Back in July, a St. Louis jury found that a woman dancing in a club in 2004 had consented to having her bare breasts filmed for a DVD.
She didn't sign a consent form and audibly objected to having her body exposed, but the jury somehow decided that the mere act of being there showed that she was totally game for having her breasts in the film.
Now, the woman, known only as Jane Doe, is getting a new trial, as ordered by St. Louis Circuit Judge John J. Riley.
in 2004, Doe and some friends met for drinks and dancing at the
now-defunct Rum Jungle in Laclede's Landing. The Girls Gone Wild crew
was in the house, and they say there were signs posted in and on the
club alerting patrons that they could be filmed. Doe was dancing near a
camera when another woman pulled her top down, exposing her breasts. Doe
visibly and audibly objected, and immediately covered herself back up.
later, a friend of her husband's recognized her face when the scene was
spliced into a porn scene in Girls Gone Wild: Sorority Orgy 2. Doe sued
GGW, and the jury found that merely by being there, she gave implied
At the time, the jury foreman, Patrick O'Brien, told the Post-Dispatch, "Through her actions, she gave implied consent. She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."
Yeah, like clearly saying no when she was exposed against her will. That sure doesn't sound like consent to us.
Monday, Judge Riley ordered a new trial in the case. In his ruling, he
writes, "It is clear from viewing the video that plaintiff was an
unwilling participant in the exposure of her breasts and she can be seen
visibly mouthing 'no'. In the raw footage, she can be heard objecting
So now Doe gets a new trial and the frat boys at Girls
Gone Wild get another chance to try to use the tired old "she was asking
for it" defense.
Here's hoping some sense prevails this time
around. And here's wondering if the woman who pulled down Doe's top will
ever face sexual assault charges for, you know, sexually assaulting her.