Two weeks before the incident the accused and the complainant had went on their first.
date. The accused testified that at her apartment they had kissed and she had masturbated him to.
ejaculation. She denies this, and said that they had only kissed. On the day of the incident, he.
had called her early in the morning, and asked if he could come over. She agreed to this. When.
he showed up, she greeted him at the door with only her bathrobe on. Following this, the.
complainant stated that the accused drew her closer to him and pressed her against her resistance.
onto the bed. She went on to say that she went into "shock" after she felt his weight on top of.
her. She then stated that the next thing she knew was that he had pulled out and ejaculated on her.
stomach. He, however, insisted that she had consented to the sexual intercourse. At trial, the.
accused's defense was that the complainant had consented to the sexual intercourse, in the.
alternative that he had an honest but mistaken belief that she was consenting. The trial judge,.
however, refused to put the mistaken belief defense to the jury, finding "no air of reality" in it.
The accused was convicted. .
Only on appeal did the majority of the appeal court order a retrial, holding that the trial.
judge erred in not putting the mistaken belief defense to the jury. This case clearly displays the.
general mindset and attitude of the court system towards men that have been accused of the.
sexual assault charge. The judge did not allow the accused in this case to use the Consent.
defense, because he/she did not believe that the accused had a reason to argue his case on the.
basis of this defense. The judge ultimately believed that he was lying. There was another factor,.
which is a trend in sexual assault cases today that contribute to the wrongful conviction of men.
in sexual assault cases. The complainant had described that she was in "shock" when this whole.