Jury hurdles language barrier on its path to rape conviction

It was clear to jurors, attorneys and courtroom observers alike from the moment testimony began that the young Somali rape victim didn't understand some of the questions. Then another witness evaded questions or contradicted himself, and a videotape from the hall of a St. Paul apartment building that purportedly showed the sex assault, didn't.

Still, the violence evident on the video helped the jury in Rage Ibrahim's rape trial last month wade through evidence complicated by language difficulties, cultural barriers and religious taboos to return a guilty verdict after just 3 1/2 hours of deliberations. Tracy Hirigoyen, 27, said she and her fellow jurors "went through every witness, every piece of evidence we were shown. ... We tried to go in with the assumption that this defendant is innocent. But it tipped the scales toward guilty."

Among the persuasive evidence were images from the video.

Hirigoyen was the only juror willing to talk about the case after Ramsey County District Judge Michael Fetsch released their names after the Star Tribune went to court to get them late last month.

The trial almost was derailed before it began.

The victim was to be the state's first witness, and when a cab was sent to pick her up at her home that morning, she wasn't there. Some time later, the woman called her sexual assault advocate, saying, "I don't know where I am, come get me," Assistant County Attorney Jill Gerber said.

The advocate kept the victim on the phone for an hour while the phone company ran a trace on the call, Gerber said.

Although the victim speaks English well enough, it was clear that she didn't understand some of the questions, and she repeatedly declined to use an interpreter.

For example, when she was questioned by defense attorney Jerod Peterson about when the rape took place, she repeatedly said it was "before and after" she had fled into the hall.

"So it happened twice?" Peterson asked.

"Yep," she replied.

On redirect from Gerber, the victim admitted that she thought "penetration" was another way of saying she had been hit or beaten.

After closing arguments, Peterson said, "It's very challenging in the midst of a cross-examination of a witness not to be able to know for certain whether a person actually doesn't understand the question or is just evading the question.

"That's it in a nutshell," he said. "It's an added burden if your interest is in finding out what the actual truth is in a trial."

The jury, too, noticed the language difficulties.

"It was frustrating just knowing there might be one word that wasn't coming through to her," Hirigoyen said. "It was hard seeing her challenges, knowing she wasn't necessarily saying everything that happened in the right way."

Another key witness, Hussein A. Hussein, frustrated even a court-appointed interpreter, who told the judge several times, "I don't understand what he's saying."

When Ibrahim made unwanted advances and began punching, slapping and knocking the victim to the floor, the victim said she fled into the hall. Hussein, she said, restrained Ibrahim before he chased after her. In the hall, the victim testified, Ibrahim continued beating her. He ripped her clothes and tried to rape her, she said. Eventually he succeeded.

But on the stand, Hussein said he didn't know Ibrahim before that night. He said he hadn't seen or heard Ibrahim and the victim fighting. He insisted he didn't drink or pour the drinks. "I am Muslim. I do not drink," he said.

Hirigoyen said Hussein "seemed to frustrate both sides. ... He didn't seem valuable to either side," she said.

Community pressure?

But why did Hussein insist he hadn't been drinking when others said he had? And why did the victim testify that she wasn't drunk when tests showed her blood-alcohol content was at least 0.17?

By reporting the crime and then seeing it through to trial, the victim "crossed the line" in her community, Gerber said. "And she's going to feel the backlash now. They'll disown her, I think."

Hirigoyen said jurors "talked a lot about ... the fact that beyond a reasonable doubt isn't 100 percent proof," she said.

Although the video didn't show the sexual assault, Ibrahim is clearly seen without his pants or underwear, and he can be seen laying over the victim and punching her.

During closing arguments, the prosecutor asked jurors to use common sense and told them, "All evidence points to the same thing -- this defendant sexually assaulted [the victim]."

Hirigoyen said, "the ripped clothes, the positions they were in ... was strong evidence."

As for jury service, Hirigoyen said, "It was interesting, very unique. At the beginning I thought, 'What a hassle, I have to miss work,' but as it went on, I understood the weight of the responsibility, how fortunate we are."