Why aren't we talking more about Rachel Mitchell? | Marc A. Scaringi

Phoenix prosecutor Rachel Mitchell asks questions to Christine Blasey Ford at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Thursday, Sept. 17, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington.  (Michael Reynolds/Pool Image via AP)


The report is in.

Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh during last week's Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, has concluded that not only is the evidence insufficient to justify criminal charges of sexual assault, it doesn't even rise to the much lower level needed to bring a civil suit.

Marc A. Scaringi

Marc A. Scaringi

This is a stunning rebuke of Dr. Ford and the allegations she has made that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 36-years ago.

The rebuke of Dr. Ford is even more stunning considering Mitchell is an award-winning sexual assault prosecutor and chief of the Special Victims Division in Maricopa County, Arizona.

She's been lauded by former Democratic Governor and Obama cabinet official, Janet Napolitano, for her strong advocacy on behalf of sexual assault victims.

From calling for stronger laws against sexual assault and for changes in the courtroom to make them more comfortable for victims, one couldn't ask for a prosecutor more sensitive to victims.

With all those accolades and with the entire media and Democratic Party screaming that Dr. Ford must be "believed" because she's a woman, it's no wonder Mitchell conducted a velvet-glove, hands-off examination of Dr. Ford.

In Mitchell's defense, the structure of the hearing made it impossible to conduct a proper examination. The search for the truth, which is the purpose of direct and cross-examination, was interrupted every five minutes first by Democratic then by Republican senators pontificating and posturing for the cameras.

In any event, Mitchell did have several segments during which she chose not to ask basic questions designed to test the credibility of Dr. Ford. Notably, Mitchell did not examine Dr. Ford as to her bias, prejudice, or other motive that might affect her testimony.

In a real hearing, the failure to cross-examine a witness as to bias and motive could subject an attorney to a claim for malpractice. It's basic, standard stuff that is part of most every civil and criminal trial. Any defense attorney worth her salt would have conducted this examination; and would have had a field day with Dr. Ford.

How about these simple questions?

Dr. Ford, isn't it true that you're a registered Democrat? Isn't it true that you've regularly donated to Democratic political candidates and the Democratic Party?

Isn't it true that you donated to the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign? Isn't it true that you've attended a "Women's March" in which the speakers spoke out against President Trump?

Isn't it true that you've donned the "p***y hat" at those marches?

Isn't it true that you've signed letters denouncing President Trump's policies as "inhumane"?

The answers to all those questions are "yes" and they're easily proven. But they weren't asked.

Clearly, Mitchell was pulling her punches to appear "fair" to the victim. Remember, female victims must be "believed."

Yet even though Mitchell was fighting with one hand tied behind her back and the other in a powderpuff glove, she managed to land some blows.

Mitchell did well with the map showing the eight-mile distance, as "the crow flies," from the Columbia Country Club to Blasey Ford's home. Ford couldn't remember how she got to or home from the house party after she claims to have run out of the house after the alleged assault. That's simply not credible. She had no car and no mobile phone; she's in the suburbs. How did she get there or home? No one knows.

Mitchell also did a nice job exposing Dr. Ford's claim that the alleged sexual assault prevents her from flying.

Dr. Ford maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and that these disorders were either "caused" or "contributed to" by the alleged sexual assault.

Mitchell explains that "the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. Yet during her testimony Ford agreed that she flies 'fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and ... work.' She flies to the mid-Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing."

Notably, many point out the flaw in Dr. Ford's case is that she had no witnesses to corroborate her account. However, a victim does not need corroborating witnesses. Many valid convictions occur after a "he said-she said" trial in which there is no corroborating evidence.

Indeed, Dr. Ford had no corroboration. But, she still needed to have been credible. Dr. Ford wasn't. Jurors are instructed to assess the witness's credibility; there's no exception for those witnesses who are or identify as female. Had Dr. Ford been cross-examined as to her bias and motive, we would have come to the truth.

It appears Dr. Ford, like many activist Democrats, is willing to do whatever it takes to derail the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court and to destroy the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

PennLive Opinion contributor Marc A. Scaringi is an attorney and radio host. His work appears biweekly.