A New Jersey judge is facing serious allegations of misconduct after he asked an alleged rape victim if she had attempted to “close her legs” to prevent her assault. Superior Court Judge Mark Reynolds Jr. has been recommended for a three-month suspension without pay following an advisory board’s findings that he mistreated the victim during a 2016 court hearing.
The advisory panel concluded that Judge Reynolds violated judicial conduct codes on multiple occasions during the hearing. A public hearing is scheduled for July to further discuss the board’s recommendations. During the original hearing, the victim was seeking a restraining order related to domestic violence when Reynolds posed a series of inappropriate and insensitive questions, which raised eyebrows about his impartiality.
“Do you know how to stop someone from having intercourse with you?” Reynolds asked, as detailed in the hearing transcript. The victim, understandably distressed, responded, “I’d probably physically harm them … tell them no … to stop, or try to run away.” In a shocking turn, the judge continued to press her for more ways she could have prevented the attack, asking, “Block your body parts? Close your legs? Call the police? Did you do any of those things?”
This line of questioning is not only disturbing but also places the onus on the victim rather than the perpetrator. It raises critical issues about victim-blaming and the responsibilities placed on those who have suffered from sexual violence. Why should the burden of prevention fall on the victim, especially in a courtroom setting?
The advisory committee has recommended the suspension and mandated that Judge Reynolds undergo additional training to address his courtroom demeanor. Their report highlighted that his remarks reflected “an emotional immaturity wholly unbefitting” of someone in his position. Other complaints against Reynolds include failing to recuse himself from a case involving acquaintances and inappropriate communications with a litigant.
Reynolds has denied any wrongdoing but acknowledged he would avoid such questions in the future. “Judge Reynolds looks forward to a public hearing where he can address the allegations,” his attorney stated. The advisory panel condemned the judge’s behavior, noting that it could re-traumatize victims seeking justice.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the critical need for sensitivity and respect in judicial proceedings, especially concerning vulnerable individuals. For those interested in learning more about home insemination techniques, resources like this artificial insemination kit offer valuable insights. Additionally, this expert guidance provides information on related topics, while this resource is excellent for pregnancy-related information.
In summary, the judge’s inappropriate questioning of the rape victim not only raises serious ethical concerns but also highlights the need for reform in how courts handle such sensitive cases.