Savannah Dietrich, 17-Year-Old Sexual Assault Victim, Faces Charge For Naming Attackers
2012/07/22
AP
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A 17-year-old Kentucky girl who was upset by the plea deal reached by a pair of teenagers who sexually assaulted her is now facing a contempt charge for tweeting their names in violation of a court order.
The Associated Press does not normally report the names of sexual assault victims, but Dietrich and her parents say they do not want to shield her identity and want her case to be public.
The boys’ attorneys have asked a judge to hold Dietrich in contempt for violating the confidentiality of a juvenile hearing and the judge’s order not to speak about it.
Dietrich told the paper she was assaulted in August 2011 by two boys she knew when she passed out after drinking at a gathering. She learned months later that pictures of the assault were taken and shared with others.
“For months, I cried myself to sleep. I couldn’t go out in public places,” she told the newspaper, as her father and attorneys sat nearby. “You just sit there and wonder, who saw (the pictures), who knows?”
Dietrich’s attorneys want her contempt hearing open to the media, arguing she has a First Amendment right to speak about her case and to a public hearing.
The boys’ attorneys, however, have asked to keep the hearing closed.
The contempt charge carries a possible sentence of 180 days in jail and a $500 fine.
The boys pleaded guilty on June 26 to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. Dietrich says she was unaware of a plea agreement until just before it was announced in court.
She could not say what the proposed punishment was because of the court order, but said she feels like it was a slap on the wrist.
The teens are to be sentenced next month, and the judge could reject or modify the terms of the proposed agreement.
When Judge Dee McDonald admonished everyone at the hearing not to speak about what happened in court or about the crime, Dietrich said she cried.
“They got off very easy … and they tell me to be quiet, just silencing me at the end,” she said.
Afterwards Dietrich tweeted, “They said I can’t talk about it or I’ll be locked up. ….Protect rapist is more important than getting justice for the victim in Louisville.”
David Marburger, an Ohio media law specialist, said Dietrich should have tried to get the courts to vacate the gag order rather than simply violating it.
But Gregg Leslie, interim executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Dietrich should “not be legally barred from talking about what happened to her. That’s a wide-ranging restraint on speech.”
Leslie said this sort of issue is becoming more common.
“In the past, people would complain to anyone who would listen, but they didn’t have a way to publish their comments where there would be a permanent record, like on Facebook and Twitter, for people to see worldwide,” he said.
Dietrich said she just needed to stand up for herself. “I’m at the point that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it.”
Source: huffingtonpost.com
You go girl! Stay tough and strong!! So many of us support you!
Way to go, Savannah! Standing up for yourself is, absolutely, the right thing to do! That judge should be ashamed; convicted (even in a plea deal) sex offenders shouldn’t get the right to anonymity… especially at the cost of the victim!
It’s the parents, their attorneys, and the judge that should be locked along with the two boys for destroying this young woman’s life. Shame on all of them, you can’t hide truth. What about those pictures they showed of their victim? What’s wrong with this country?
Stay strong, Savannah. This is outrageous! Our laws need to protect YOU, not these rapists! You shall overcome!
I am so sorry that this is happening to you Savannah. From the time we are young we are taught to stand up for ourselves. I feel that these boys got off too easy and i don’t even know what the plea was. They should be held accountable for what they have done no matter what their ages. Their names should go on the Federal Sex Offenders list which is open to the public…no matter what their ages. This court system failed you and has set sexual predators loose on the streets. I applaud you for your bravery in doing what you feel is right.
This is why crime is so very high, the criminals seem to have the rights to protect them and victims are left to feel as if they did something wrong. If these pictures were seen by others the the names and faces are already out there and known by others. This girl is being punished for being brave while they want to protect the cowards that committed the crime. Maybe if there was tougher punishments for the criminals just maybe they would think twice about committing these crimes.
Courage… I’m sending to you courage… for standing up to the courts and for standing up to those who will talk against what you are doing. You are going to set a precedent with your case and it will take courage to see it through. Bless you for taking this stance.
You tell your story because you have the freedom of speech!
The only crime committed was this girl was assaulted by, not one, but two boys. The boys attorneys should be held in contempt for asking for such a ridiculous request. I don’t care who the parents of these boys are…they’re idiots. If anything, she should give up the names of the people at the party as well who either thought it was funny for these morons to take advantage of her, or didn’t have the guts to step forward and protect this girl. If anything, the boys should go to prison and learn what it’s like to be assaulted against their will. If anything, she should pay the $500 fine, then go nation-wide with these boys names as an advocate. If you’re a victim, there should be no such thing as a gag order…spread the word.
https://www.facebook.com/procentralists/posts/402830429780155
While I am certain that we can and will raise the $500.00 to pay this 17-year-old’s fine, I am equally as confident that this Judge’s order is inadmissible.
The young-men pleaded guilty on June 26 to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. [T]heir actions automatically become subject to 42 USC § 16914, 42 USC § 16913(a)(b-1,2), 42 USC § 16911 and 42 U.S.C. § 16915a. — as federally prescribed under the auspices of the Jacob Wetterling, Megan Nicole Kanka, and Pam Lychner Sex Offender Registration and Notification Program Act.
Kentucky has been the center-point of many federal violations over the past 200 years — and this case is no exception to their pattern of willful disregard for our system of justice and applicability of federal law.
As parents, it is our responsibility to instill in our young-men, a sense honor and to teach them what is appropriate conduct. I remember the days of being a teen very well, and when a young-woman would drink too much — we would find her a safe place to sleep it off.
The young-men, or more accurately — “the perpetrators”, have stepped-over-the-line and become criminal actors. This Judge and the perpetrator’s parents, now have the duty to teach these boys what the grave meaning of the word “consequences” truly means — and not shade their opinion based upon a young-woman’s intoxicated state, or any suggestion of a sorted reputation.
–PC
VERY WELL SAID! Thank you, as another young girl who was drunk and sexually abused, in the 70′s. Thankfully back then no pictures just viscous rumors and bragging by the rapist.
The prosecutor and judge in this case should be facing criminal charges.
I really support this girl. She’s going through enough right now without having to keep herself quiet about it. She has a right to talk about what happened to her, and if those little creeps didn’t want people to hear about it, they should have kept to themselves.
Minors can get life sentences for murder, if they are tried as adults. When a gang-rape occurs (and that IS what this is), committed by minors, I feel that they should also be tried as adults. Had a child been conceived, would they be held accountable, or only the young woman, in KY mind you, be forced to birth and raise a child from this act? Accountability does not have a “maturation date”.
I want a follow-up to this. What happened?
http://usecmagazine.usecnetwork.com/usa/?p=44926
Regards