17-year-old sexual assault victim could face charges for tweeting names of attackers

[UK_fan_05]

Originally Posted by Yahoo!

A Kentucky girl who was sexually assaulted could face contempt of court charges after she tweeted the names of her juvenile attackers.

Savannah Dietrich, the 17-year-old victim, was frustrated by a plea deal reached late last month by the two boys who assaulted her, and took to Twitter to expose them--violating a court order to keep their names confidential.
"There you go, lock me up," Dietrich tweeted after naming the perpetrators. "I'm not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell." Her Twitter account has since been closed.

Attorneys for the attackers asked a Jefferson District Court judge to hold Dietrich in contempt for lashing out on Twitter. She could face up to 180 days in jail and a $500 fine if convicted. The boys have yet to be sentenced for the August 2011 attack.

"So many of my rights have been taken away by these boys," Dietrich told Louisville's Courier-Journal. "I'm at the point, that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it. If they really feel it's necessary to throw me in jail for talking about what happened to me as opposed to throwing these boys in jail for what they did to me, then I don't understand justice."

Dietrich was assaulted by the pair after passing out at a party. They later shared photos of the assault with friends.

"For months, I cried myself to sleep," Dietrich said. "I couldn't go out in public places."

On June 26, the boys pleaded guilty to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. Terms of their plea agreement were not released.
"They got off very easy," Dietrich, who says she was unaware of the plea agreement before it was announced in court, said in her interview with the newspaper.

"They said I can't talk about it or I'll be locked up," Dietrich tweeted after hearing, according to the paper. "So I'm waiting for them to read this and lock me up."

"[Protecting rapists] is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville," she added.

A hearing for the contempt of court charge is scheduled for July 30. Attorneys for Dietrich want it open to the media, while the boys lawyers want it closed.
Both the Gannett-owned Courier-Journal and Dietrich's attorneys "have filed motions to open the proceedings, arguing she has a First Amendment right to speak about what happened in her case," the newspaper said.

An online petition asking the judge to throw out the charges against Dietrich, launched Saturday, has already accumulated hundreds of signatures.

"[She] should not be legally barred from talking about what happened to her," Gregg Leslie, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the Associated Press. "That's a wide-ranging restraint on speech."

Here is a link for the petition for anyone who wants to sign it.

http://www.change.org/petitions/judg...share_petition

[sk33tr]

GOOD FOR HER!!!

i'd gladly spend that time and more in jail and pay 10 times that much just to make sure everyone knew who it was that did what they did.

and she's right. what the hell kind of society do we live in where rapists go free and the victim goes to jail.

and yes, she went against the judges orders and told the boys names, but that's just plain B.S.

minors or not, they deserve to have their names told for what they did.

[UK_fan_05]

Originally Posted by sk33tr

GOOD FOR HER!!!

i'd gladly spend that time and more in jail and pay 10 times that much just to make sure everyone knew who it was that did what they did.

and she's right. what the hell kind of society do we live in where rapists go free and the victim goes to jail.

and yes, she went against the judges orders and told the boys names, but that's just plain B.S.

minors or not, they deserve to have their names told for what they did.

I fully agree. The plea deal is what really upsets me. I know this happens often but in cases like this it is just wrong.

[My_Two_Cents]

I don't understand how the victim is bound by the conditions of a plea deal made by the prosecutor and the attackers if, as she claims, she was unaware of the plea until it was announced in court.

Chordata, where are you to explain?

[stevo4264]

Have gladly signed the petition

[UK_fan_05]

Originally Posted by stevo4264

Have gladly signed the petition

[Lemmy Lugosi]

+1

[vinodraju666]

Signed the petition.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

I don't understand how the victim is bound by the conditions of a plea deal made by the prosecutor and the attackers if, as she claims, she was unaware of the plea until it was announced in court.

My guess..... her lawyer agreed to whatever deal they made, and since he/she was representing the victim, it's the same thing as her accepting the plea. The fact it was accepted against her wishes is the bad part here.

As for the rest, she tweeted "Lock me up" clearly showing that she was aware she was breaking a court order.

I'm guessing they will make her pay a fine, and give her some probationary period etc. to keep her out of the clink...... She should have went after them legally, but knowingly breaking the law isn't o.k. just because you have a good reason to do so.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

My guess..... her lawyer agreed to whatever deal they made, and since he/she was representing the victim, it's the same thing as her accepting the plea. The fact it was accepted against her wishes is the bad part here.

But as a victim, you typically don't have a lawyer acting on your behalf. It's the prosecutor, acting on behalf of the government that makes the plea deal, which is why I don't understand how she can be held to any sort of gag order.

Anyway, I'm sure she won't get anything more severe than a stern talking to by the judge.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

My guess..... her lawyer agreed to whatever deal they made, and since he/she was representing the victim, it's the same thing as her accepting the plea. The fact it was accepted against her wishes is the bad part here.

As for the rest, she tweeted "Lock me up" clearly showing that she was aware she was breaking a court order.

I'm guessing they will make her pay a fine, and give her some probationary period etc. to keep her out of the clink...... She should have went after them legally, but knowingly breaking the law isn't o.k. just because you have a good reason to do so.

So if someone commits a felony against YOUR person its ok to be legally bound from stating their name?! Sounds like a violation of her first amendment rights.

I always thought a plea deal was between the state and the defense in criminal cases. I'm confused on why she or her attorney would get to decide. What a screwed up justice system we have.

[Beta Man]

I'm just saying, if her attorney was involved, and the defense made certain concessions (hence an agreement between parties) then she should absolutely be held to the gag order.

If her attorney wasn't involved, if the judge made the ruling that there was in fact a gag order on her, then as screwed up as that may be, she should still adhere to it.

Something tells me she needs a better attorney, and we had a judge here with a very laissez faire mentality.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

I don't understand how the victim is bound by the conditions of a plea deal made by the prosecutor and the attackers if, as she claims, she was unaware of the plea until it was announced in court.

Chordata, where are you to explain?

If the perpetrators are minors, they have the right to have the case sealed, which is common in juvenile court. The judge must enter a bench order stating the conditions.

Once that order is made, everyone is bound by it. I don't agree with that. But it's the law.

I'm wondering what she was doing to be passed out at a party. No wonder her reputation took a hit.

[sk33tr]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

If the perpetrators are minors, they have the right to have the case sealed, which is common in juvenile court. The judge must enter a bench order stating the conditions.

Once that order is made, everyone is bound by it. I don't agree with that. But it's the law.

I'm wondering what she was doing to be passed out at a party. No wonder her reputation took a hit.

very true.

but, i think that even if the perpetrators ARE minors and they commit a felony then that rule should not apply (100% my opinion and not fact).

[Uniquely]

If she was 17... they should have also been nailed with producing and distributing child pornography.

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

If the perpetrators are minors, they have the right to have the case sealed, which is common in juvenile court. The judge must enter a bench order stating the conditions.

Once that order is made, everyone is bound by it. I don't agree with that. But it's the law.

I'm wondering what she was doing to be passed out at a party. No wonder her reputation took a hit.

That's kind of blaming the victim. Teens are often unaware of their limits until they cross them. Doesn't make her a bad person or an immoral girl. Those boys on the other hand will be creeps for LIFE!

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Anyway, I'm sure she won't get anything more severe than a stern talking to by the judge.

She definitely has a very valid claim of emotional distress.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Uniquely

If she was 17... they should have also been nailed with producing and distributing child pornography.

We don't really know what the video/photos showed...... could have been no-nudity etc.... just them talking about doing things "Pre-Act" etc....

Either way...... I think she's absolutely in the wrong on a legal standpoint, but if she were my daughter (don't want to think about that given the situation she put herself in to begin with) I would be behind her decision to out them 100%

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

If the perpetrators are minors, they have the right to have the case sealed, which is common in juvenile court. The judge must enter a bench order stating the conditions.

Once that order is made, everyone is bound by it. I don't agree with that. But it's the law.

I'm wondering what she was doing to be passed out at a party. No wonder her reputation took a hit.

Very good point, and one I failed to consider. Being a case with minors as the defendants, normal rules don't apply.

[Deadset]

Breaking the law doesn't right a wrong. The whole situation is sad and disgusting.