TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/080591/0805101.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 5.7 KB | 121 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 25

THE PALM BEACH RAPE CASE

Then There Were Three


The prosecution raises the ante by unveiling a trio of new
accusers who say William Kennedy Smith assaulted them

By NANCY GIBBS -- Reported by A. Engler Anderson/West Palm Beach
and Andrea Sachs/New York


    In the court of public opinion, as the Palm Beach rape
case proved again last week, the rules can be merciless
compared with those of a court of law. In the public eye, a
defendant may be judged guilty until proved innocent, all
evidence is admissible, all tactics are acceptable. Perhaps with
that in mind, the defense team for William Kennedy Smith
continues to rake through his alleged victim's history in search
of scandal. But last week the prosecution resurrected some
ghosts from Willy's past -- ghosts who may yet come to haunt him
even if they never have their day in court.

    The latest headlines erupted when prosecutor Moira Lasch
disclosed that she had found three more women who would swear
that William Kennedy Smith had attacked them. Even if their
testimony is ruled inadmissible, the prosecutor has won an early
tactical victory. "In a high-publicity case," observes West Palm
Beach defense attorney Craig Boudreau, "what you say in court
isn't necessarily what's going to win the case."

    Like earlier court documents, the witnesses' sworn
statements point to an alarming behavior pattern on the part of
Smith, 30, a nephew of Senator Edward Kennedy and a Georgetown
medical school graduate, who is charged with raping a
29-year-old woman at the Kennedy compound during Easter weekend.
The three women tell remarkably similar stories about meeting
Smith at a party, then being offered an escort home and a spare
room at his parents' place; none of the women suspected that any
harm could come to them. "He was quite charming," recalls one
witness, who met Smith at a party in Manhattan in 1983. "I felt
completely comfortable with him." In each case there was some
drinking, some chitchat, but no sexual overtures until the
sudden attack.

    "One moment he was standing in front of me, talking with
me, saying good night to me," says the woman, who at the time
was dating Willy's cousin Max Kennedy, "and the next minute he
had tackled me onto the bed and was trying to kiss me, and had
his body completely cover mine, and had me pinned on the bed
and from there he . . . he continued to try to kiss me and put
his hands on me and wouldn't stop."

    But in each case, the women recount, when it was all over,
they took a hard, bruised look at their situation and decided
to keep silent. "There weren't any other witnesses, and I felt
that it wouldn't be believed," says one, who is now a
physician. Why not? "Because I know how powerful his family is,
and he does seem to be such an upstanding student." But when
they read about the Palm Beach case, they all reconsidered.

    Their testimony was a windfall for the prosecution. Lasch
hopes to use the women's stories to show that Willy had a
pattern of attacking women sexually, ignoring their protests and
dismissing them afterward with the warning that no one would
believe their claims. But it is one thing to have the women
swear out a statement; it is another to wrestle their testimony
into court. Legal principle holds that a defendant should be
judged on evidence of a particular crime, not the record of past
ones, unless he consistently commits a sort of signature
offense. In this case Smith is being charged years after the
fact with attacks that were never investigated or proved. In
response, his lawyers asked that Lasch be censured for her
"cynical attempt to sandbag Mr. Smith and to undermine his fair
trial rights." Even if the evidence is disallowed, notes Neal
Sonnett, a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, "I doubt seriously
that there will be very many prospective jurors who will not
have heard or read about these latest revelations. The notion
that Willy Smith is something akin to a serial rapist is bound
to prejudice them."

    There was also speculation that Lasch is seeking to limit
the statements Smith can make on his own behalf. If he takes
the stand and comments at all on the way he treats women, for
example, Lasch would be allowed to call her witnesses to prove
he was lying. But if he refuses to testify, the defense loses
a powerful weapon. "It really comes down to his word against
hers," says Boudreau. "He's an intelligent, well-spoken man who
has no prior criminal convictions. From a defense lawyer's
viewpoint, he's a dream client." But if he exercises his right
not to testify, experts note, it is bound to raise suspicions
in the jurors' minds.

    Between now and the scheduled start of the trial on Aug.
5, there will probably be a hearing to decide whether the
women's testimony is admissible. The defense lawyers asked for
a postponement to investigate the latest charges. They also
argued for the trial to be moved to a different location, on the
ground that an impartial jury cannot be found in Palm Beach
County.

    In any case the media circus is likely to continue. "This
is the worst case of pretrial publicity that I've seen in the
recent past," says Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York
University law school and a legal ethics specialist. "In my view
the prosecutor's tactic was strategically brilliant but
improper. If victory is the only goal, she's measurably
increased her chance of winning -- but she's abused her power
by jeopardizing the chances of a fair trial." Perhaps. But given
the Smith team's efforts to dig up dirt on the alleged victim's
history, neither side can exactly claim the high road.