New Trial for Girl Who Didn't Actually Go Wild
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.
The backstory: 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.
Years 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 consent.
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.
On 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 audibly."
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.