Can you imagine standing in a courtroom making this argument on behalf of your client, a high school football player accused of raping a drunk girl? Excerpt:

Associate Attorney General Marianne Hemmeter told the judge at a hearing in October that the Weirton teen was clearly too drunk to agree to sex.

“The state doesn’t have to prove that she was flat-lined,” Hemmeter said. “Everybody agrees she’s puking. She’s puking on herself. People have to help her walk. She can’t talk. She’s stumbling.”

Attorney Walter Madison, who represents one of the accused boys, contends the girl voluntarily drank and willingly left in a car with a group of boys — including the two charged football players.

“There’s an abundance of evidence here that she was making decisions, cognitive choices,” Madison said. “She didn’t affirmatively say no.”

She didn’t affirmatively say no.  That’s really something.

In case you’ve forgotten, here’s a reminder of what a class act those Steubenville High football players are.

UPDATE: From a commenter:

I was on a jury for a case like this once. (Only one guy, though, and the girl was 19.) The thing was, the other members of the jury were all in favor of the guy. They felt it was the girls fault that she got into the situation. Though the law was clear, and the judge explained that to us clearly, as soon as we were in the jury room guys would be saying, “I’ve done that, gotten a girl drunk to have sex with her” and women saying, “I’ve been that drunk, and nobody but me was responsible for the things I did.” Though the prosecution’s lawyer was brilliant, much better than the defense,the jury let the guy off, because they didn’t want anyone to pass judgement on their own similar behavior.