First Degree Sexual Assault is what the Nebraska criminal code calls rape. It's a class II felony, meaning it's in the group of most serious things you can do after killing someone, and the code calls for a minimum of 25 years if convicted.

That doesn't mean that the judge isn't a sexist asshole, just that the guy was being charged with rape.

What can be done?

Well, here's two things that the judge should have realized:

First degree sexual assault is rape (as noted by harlemjd, above).

The word "kill" is not barred from a first degree murder trial.

The judge is not just a sexist asshole but a goddamned drooling idiot if he doesn't realize this, and had no business graduating from grade school, let alone law school.

The word "kill" is not barred from a first degree murder trial.

That's not analogous, though, since the charge is murder. Killing is a necessary component to murder, but so is intent. Since the state has to show both that the victim was killed and that the defendant had the necessary state of mind to make it murder, a court might very well bar the use of the term "murder" to describe what the defendant did, because the jury has to decide that.

The victim in this case got the case moved to another court, if I'm not mistaken, which is probably the best outcome she could hope for.

The word "kill" is not barred from a first degree murder trial.

That's not analogous, though, since the charge is murder. Killing is a necessary component to murder, but so is intent. Since the state has to show both that the victim was killed and that the defendant had the necessary state of mind to make it murder, a court might very well bar the use of the term "murder" to describe what the defendant did, because the jury has to decide that.

The victim in this case got the case moved to another court, if I'm not mistaken, which is probably the best outcome she could hope for.

zuzu - the word "steal" is not barred from a trial for robbery, even though "take" could describe the defendant's actions in a judgement-free way, nor would it be, I'm guessing, even if the defendant were arguing that the complaining witness had given him the item allegedly stolen.

Yes, the jury is to decide what happened, and for that reason the officers of the court (the judge and the lawyers) use neutral language (like "complaining witness" instead of "victim"). Witnesses, on the other hand, are NOT expected to be neutral and are generally allowed to use their own language to describe what they saw or experienced.

It's disgusting that the very name of the attack was outlawed from the courtroom. The judge was completely off when he was balancing prejudice against the defendant and the ability of the accuser to tell a viable account of the attack.

Yet, the decision to drop the lawsuit against the judge is a good one. There are lousy judges out there that make horrible decisions and rulings, but an aggrieved person should not be able to sue a judge because they are not happy with the outcome of said ruling. If such were the case, 50% of trial parties would go after the judge. Because of this, the bar for pressing suit against the judge must be very high. Even if that judge is an ass.

Since the state has to show both that the victim was killed and that the defendant had the necessary state of mind to make it murder, a court might very well bar the use of the term "murder" to describe what the defendant did, because the jury has to decide that.

Uh, really? Might they? I'm finding that hard to imagine.

uh...what's the matter with "alleged"? it could have very easily been "alleged rape," "alleged rapist," and so forth. that way you're still calling it by it's name while preserving the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

i agree that the freedom of speech case was a flimsy one, however, i think she could have taken the judge to trial for a different reason: impeding her case. by insisting that the case be spoken of in only legal jargon, the judge effectively disallowed for the prosecutors to speak on the same level of the people in the jury (most of whom, i'm guessing, don't run around saying "poor mary lou was sexually assaulted in the first degree by her boyfriend last weekend." she could have argued that by banning the word most commonly used to describe the action, the judge dissociated the charge from the crime, potentially hindering her chances for a fair trial.

The word "kill" is not barred from a first degree murder trial.

Bingo. You would not force people to say that the deceased had "passed away." In most every circumstance, there's a dead body with evidence of foul play. While murder is a legal term (distinguish from manslaughter), the prosecution would be more than free to use "homicide," "kill," "maim," "stab," or the like.

It would be BEYOND ridiculous to require a murder trial to be conducted as follows:
witness: "Mr. Michael Jones was found on his front porch, obviously deceased. There was a knife next to him. He encountered the knife in a way that he perceived to be unsatisfactory. Now he is no longer alive."

That is pretty much what this young woman would have to have done.

onesong: "that way you're still calling it by it's name while preserving the notion of innocent until proven guilty."

I don't think it is the accuser's job to preserve that notion in court. It is the job of the court, which in this case they seem to have taken to an illogical extreme. Normally in a case like this she tells her story. He tells his. Evidence is weighed. A decision is made.

This judge has stymied that whole process. It is impossible to accuse someone of a crime if you can't say what the crime is. This ruling made it impossible for her to tell her story, which makes justice pretty much impossible to achieve.