NEW YORK — If the New York sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn ever goes to trial, much will doubtless be made of his accuser’s background. But what about his?
Prosecutors have already hinted they might like to peer into the former International Monetary Fund leader’s past. At his first court appearance, a prosecutor made a point of noting reports of “similar” conduct abroad — an apparent reference to the French writer who has now brought a criminal complaint in Paris about an attempted rape she says she suffered at Strauss-Kahn’s hands in 2003.
But given New York law, legal experts say it could be knotty, but not impossible, for prosecutors to try to introduce any allegations beyond the actual attempted rape and other charges stemming from Strauss-Kahn’s May encounter in May with a Manhattan hotel maid.
For now, it’s far from clear that the case will get to that point. But if it does, it could become a high-profile proving ground for a principle enshrined in a more than century-old case that was a sensation in its own right and yielded a landmark ruling.
The DSK case is different but the New York authorities by contrast showed little compunction about arresting someone who was extremely powerful and well-connected and charging him. He was held on remand in Rikers Island, and then on bail at home before released on his own recognisance.
One of the criticisms of the New York authorities was that Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan district attorney, is an elected official. Some critics in France argued that this made him prone to populism rather than being motivated by justice.
There are fair criticisms of the behaviour of elected attorneys and attorneys-general in the US. In this case, however, his status may have made Mr Vance more confident about upsetting the powerful, compared with the supine attitude of the Met.
All in all, the cosiness of the relationship between the police, politicians and the media in the UK hardly sets a salutary example.
No comments:
Post a Comment