claims that he posed as an undercover narcotics officer, pulled a woman over while she was driving, and proceeded to rape her. If convicted, he faces life in prison.
You’d think he’d want the best legal representation possible. But, in an odd move, Harris turned down legal representation and chose …
… to represent himself.
What he did next is absolutely beyond me. After deciding to represent himself, he proceeded to cross examine his alleged victim and ask her detailed questions about the night she was raped.
He apparently asked detailed questions of the woman, such as whether or not she was wearing underwear when she was attacked by “a person.” The woman is said to have endured his questioning and corrected him every time he referred to her rapist as “this person,” saying immediately that it was he who raped her.
It is being said that Harris’ plan was to make it appear as if it was someone else’s fault that the woman was raped, and when he realized that it was failing, he gave in and asked for legal counsel.
But I’m not so sure that this was his plan. Why? Well, the judge reprimanded him for “reading the deposition page by page until you can figure out what your next question is.” He paused for painful periods of time between questions, drawing out the cross examination far past the time – 2 full hours!- it would have gone on if a lawyer had been doing it for him. It appears to me that he was going out of his way to make his victim relive this undoubtable traumatizing experience.
Either way, this man’s decision to put a survivor of a sexual assault that he committed through a detailed recounting of the attack is disgusting and inappropriate. He is being retried due to what they’re calling a ‘alleged witness tampering,’ and one can only hope that he’s convicted of something that will put him behind bars.
Obviously he was hoping he could intimidate his victim into dropping the charges and failed miserably. Kudos to the defendant for having the personal strength to hang in there.
Um, you are surprised that a guy who would rape a woman is interested in then making her relive it? Of course it is disgusting and inappropriate. So was the rape!
Really, that’s not a bad tactic. Some people very likely might have trouble facing the rapist in court. Good for this victim for refusing to remain a victim.
Cut his nuts off.
Sounds like this man is just a stupid ass who thought he was smarter than he really is, attempted to outwit his very brave victim, and then ran away with his tail between his legs. Have fun reaping the benefits of your actions in prison, bitch.
Sophie, Where did you find that he is now getting a retrial? I’ve been following this story and was hoping someone here would post about it.
.
That is one hell of a victim on the stand. From what I read, she stood up right in his face. Good for her. Rapists are egotistical control freaks. I’m sure he thought that he could reduce this women to terrifying tears.
Are we forgetting the alleged rapist has a constitutional right to represent himself?
I know nothing of the story but he is presumed innocent in the court of law until convicted.
Yes, he has the right. Yes, he is presumed innocent.
The issue wasn’t that he represented himself.
The issue was that he did so very poorly, cross-examined to the point of berating the victim, and constantly had to refer to his sheet. Thus, it is reasonable to say it’s a little outrageous, even if it is perfectly constitutional.
Berating the witness is horrible and the judge shouldn’t allow it (most likely the judge didn’t), but doing poorly and constantly referring to his sheet is a moot point. He is well within his rights to look like an amateur. It’s his trial.
.
Look this guy is most likely a POS and guilty but since their is no link to an original article I have to assume the blog poster here is a little biased since I see interpreting and not reporting.
Of course it’s biased. He may be innocent. I’m commenting on the supposition here.
It’s not that it’s not permitted. It’s more of a ‘wow, that’s one way to really add to the pain of the rape’.