Recently there was a big case in NYC about a rape by of a young women. The issue with the case wasn't that he forced himself on her in a sexual way, he admitted he (Pena) did, but rather if he actually commited rape under the letter of the law. It may seem a bit confusing what I am getting at here, so here is the evidence at trial and the defense argument: THE EVIDENCE The Bronx school teacher identified Pena in the courtroom and testified that he raped and sodomized her at gunpoint and threatened to shoot her if she resisted. A witness said he saw Pena from 12 feet away raping her on a wooden table. Another witness heard her shout “No! No! No!” and saw “joyless” sex from her window. An emergency room doctor said redness on her vagina was consistent with rape. DNA evidence from Pena’s semen found on her underwear. THE DEFENSE The law says the prosecution has to prove penetration. He admitted assaulting the woman, but insisted there was no vaginal penetration — therefore no rape. No DNA evidence of Pena was found inside the woman. When the ER doctor was cross-examined, he couldn’t say with certainty when the redness on the victim’s vagina was caused. Pena lawyer said the witness was too far away to see if the officer penetrated the woman. Pena’s lawyer questioned the victim’s account as well, repeatedly asking her how she knew she was being raped. Eventually the jury convicted him on sexual assult, but were deadlocked on everything else, including rape. As a result he has a chance to get out of jail later in life, but if convicted of rape they would be no chance of release (he was charged under state law, and sexual assult still holds a life imprisonment possablity but statsitcally not nearly as high as a rape conviction). Because of the circumstances of him being a cop he will likly spend the rest of his life in jail but the case highlights how hard it is to get a conviction of rape in the United States.