Judge: Eyewitness’s past off limits

Witness in WCU rape trial a victim of sexual assault herself; defense contends this biases her testimony

WEST CHESTER » The attorney for a former West Chester University student charged with raping another student in a campus parking garage will not be permitted to question an alleged eyewitness to the incident about her own experiences with the crime of sexual assault, a Common Pleas judge has ruled.

Phillip Press, attorney for Austin Eaddy, had wanted permission to cross-examine the woman on her past allegations of being sexually assaulted, arguing that it may have somehow clouded what she saw happening in the New Street Parking Garage. She told police that she had said to herself when the incident occurred that, “She had just witnessed a rape.”

But Press has contended during hearings on his pre-trial motions to question the woman, whose name is being withheld by the Daily Local News because of the nature of the allegations concerning her past, that the encounter between Eaddy and the other student, a 21-year-old woman, was consensual. He has suggested that the eyewitness was somehow able to convince the student that she had been sexually assaulted.

It was a novel defense, remarked the judge overseeing the case, David Bortner. There appears to be no case law available showing the relevance of a possible bias on the part of an eyewitness “due to being a prior victim of a crime, not to mention the same crime as the accused.” Acting on behalf of prosecutors who sought to bar Press from asking about the alleged prior assault, Bortner ruled that such a line of questioning would be prohibited.

Eaddy, 24, of Philadelphia, who was a WCU student living in the campus dormitories at the time of the alleged assault, is scheduled to go on trial today in Common Pleas Court. He is charged with rape, involuntary deviate sexual

intercourse, sexual assault, and related charges.

In his ruling, dated July 10, Bortner also prohibited Press from questioning the alleged victim about her sexual past, and from asking a former WCU police investigator

about possible evidence of a racial bias on his part. Eaddy is black; the alleged victim is white.

According to police reports and court documents, the incident at issue occurred in the early morning hours of April 1, 2016. The alleged victim told WCU police that she had gone to an off-campus party in the borough that night and was

drinking there. She started to walk back to her dormitory on campus along Sharpless Street and South New Street toward her dorm, but somehow found herself on the second floor of the New Street Parking Garage, which is in the same block as her dorm.

She said that once there, she was approached by a man she did not know but who asked her to have sex with him. When she said no, the man allegedly grabbed her and forced her to the ground. He then allegedly pushed her onto a vehicle parked there and took her

“No direct connection has been illustrated between (the witness’s) past and her ability to perceive or recollect the events of April 1, 2016.” — Judge David Bortner

shorts and underwear off. He allegedly had sex with her, during which she said she cried and repeatedly said no, according to the complaint.

She said that the man took her cell phone and wallet, but that the attack ended when the other woman arrived. The alleged eyewitness told police that she had gone to the garage between 2:30 and 3 a.m. to get her car, which was parked on the second level. When she got there she could hear a woman screaming, saying, “Can I have my phone back?” and things she could not understand. When she walked toward the yelling sounds, she saw the man, who she described as tall, wearing a red shirt and a hat, holding a woman down on the hood of a car.

She said she yelled at the man, and he looked up at her, cursed and ran away, jumping from an open window. The last she saw he was running along Nields Street away from the campus. She then approached the female victim, who had started to walk away, and they went to Commonwealth Hall together and reported what had occurred. Police said they allowed the eyewitness to stay with the alleged victim because she seemed to be more comfortable with her, even though the two did not know one another.

The Daily Local News does not identify those who report incidents of sexual assault, unless given permission to do so.

According to the criminal complaint, police were able to identify Eaddy as a suspect in the case through a video surveillance tape that had been shot from the second floor. Eaddy was recognized by a residential director at one of the campus dorms. He was arrested about four days after the incident.

Press, in an earlier hearing, had argued that because the eyewitness was a sexual assault survivor herself, her experiences could have affected how she responded to the incident. The woman may have allowed her past experiences to shape how the alleged victim viewed what had happened.

“This is the seed that leads us to where we are today,” Press told the judge in the hearing. “I just want to know what caused that witness to jump to that conclusion.” Press also said, alternatively, that because the woman had later dropped the sexual assault charge, she may have fabricated it and was somehow complicit in helping the alleged victim fabricate her own version of events.

Prosecutors in June filed a motion to keep Press from asking the witness about her past. Assistant District Attorney Caitlin Rice, who is handling the case with Assistant District Attorney Brian Burack, wrote that what Press wanted the jury to hear was “unfairly prejudicial, presents little if any probative value, and will only serve to distract the jury.”

There is no logical connection between the eyewitness’s previous experiences and what she allegedly saw in the garage that morning, Rice stated. Even if there were, she said, it would be inflammatory and confusing for the jury. Asking a witness about why she had not pursued a criminal case in which she was a victim would create “a mini trial within a trial.” Bortner agreed. “No direct connection has been illustrated between (the witness’s) past and her ability to perceive or recollect the events of April 1, 2016,” the judge wrote in his decision. “The only possible relevance is an as yet unsupported inference that (her) prior experiences might have clouded her judgement.” But such questioning might be in danger of misleading the jury as to what it needed to decide about Eaddy’s innocence or guilt, he wrote.

Jury selection in the trial, which should last through the week, is expected to begin today.