BREAKING NEWS Redding Police searching for missing 'at-risk' 24-year-old woman Full Story

Rachel Mitchell did sex-crime victims a disservice

During last week's confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans enlisted ...

Posted: Oct 3, 2018 5:54 AM
Updated: Oct 3, 2018 5:54 AM

During last week's confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans enlisted Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Christine Blasey Ford about Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her. Mitchell cross-examined Ford at the hearing, questioning if Ford's testimony was reliable and credible.

Mitchell then issued a report to Senate Republicans, attacking Ford's credibility and concluding that "I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard."

Brett Kavanaugh

Christine Blasey Ford

Court trials

Court witnesses

Crime, law enforcement and corrections

Crimes against persons

Criminal law

Criminal offenses

Government and public administration

Government organizations - US

Law and legal system

Law enforcement

Legislation

Misc people

Political Figures - US

Political organizations

Politics

Rachel Mitchell

Sex crimes

Sexual assault

Sexual misconduct

Society

Testimony

Trial and procedure

US Congress

US political parties

US Republican Party

US Senate

In other words, according to Mitchell, it is more likely than not that Ford was mistaken when she testified that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. By providing cover for Republican senators unwilling to question Ford themselves, Mitchell has done a disservice to her fellow prosecutors and law enforcement agents, and to the victims she is duty-bound to protect.

As an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor, Mitchell certainly understands that the highest calling of any law enforcement officer is to protect crime victims. The Arizona state constitution, which Mitchell is sworn to uphold, provides that victims have the right "to be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal justice process."

It is unclear how Mitchell can reconcile her efforts to take down Ford -- publicly and in coordination with inherently partisan politicians -- with this obligation.

A prosecutor's obligation to protect victims is particularly strong in sex-crimes cases, which historically are badly underreported because victims often experience trauma, shame and distrust of the criminal justice system. Mitchell herself acknowledges in the report that "[d]elayed disclosure of abuse is common."

Recognizing this hard reality, law enforcement agencies have invested millions of dollars in modernizing intake services to give victims the best possible comfort and care. Mitchell's very public campaign to discredit Ford undercuts the efforts of law enforcement agencies across the country to let sex crimes victims know that, if they do come forward, they will be heard, respected and protected.

This is not to suggest that prosecutors should take everything a victim says at face value or that prosecutors should refrain from questioning victims on their accounts. In fact, a good prosecutor would ask Ford some of the same questions that Mitchell asked on the floor of the Senate Committee. The difference, of course, is that a prosecutor should ask those questions in the privacy and comfort of a proper victim intake facility.

Mitchell, by contrast, cross-examined Ford publicly on the floor of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with tens of millions of people watching on television. Notably, Mitchell did not choose this format -- the Republicans on the committee dictated the terms. And they only made it worse by not allowing her to cross-examine Kavanaugh.

Ultimately, though, Mitchell's performance throughout the Kavanuagh hearings sends the exact wrong message to sex-crime victims. Imagine the reaction of a sex-crime victim who watched Mitchell cross-examine Ford, or who read Mitchell's written report to the Senate Republicans. That victim understandably would wonder: Is this what happens if I come forward? Is this what prosecutors will do to me?

Nothing empowers sex-crime victims to come forward like seeing other victims do the same. As Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy said during last week's hearing, "bravery is contagious." Indeed, since Ford's testimony, countless women of all stations have come forward as victims of sex crimes. The shame of it is that so many more might have seized the moment to come forward if not for the chilling effect of Mitchell's performance.

Beyond the problematic message sent by Mitchell, her report simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Prosecutors take pride in being apolitical and in seeking truth evenhandedly, regardless of politics. But Mitchell has been baldly partisan. At the hearing, she did the bidding only of the Senate Republicans on the committee, and she addressed her report not to the Senate itself but only to "All Republican Senators." The report spends three of its eight pages arguing that "[t]he activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford's account."

The report also suffers because Mitchell draws conclusions on a patently insufficient factual record. The report is based on no law enforcement investigation whatsoever. Rather, the report relies largely on ambiguous written submissions made to Congress, which are not subject to meaningful testing by law enforcement questioning or follow up. No reasonable prosecutor would draw definitive conclusions in the complete absence of a law enforcement investigation.

At the same time, Mitchell conspicuously focuses her fire only one way: against Ford. The report scrutinizes Ford's fear of flying, her academic performance in high school and whether she took a polygraph exam on the day of or the day after her grandmother's funeral.

Yet the report does not even mention Kavanaugh's evasive and implausible testimony about core questions such as whether he ever drank to the point of blackout during the relevant period.

Finally, Mitchell's report fails the straightforward common-sense test. Judges routinely instruct jurors not to abandon their common sense when they assess the evidence in a criminal trial, and the same should hold true in any fact-finding endeavor.

For example, Mitchell takes Ford to task for "chang[ing] her description of the incident to become less specific." Mitchell argues that Ford told her husband about a "sexual assault" before they were married, but then told the Washington Post that she had told her husband she had been a victim of "physical abuse."

Mitchell fails to consider the possibility that Ford simply used different terms -- both of which accurately describe the alleged assault -- when speaking about the incident on two different occasions. Mitchell also glosses over the fact that both terms -- "sexual assault" and "physical abuse" -- accurately describe Kavanaugh's alleged attack on Ford.

Inexplicably, Mitchell fails to address the most important question: what possible reason would Ford have had to fabricate an attack and to tell her husband about that attack many years before Kavanaugh ever came into the public eye?

Mitchell undoubtedly has served the public well throughout her long career as a sex-crimes prosecutor. She should know better than most how difficult it is for victims to come forward and how hard prosecutors work to foster their trust. In her performance over the past week, however, Mitchell -- in service of a baldly partisan cause -- has undermined the efforts of law enforcement to protect sex-crime victims and discouraged those victims from coming forward to bear witness against their attackers.

California Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 3573549

Reported Deaths: 52491
CountyCasesDeaths
Los Angeles119295421467
Riverside2897733792
San Bernardino2867552940
Orange2614083921
San Diego2606253303
Santa Clara1107551781
Kern103422877
Fresno955481443
Sacramento935281484
Alameda807771242
Ventura77749852
San Joaquin668291126
Contra Costa62720681
Stanislaus56235949
Tulare48013761
Monterey42261328
San Mateo39059515
San Francisco34291422
Santa Barbara32050413
Solano30115164
Merced29147401
Sonoma28193298
Imperial26909635
Kings22082220
Placer19861232
San Luis Obispo19696235
Madera15496214
Santa Cruz14671183
Marin13231197
Yolo12851185
Shasta11017174
Butte10970163
El Dorado9160100
Napa905369
Sutter888097
Yuba577337
San Benito577261
Lassen562419
Tehama508652
Nevada397274
Tuolumne396059
Mendocino381643
Amador346641
Humboldt321033
Lake316441
Glenn223023
Colusa213613
Calaveras191049
Siskiyou176014
Inyo131337
Mono12144
Del Norte10035
Plumas6536
Modoc4564
Mariposa3957
Trinity3705
Sierra1000
Alpine820
Unassigned00
Chico
Partly Cloudy
63° wxIcon
Hi: 72° Lo: 37°
Feels Like: 63°
Oroville
Partly Cloudy
63° wxIcon
Hi: 70° Lo: 49°
Feels Like: 63°
Chico
Partly Cloudy
63° wxIcon
Hi: 67° Lo: 46°
Feels Like: 63°
Red Bluff
Clear
68° wxIcon
Hi: 50° Lo: 16°
Feels Like: 68°
Red Bluff
Partly Cloudy
68° wxIcon
Hi: 72° Lo: 41°
Feels Like: 68°
Chico
Partly Cloudy
63° wxIcon
Hi: 74° Lo: 40°
Feels Like: 63°
Sunshine and 70s for the next few days with a few clouds today the farther south you are located. We cool down this weekend with rain chances. Showers continue into next week.
KHSL Severe
KHSL Radar
KHSL Temperatures

Community Events