LA school district under fire for claiming 14-year-old girl 'willingly' had sex with teacher

[RBP]

Judge in sexual abuse lawsuit allowed evidence of girl’s sexual history to be presented while district’s lawyer blamed the girl for having ‘consensual sex’



The Los Angeles school district has come under criticism for successfully defending a sexual abuse lawsuit by saying a 14-year-old girl willingly had sex with her middle school math teacher.

The girl is appealing the case because the judge allowed evidence of her sexual history to be presented and because the district’s lawyer blamed her for willingly meeting the teacher at a motel for sex.

“She lied to her mother so she could have sex with her teacher,” Keith Wyatt, the district’s attorney in the case, told KPCC. “She went to a motel in which she engaged in voluntary consensual sex with her teacher. Why shouldn’t she be responsible for that?”

The teacher in the case, Elkis Hermida, was sentenced in 2011 to three years in prison for lewd acts against a child.

The Los Angeles Unified School District claimed it was unaware of the relationship between the teacher and student and was cleared last year of wrongdoing by a civil jury in Los Angeles superior court. The girl was not awarded damages for the emotional trauma she said she suffered during a five-month relationship with the teacher.

The case raises questions about a conflict between California criminal and civil law when it comes to sexual consent.

Wyatt had cited a federal court decision that said a minor could consent to sex in some circumstances.

“It doesn’t make sense,” said Jennifer Drobac, an Indiana University law professor who has studied consent laws nationwide. “The same parties, same behavior, same everything, consent is no defense in a criminal trial. But the same set of facts in a civil prosecution, consent is a complete defense. How is that possible? It’s not logical.”

Lawyers and advocates for sexual abuse victims said the legal tactic was appalling.

“The belief that middle school children can consent to sexual activity is something one would expect to hear from pedophile advocates, not the second-largest school district in the US,” attorney John Manly told the Los Angeles Times.

In defending his tactics, Wyatt further came under fire for telling the public radio station that it takes maturity to decide to cross the street and that’s more dangerous than deciding to have sex with a teacher.

“My statements were ill thought out and poorly articulated and by no means reflect the opinions of the school district or its leadership,” Wyatt said in a written apology on Thursday.

The district said it would continue using Wyatt’s firm.

===========================================

Civil trial, different rules. The judge allowed it. Appalling? Very! but a legitimate legal tactic.

[Hal-9000]

Confused....teacher got 3 years, the girl was suing for money citing emotional trauma? And it was over ruled because the judge allowed her sexual history to support the teacher's side?


Confusion 2....Doesn't each state have laws outlining what the age of consent is? If she was under age, isn't the teacher guilty regardless of the type of trial?

[Loser]

Teacher was found guilty criminally.

The girl tried to sue the school system in civil court for damages.

[DemonGeminiX]

Civil court and criminal court are two different animals. Civil court is about determining reparations to a party hurt by actions of the accused, if any at all, not criminal liability. People take you to civil court to sue you for money. The state or federal government takes you to criminal court to put you behind bars. If you go on trial for something, if there are victims, you'll more than likely go on trial twice, once to determine guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law, the second time to determine whether or not you're gonna owe somebody else that's claimed to be hurt by your actions. Don't get me wrong, the state could take you to civil court, but generally, it's another person that's suing you independent of the state.

You could be acquitted of a crime in criminal court and found guilty in a civil court, and subsequently be ordered to pay reparations to the 'injured' party that is the plaintiff... and vice versa.

Think of civil court as like what you see on TV: The People's Court with Judge Wapner, or Judge Judy. They're not sending you to jail, they're telling you whether or not the plaintiff in the case is hurt enough by your actions that you need to pay them for the transgressions and damages due to the transgressions.

Wapner and Judy isn't exactly how it works, it's not exactly like the circus you see on the TV. Some people would tell you it is, but really it's not.

[deebakes]

remember o.j.? :shrug:

[FBD]

yup was thinking the same thing

[PorkChopSandwiches]

If the glove don't fit, you got to aquit

[Hal-9000]

Civil court and criminal court are two different animals. Civil court is about determining reparations to a party hurt by actions of the accused, if any at all, not criminal liability. People take you to civil court to sue you for money. The state or federal government takes you to criminal court to put you behind bars. If you go on trial for something, if there are victims, you'll more than likely go on trial twice, once to determine guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law, the second time to determine whether or not you're gonna owe somebody else that's claimed to be hurt by your actions. Don't get me wrong, the state could take you to civil court, but generally, it's another person that's suing you independent of the state.

You could be acquitted of a crime in criminal court and found guilty in a civil court, and subsequently be ordered to pay reparations to the 'injured' party that is the plaintiff... and vice versa.

Think of civil court as like what you see on TV: The People's Court with Judge Wapner, or Judge Judy. They're not sending you to jail, they're telling you whether or not the plaintiff in the case is hurt enough by your actions that you need to pay them for the transgressions and damages due to the transgressions.

Wapner and Judy isn't exactly how it works, it's not exactly like the circus you see on the TV. Some people would tell you it is, but really it's not.

Thanks DGX, I'm intimately aware of how the criminal vs civil system works. You may recall a...ahem...woman, tried to sue my Mom for assault. She first lied to the police and filed a charge, so the cops came here one night and took Mom to the station, finger printed and mug shotted her (talk about having your rights violated...where's FBD?). We went through the criminal trial for years...then the ...ahem...woman, served my Mom with a hand written civil charge. Seven more years in court for that.

Scary thing that I learned after my Mom and Dad went through literal hell? A person can keep charging someone with a civil charge, until you counter sue. This bitch paid 200 bucks, got a court clerk stamp on her infantile hand written 'charge'...and Bobs your uncle..

Scary thing number two I learned...the criminal trial and even the past behavior of the twat in question, had no bearing on the civil trial. This monster had threatened and assaulted other woman in various bingo halls, she tried to sue one bingo hall for ' discrimination ' (she is a 250 pound black woman on welfare) because they felt she created a disturbance when she entered, so they barred her.

It really opened my eyes to the world. Two people alone and one can say - DGX poked me in the eye! No witnesses or evidence and one person has to defend themselves for an act that never happened. It makes me angry just typing this post.......




What I was curious about here is the age of the girl, regardless of criminal or civil action. How the prosecutor comes up with her past sexual history and behavior is surreal (to me) and then the judge lets it stand :lol:

[RBP]

What I was curious about here is the age of the girl, regardless of criminal or civil action. How the prosecutor comes up with her past sexual history and behavior is surreal (to me) and then the judge lets it stand :lol:

Different rules of evidence, that's all. Sexual history used to be used in criminal rape trials all the time, but is now generally inadmissible.

[Hal-9000]

It bothers me how there's that division....the OJ syndrome and My Mom syndrome...

If a person stands trial in criminal court, one would think (maybe only me) that everything that took place during the criminal trial, would be admissible for the same charge in a civil trial. Past behavior can be indicative of a person's moral structure...no different than a lawyer using other people on the witness stand to create a perception, or behavioral analysis of tendencies for the person on trial.

[RBP]

Charges by the government versus a charge between citizens is just very different. In civil cases, you don't get a lawyer, you don't have the same procedural (illegal search etc) protections, evidence is different, and the standard of proof is very different (beyond a reasonable doubt vs preponderance of the evidence).

[Hal-9000]

thanks...and that's what I hate

(1)beyond a reasonable doubt vs (2)preponderance of evidence...


Billy hit me!

(1) Jimmy saw it and that's good enough for us :)

(2) We have dna evidence, fingerprints, can place Billy at the scene and have established motive

[Loser]

Playing the devils advocate here. I'll point out a few things.

He was charged with lewd acts with a child. Not assault, molestation, or rape. Meaning, legally, he did NOT force himself on her. Which in turn meant consent on her behalf.

Proving she was coerced is a difficult thing to do. She came to him. Not him to her.

[deebakes]

i bet he came first :shrug:

[RBP]

i bet he came first :shrug:

:rimshot:

[Loser]

:facepalm: Fkin dee :slap:

[RBP]

Playing the devils advocate here. I'll point out a few things.

He was charged with lewd acts with a child. Not assault, molestation, or rape. Meaning, legally, he did NOT force himself on her. Which in turn meant consent on her behalf.

Proving she was coerced is a difficult thing to do. She came to him. Not him to her.

I can't imagine the court ruling she could consent. They call it jail bait for a reason.

However, it is an interesting legal point to consider. From a liability standpoint, they didn't necessarily employ a predator. It's likely more an issue of how they responded than who the sexual aggressor was.

[Pony]

I think the difference here was the teacher broke the law and was sent to jail in criminal court. The civil suit was not about whether it happened or not but was her claiming she suffered "emotional trauma". That's why the history was admitted in court. It wouldn't have been a fair trial without it.

The girl was not awarded damages for the emotional trauma she said she suffered during a five-month relationship with the teacher.

[deebakes]

victory :woot: