DOJ-OGR-00005770.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 395 _ Filed 10/29/21 Page5of9 the accusers, violates the presumption of innocence, and lessens the government’s burden of proof. E.g., Jackson, 600 A.2d at 24 (“We agree with defendant that the word ‘victim’ should not be used in a case where the commission of a crime is in dispute.’’). In State v. Sperou, for example, the Court reversed the defendant’s sexual abuse conviction after the trial court declined to prohibit the government’s witnesses from referring to the accuser and six other women as the defendant’s “victims.” 442 P.3d 581, 585 (Or. 2019). The Court explained that “where defendant’s theory of the case was that no abuse had occurred and that SC and the other women were either lying or mistaken, the use of the word ‘victim’ by the state’s witnesses amounted to impermissible vouching.” /d. Use of the word “victim,” elaborated the Court, “undermine[s] the presumption of defendant’s innocence because it assumes defendant’s guilt, a fact that is necessarily not proved until the jury finds the defendant guilty.” Id. at 590. Held the Court: There was no “legitimate, nonvouching purpose” for use of the term “victim” by the government’s witnesses. /d. at 594. The Court reached the same conclusion in State v. Devey, 138 P.3d 90, 95 (Utah App. Ct. 2006). As in Sperou, the Devey Court held that “where a defendant claims that the charged crime did not actually occur, and the allegations against that defendant are based almost exclusively on the complaining witness's testimony, . . . the trial court, the State, and all witnesses should be prohibited from referring to the complaining witness as ‘the victim.’” /d. Use of the term “victim,” agreed the Court, “lends credence to [the accuser’s] testimony that the assaults occurred and that she was, indeed, a victim.” /d. (quoting Veteto v. State, 8 S.W.3d 805, 816-17 (Tex. App. Ct. 2000)). This can undermine “the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence.” /d. DOJ-OGR-00005770