Elena Scotti/Getty

Sexual assault allegations against athletes in America are so common these days that an alleged gang rape against a star player no longer dominates a news cycle. Here I’m specifically referring to the case of NBA player Derrick Rose, the newest member of the New York Knicks, once-league MVP, and now an accused rapist. Take a peek at Rose’s Wikipedia page and you’ll find no trace of the charge. And while major news outlets mentioned the accusations in stories about his recent trade from the Chicago Bulls, when I asked some of my sports fan friends if they’d heard about it, they hadn’t a clue.

But what's been most startling about the last few months of coverage is the lack of concern for the alleged victim, with a focus instead on how the allegations will impact Rose and his new team. In early October, Rose will face his accuser in court, where she will pursue $21.5 million in a civil suit against him. (She filed a criminal complaint in August 2015 that is still pending.) In the meantime, Rose's defense has gone out of its way to attempt to shame the woman—an ex-girlfriend of the player identified in court documents as Jane Doe—arguing that she deserves to have her identity publicly revealed because she “is publicly portraying herself as sexual” on social media. And late last week, the judge partially granted Rose’s request.

Advertisement

So why has an NBA star's brash attempts to out his rape accuser gotten so little press? Perhaps more than anything, the cultural ennui feels like a symptom of our acceptance of (or indifference toward) slut-shaming. But the larger danger here, of course, is that the case could send a message to private citizens about our ability to challenge powerful men without fear of shame and stigma—and that it could discourage rape victims from coming forward, especially against the rich and famous.

So in case you missed this lurid story—which you probably did—here's where things stand.

When the allegations became public in September 2015, Rose denied them in a press conference, indirectly accusing his ex-girlfriend of nefarious motives. "I feel like I'm on the right track as far as who I want to be, in my life and the direction I want to go," he said. "I just feel like when you're that focused, people try to take you down. I'm very confident that I will be proven innocent."

Advertisement

The accuser says she was gang raped in the early hours of August 27, 2013 by Rose and his personal assistants and longtime friends Randall Hampton and Ryan Allen. According to her, she had been hanging out with them the previous evening at Rose’s Los Angeles residence, where she says the men placed an unknown drug in her drink. When she appeared incapacitated, a friend put her in a cab home. The following morning, she says, the men came to her apartment knowing she was incapacitated and took turns raping her.

According to September 2015 court documents submitted by the defense, Rose maintains that everything on the day in question was completely consensual, that she allowed him and his friends into her apartment for group sex, and that the woman “was not injured at all, and did not report, show or claim any injuries to anyone, and went to work the next day at her normal time in the morning and worked a full day.” Of course, only the accuser and defendants know what really happened that day—but all other details aside, the woman suing Rose is saying that there was a point in which she had sex against her will.

There is also a detail about a supposed “sex belt” procured by the woman that was used in the supposed group activities. In its coverage of the case, TMZ  explained last year that this belt consists of "two bars for the man to hold [that] enables the man to get leverage and hold the bars during the 'doggie style' position." And text messages between Rose and the woman, released by him, show this device being discussed. The implication here seems to be, if this sex act was previously discussed then it was obviously consensual.

Curious about why Rose's accuser would pursue a civil case, I consulted with prominent laws professors with an expertise in sexual assault and rape law.

“One could argue that it could be a lot better for victims to go the civil route because, first of all, it’s easier to prove the case [and] they have control over the case,” Aya Gruber, a law professor at University of Colorado, Boulder, who specializes in the intersection of feminism and criminal law, told me over the phone this week. “And second, they could get money at the end of the day. That being said, given this is a basketball player with a lot of money, people are going to naturally wonder if these aren’t just false or trumped up allegations from the ex-girlfriend to get his money.”

On this issue of the burden of proof, Gruber explained that to win a criminal rape trial, “ultimately, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.” With a civil case, the required proof is less extreme (in part because the defendant doesn't face jail time), which could mean a less strenuous and traumatic process for the victim—and an easier way to take down a famous man in power.

Advertisement

Daniel Medwed, a professor at Northeastern University School of Law, said the choice to pursue a civil trial could partially explain the lack of interest in Rose's case. "The possibility that a celebrity could go to jail is very powerful," he said in a phone conversation. Because his accuser is seeking justice in the form of money, there is ultimately less at stake for Rose. Essentially, fans could deal with a slightly poorer charged rapist on their team; they'd likely have a harder time dealing with the possibility that he could be put behind bars.

So, would a woman really lie about a brutal rape just to get money? It's possible. But Gruber pointed out that “the allegation of rape is stigmatizing” and for a woman to expose herself to that, she “better be prepared for hell.” By lobbying to have her name released, it appears that’s what Rose is indeed trying to put her through. “It doesn’t matter if you look sexy on Facebook,” Gruber said. “A rape allegation is traumatizing.”

But Rose has been determined to brand his accuser as a slut and have her tried in the court of public opinion. “By putting it out there for the world that this is the woman who’s bringing the suit, he’s relying on dangerous tropes of female sexuality,” Deborah Tuerkheimer, a professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, told me in a phone call. She referred to his approach as “archaic.”

Advertisement

Indeed, the language in Rose’s motion for the judge to publicly reveal the victim’s name harkens back to any earlier time before women had, you know, rights and stuff. Before having full agency over one’s sexuality was encouraged. The official court document contends that the victim has no “legitimate fear of shame, humiliation, or embarrassment.” It continues:

Of special note, Plaintiff is publicly portraying herself as sexual. The production includes photos from Plaintiff’s Instagram account that are sexual in nature. In these images, Plaintiff is dressed in provocative attire, is in sexually suggestive poses, and is in photographs indicating that she engages in sexually charged encounters with more than one man at a time. Plaintiff’s use of twitter and other forms of social media further belies her apparent desire for anonymity.

In his decision, Judge Michael Fitzgerald expressed befuddlement over Rose’s reasoning, writing the court was “uncertain” what to make of it. “Defendant Rose appears to suggest that women who publicly portray themselves as 'sexual' are less likely to experience embarrassment, humiliation, and harassment associated with gang rape. Such rhetoric has no place in this Court. No matter how Plaintiff chooses to depict her sexuality on social media, her allegations of rape entitle her to the protections of anonymity.”

Preach, woke judge.

In the end, Rose’s request was both allowed and denied: The judge found no compelling reason to publicly release the woman's real name, which also means that Rose's defense will not be able to use her social media as evidence of her "sexual" nature at trial. He did, however, allow the disclosure of her name within the realm of the discovery, or fact-finding, process. This means that third party eyewitnesses, including people present at Rose's house that night and other people familiar with their prior relationship, will be privy to her identity for the sake of understanding what exactly happened that night.

Advertisement

While it’s a relief that the judge stopped Rose from going public, the fact that Rose felt empowered to make this kind of request, that he thinks so little of this woman, seems like a loss for humankind. “It’s already hard enough to come forward in these cases without the idea of then having your name in the public eye,” Medwed said.

Luckily, the victim will not be tried in the court of public opinion—but maybe it's time more men like Rose are.

Editor's Note: After this piece published, the attorney representing Jane Doe reached out to Fusion to clarify that his client filed a criminal complaint in August of last year, and that the case is still under investigation by the Special Assault Unit of the LAPD. He also shared the following: "The choice of whether to proceed civilly or criminally, and in what order, was not actually a strategic one, but rather, the natural result of Ms. Doe’s fear, shame and reluctance to come forward. "

Advertisement

Marisa Kabas is a Sex + Life reporter based in New York City. She loves baseball, bunnies and bagels.