Trojan magnum condom Above the Law blog.jpgCheck out this rather odd appeal from Florida, arising out of a prosecution for sexual assault charges. The defendant was originally charged with three counts of sexual battery, but was convicted on lesser included charges of misdemeanor battery.
One of the issues was whether the trial court should have granted a continuance based on the availability of a defense witness (even though the defense failed to move for a continuance at the time). From the opinion (PDF):

Defense counsel proffered one aspect of the urologist’s testimony: because Tyrrell’s penis was “smaller than average size” it “could not have caused” the injuries that Nurse Gibson observed during the rape exam.

You don’t normally see a man proclaiming his small penis size in public proceedings. But if a teeny weenie is a “get out of jail free” card, expect the defendant to play it. Think of it as the flip side of that Japanese appeal, in which a busty babe overturned her conviction by arguing that she was too well-endowed to fit through a hole she allegedly used to enter a building.
Our tipster described a second strange argument raised by the defense:

[The defense also argued] that the injuries were caused by the victim’s “aggressive” use of a dildo. [The opinion] mentions that the defense lawyer wanted the victim to identify the dildo from a “dildo lineup,” and that the defense attorney “extensively explored” the dildo issue with the victim on cross.

Seriously. The words “dildo lineup” actually appear in the opinion (and not even in scare quotes):

Tyrrell first argues that his “right to due process and right to confront witnesses” was violated because the state did not produce the [sex toys] that were the subject of the July 23 and August 2 orders….

Tyrrell contends that the trial court erred in failing to let him show the victim a dildo lineup.

If that doesn’t violate the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, which guarantees a criminal defendant the right “to be confronted with the [dildos] against him,” we don’t know what does.
Tyrrell v. State (PDF) [Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal]


comments sponsored by

35 comments (hidden for your protection) Show all comments