You gotta love it when a child rapist gets caught, especially when it’s a powerful guy like Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, or allegedly Sean Diddy Combs. When rich guys get in trouble the rest of the monsters worry a little more about getting caught. As they should.
But some guys think they’re untouchable. After Jay-Z was sued last week and accused of raping a 13-year-old child at an MTV awards after-party in New York, he released a public statement accusing the victim’s lawyer of extortion for trying to settle the case short of litigation. Extortion is a serious felony but Jay-Z filed no police report.
Jay-Z said if he did rape a child, the case would be handled by cops and the District Attorney, not litigated as a civil matter. Wrong. Civil and criminal cases are not mutually exclusive. Both can and should be filed whenever possible, though it’s too late for a criminal charge in Jay-Z’s case.
The alleged rape occurred in 2000 when the statute of limitations was much shorter than it is today. The law was changed in 2019 so a child victim today has much more time to file criminal charges, but the clock ran out on the 2000 incident before the law was changed and a new statute of limitations cannot retroactively resuscitate an expired criminal case. The only option for the victim at this point is a civil lawsuit.
Civil lawsuits aren’t ideal because they don’t end with the perpetrator going to prison, but they do compensate victims for their suffering, which is important because most victims suffer severe consequences throughout their lives. Money pays for therapy and other things that help victims recover from the trauma.
Jay-Z has a right to defend himself but accusing a lawyer of extortion isn’t the way to do it. If the allegations are false, his lawyer should be able to discredit them. The victim described the location of the after-party in detail, including how she got there, the shape of the driveway, the color of the house and the layout of the interior. She also described the color of the drink she was given before she became woozy and found her way to a bedroom to lie down.
She said Jay-Z, along with Diddy and a female celebrity that she recognized then came into the room and each man raped her while the woman watched. The victim grabbed her clothes and left the house — naked. She got dressed outside and made her way to a gas station where she called her father for a ride. These are the kinds of details that add credibility to a victim’s claim; details Jay-Z has not addressed at all except to deny the rape.
Jay-Z didn’t say there was no after-party, or that he and Diddy weren’t there, or that the victim was incorrect in her description of the property. He could have said “I wasn’t there” or “I don’t know of any house that fits that description,” but he didn’t.
When a victim correctly describes details she would have no innocent way of knowing, it increases her chances of winning in court.
That said, the victim’s lawyer is obviously still hoping to settle the case out of court because he’s holding back on the identity of the female celebrity who allegedly watched the rapes. Her name and Jay-Z’s name were initially withheld when the lawsuit was first filed in October because the lawyer was trying to make a deal. When it didn’t work, Jay-Z’s name was released but the female’s name remains secret, no doubt because the victim’s lawyer is still hoping the case can be resolved for a princely sum. If it is, her identity will never come out. If it isn’t, it will.
Leveraging secrets doesn’t require good lawyering. Any idiot can trade on scandalous information. But the victim’s lawyer isn’t the bad guy here because it takes two to tango and rich people love to buy their way out of public scandals.
The female celebrity now has to decide: does she pay for secrecy or take the hit and fight? If popular speculation about her identity is correct, she’ll make a deal.
Wendy Murphy is a lawyer and a victims’ rights advocate.
