Quote:

Originally Posted by rocknation Quote: (According to) Koppenhaver's attorney Brandon Sua..."The media has done a good job of painting my client as a monster, but...(h)e is a good guy." ...Sua...add(ed) that his client did not do "anything illegal." It's not illegal to beat up a porn star? Why -- because Mack's not a "nice girl," or because "her kind" think violence is sexy? ...(Mack has) been accused of not being worthy of public sympathy...If (Sua) can convince the jury that (Mack)...deceived...or provoked (Koppenhaver)...by sending "mixed signals"...they might decide that Mack doesn't "qualify" for justice -- she merely experienced a "consequence" of her "chosen lifestyle..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocknation Quote: (The judge)...rejected a defense request to challenge Nevada's rape shield law (in order to) let the jury hear evidence of prior consensual sexual relations between him and Mackinday. Which would have proven what? That he doesn't know the difference between sex and assault, or that he had a constitutional right to beat her up for not being home alone?

(During a November 24) hearing on (the) sexual assault charges against...Jonathan Koppenhaver...defense lawyers argued...that alleged victim Christine Mackinday had made false rape allegations in the past...(They) also argued (that) Mackinday's work in pornography pointed to consent...her "desire, the preference, the acceptability towards a particular form of sex activities that were outside of the norm..."

Koppenhaver met Mackinday while making an adult movie...(They) often engaged in rough sex..."The jury needs to know the nature of...what was customary and consensual," Sua said outside the courtroom.