Derrick Rose threatens to publicly slut-shame alleged gang rape victim if she goes to trial

His lawyers say that she is sexually “advanced, aggressive, and experienced.”

New York Knicks’ Derrick Rose participates in a NBA basketball training camp in Tarrytown, N.Y., Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2016. CREDIT: SETH WENIG, AP
New York Knicks’ Derrick Rose participates in a NBA basketball training camp in Tarrytown, N.Y., Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2016. CREDIT: SETH WENIG, AP

The civil gang rape trial against New York Knick Derrick Rose is scheduled to go to trial in less than a week, and things are getting uglier and uglier as October 4 approaches.

Rose’s lawyers filed motions on Wednesday that refer to the allegations as a “sham case,” and not-so-subtly threaten to viciously slut-shame Jane Doe (the alleged victim) during cross-examination if she doesn’t settle beforehand.

In open and public courtrooms, the 30-year old Ms. Doe does need to recognize that if she and her lawyers are going to sue and ask for millions of dollars, by presenting herself as someone with a loss of consortium claim, she has opened the door to a cross-examination that is better left avoided. The same is true of Ms. Doe’s efforts to present herself as “conservative,” “prudish,” and “shy” — this opposition brief is not the place to go into Ms. Doe’s past, except to say that some plaintiffs are better served by focusing on the evening in question, and avoiding any effort to present herself as a supposedly chaste and naïve and shy person.

Rose’s lawyers continue by saying, “Consent is a valued and important right. Every woman has the right to decide the issue of consent for herself.”

However, in his deposition, Rose said that he did not know what consent means.

Rose’s team has been slut-shaming Doe since the civil suit was first filed 13 months ago, through both court filings and salacious TMZ headlines such as, “Derrick Rose To Rape Accuser: You’re No Prude, You Hooked Up With Nick Young.”

Advertisement

Last week, the judge in the case threatened to sanction Rose and his team if they continue “to utilize language that shames and blames the victims of rape either in his motion practice or before the jury.”

In interviews with media outlets, including ThinkProgress, Doe has described herself as a shy person from a conservative background. She says that never consented to group sex with Rose throughout their two-year non-exclusive relationship, a fact that Rose confirmed in his deposition. She also says that Rose used to pressure her to send sexually explicit videos or Skype chats to him, but she never felt comfortable doing so.

Despite the threat of sanctions by the judge, Rose’s team says in filings that if Doe is arguing “a loss of consortium” — in other words, focusing on the damage the alleged gang rape has done to her personal and intimate relationships — she is opening herself up to having her entire sexual history, before and after the alleged assault, used against her in court.

For this trial to go smoothly and be finished quickly, the single biggest pretrial “clean up” issue is the decision that Ms. Doe’s counsel needs to make on whether Ms. Doe is in fact seeking to pursue a loss of consortium theory, and whether Ms. Doe will seek to present herself as a naïve and sexually inexperienced 27-year-old with a conservative mindset. This declaration is not the right place to provide detailed revelations concerning Ms. Doe’s actual lifestyle and sexual experience level, both before and after August 27, 2013. Suffice it to say that Ms. Doe is three years older than Mr. Rose, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Hampton, who were 24 years old at the time, and her lifestyle was far more advanced, aggressive, and experienced than she appears to want to now present. This sort of factual information, if affirmatively put at issue by Ms. Doe, is the sort of theory that Ms. Doe could and should avoid, because it goes to her credibility.

The final pretrial hearing for the case is scheduled for Thursday, September 29. The loss of consortium claim will be discussed then, and the judge is expected to rule once again on whether Doe can remain anonymous during the trial.

Advertisement

Last week, the judge ordered that Doe would not be permitted to use her pseudonym for the trial because it might make the court seem biased against Rose. However, Doe’s legal team asked him to consider that in light of the fact that earlier this week, the LAPD confirmed that there is an active criminal rape investigation against Rose and his two friends.