Hump day

Share on Nextdoor

Not only did Wayne County Circuit Court Judge David A. Groner acquit a Detroit man of fourth degree criminal sexual conduct after he basically admitted he had molested a co-worker, he also blamed the alleged victim for the abuse.

Here’s what went down, according to a transcript of Groner’s ruling and a Melvindale police report (the names are changed because the alleged perpetrator has a very common name, and the woman’s to protect her true identity):

Joe Blow and Jane Roe worked together at a uniform rental business. Jane had known Joe for about six months when he called to ask her to meet him for coffee on Jan. 12. Jane was making work-related deliveries, but agreed to meet Joe at a gas station in Melvindale, where she bought coffee, according to the police report.

Joe told police he asked Jane into his truck for at least one hug and she consented; Jane claimed Joe put his hands on her buttocks and that when she asked him to let her go, he refused, according to the police report.

Jane and Joe both told police that Joe ground his pelvis against her and would not cease in spite of her repeated insistence that he stop, according to the police report. Joe told police that he thought he had ejaculated in his pants and told Jane this when she was struggling to get away, says the report.

Jane left and called a friend, who encouraged her to contact the police, which she did. Melvindale Police Officer Bradley Kropik, who investigated the complaint, testified that Joe admitted that Jane’s account was accurate, according to the court transcript.

The police report says that Joe admitted to making passes at Jane in the past, but that she had always said she wasn’t interested. Joe also testified that Jane had kissed him in the past, the transcript says.

Jane countered that the two had spoken on the phone about personal matters, but nothing sexual; she denied ever kissing him, according to the transcript.

After the January incident, Joe left two apologetic messages on Jane’s voice mail — they were admitted as evidence.

On May 7, after a one-day bench trial (no jury), Groner acquitted Joe, ruling that his actions did not constitute criminal sexual conduct.

“There’s no question that there was touching of … the defendant’s genitalia area with complainant’s … inner thigh area,” said the judge.

“The question is, was there consent?”

Attorney Charlotte Steffan-Ramirez, who represents Joe, says her client and Jane had a “close” relationship and “the judge didn’t think my client was a sexual predator and she either acted consensually or her behavior could have been reasonably construed as consenting to any of his advances.”

Groner questioned Jane’s motives. He said that Jane “knew that the defendant had a romantic — if not sexual — interest in her. The complainant put herself in a situation, in a truck, in the back of a truck with no windows, knowing that this individual, this defendant — had this interest in her.”

News Hits’ expert interpretation of the ruling? If a woman puts herself in such a position, she’s asking for it. Once she’s exposed herself to such a situation, saying no becomes meaningless. And finally, a “hug” can be, like, totally orgasmic.

Contact News Hits at 313-202-8004 or [email protected]
Scroll to read more Metro Detroit News articles


Join Detroit Metro Times Newsletters

Subscribe now to get the latest news delivered right to your inbox.