Tonight’s SVU shone a light on the darkest corner of Hollywood’s casting couch, where kids vying for roles are sexually abused and passed around by moguls and producers.
Recap:
In the wake of a hit-and-run, Nick arrests Tensley Evans, a beautiful but troubled starlet resembling Lindsey Lohan or Amanda Bynes. When she falsely accuses Nick of propositioning her, SVU gets involved. Dashcam video exonerates poor Nick, but car trouble is just the tip of Tensley’s iceberg.
While in rehab, she performed oral sex on a 15-year-old boy. Tensley, who’s in her twenties, is charged with statutory rape (although the boy protests “It was the best experience of my life!). But our SVU experts are familiar with “the short path between victim and suspect.” Turns out, Tensley molests others because she was molested.
A powerful producer named Adam auditioned her on the proverbial casting couch when she was 13. Then he passed her around to his friends, coercing her to have sex with them too. Adam did this to a bunch of kids, even procuring underwater sex acts, which led to one girl’s death in a swimming pool.
Our detectives wants to prosecute Adam, but he’s wily. The statute of limitations has run on his older rapes. And in recent years, he only made movies – and “auditioned” girls – in states where the age of consent is 16 and “mistake of age” is a defense.
Although Adam thoroughly researched states’ law, he forgot to consider the feds. He went to Canada to have sex with a pretty 16-year-old actress, confident because the age of consent in Canada is 16. But U.S. federal law makes it a crime to travel to another country for the purpose of having sex with a person under 18. Adam is finally arrested and hauled away by the U.S. Marshals.
Tensley does a glowing (but premature) victory lap on Hoda Kotb’s talk show.
Verdict: B+
What They Got Right:
No one’s exactly sure how Lindsey and Amanda got to where they are, but sex abuse in Hollywood is a real and serious problem. Corey Feldman, a child actor who, as an adult, revealed that he had been repeatedly sexually abused by powerful men in the industry, reportedly said, “I can tell you that the No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia … It’s the big secret.”
Alison Arngrim, a former Little House on the Prairie star, agreed: “This has been going on for a very long time,” she said. “It was the gossip back in the ‘80s. People said, ‘Oh yeah, the Coreys, everyone’s had them.’ People talked about it like it was not a big deal….The word was that they were given drugs and being used for sex. It was awful – these were kids, they weren’t 18 yet.”
Hollywood, with its glittering promise of fame and fortune held in the hands of a few powerful men, is ripe for corruption when eager young kids come looking to make their way.
Speaking of corrupt patriarchal organizations, SVU was correct about what’s holding up the expansion of statutes of limitation for sexual assault. Although many reformers advocate longer periods, the Catholic Church has spent a small fortune trying to keep state legislatures from expanding the time in which past sex crimes can be prosecuted.
Dashcam footage has been providing incredible evidence in jurisdictions around the country. Sometimes, like tonight, it can exonerate a cop who’s falsely accused. And sometimes, it can do the opposite. Check out this chilling video of a cop shooting an unarmed man during a traffic stop.
This episode authentically portrayed the different attitudes about sex with a 15-year-old girl versus a 15-year-old boy. For her, it’s a traumatic crime. For him, it’s a Facebook brag. Is the difference in biology or in how we’re socialized? Whatever the answer, it’s the same crime under the law.
Traveling to another country for the purpose of having sex with a person under 18 years old is a U.S. federal crime. SVU presented an interesting legal issue, where the foreign country’s laws allowed consent at 16. But the American federal sex tourism prohibitions would trump. Nice legal twist, SVU. Convicting Adam – who murdered a girl – on an iffy traveler’s case is kind of like getting Al Capone for tax evasion.
What They Got Wrong:
Maybe Olivia was distracted by all the baby gear and nanny-planning, but there’s no way she should have assigned Nick to investigate Tensley’s case. Tensley accused him of misconduct! He has every reason to want to send her to jail. Somebody teach that baby to say, “Conflict of interest, Mama.”
In the final scene, Tensley sat on Hoda’s spotless white couch, all apple-cheeked and rehabilitated – but she’s still being prosecuted. Adam’s arrest didn’t make her legal woes disappear. She’s still on the hook for having sex with that 15-year-old boy – the only thing that’s changed for her, legally, is that she may present the evidence of Adam’s abuse as a mitigation for her actions, at her own sentencing hearing.
Adam’s wily plan for abusing young actresses was pretty far-fetched. Sex abuse in Hollywood is a crime of opportunity. I’ve never heard of a producer going so far as to film movies in specific locations in order cherry pick their statutory rape laws. First off, he’d have to hire a lawyer to do a 50-state survey, and that would be expensive and … awkward. Second, what if you need a lovely harbor scene? Adam’s not going to find that in Montana.
Finally, it was a bit insincere for SVU to condemn a culture that exploits teenage actresses in wet bikinis, while delivering for your viewing pleasure a bunch of teenage actresses in wet bikinis. When Ice-T has a scene in Speedo, I’ll eat my words.
mgolaw says
9 October, 2014 at 12:25 amSleep deprived 2L here…they definitely had Elliot go through the same thing a couple seasons ago with that kid that turned out to be a psychopath. You would think the cops would learn their lesson.
On a general note, this blog was the most awesomely terrible thing to discover! I’m in Evidence right now and it’s already making me want to toss popcorn at episodes of SVU, but it makes me feel better that I’m not alone and I’m picking out the same crazy things a federal prosecutor is. Your reviews are awesome and it’s cool reading about SVU from a lawyer’s perspective!
Allison Leotta says
9 October, 2014 at 9:32 amWelcome to the blog, Sleep-Deprived 2L! Glad you found it. Good luck in Evidence! As I’m sure you’ve noticed, just because something happened on SVU doesn’t mean it’s codified in the FRE. 🙂
mgolaw says
9 October, 2014 at 7:43 pmHaha thank you! And that’s definitely true, the show does kind of play fast and loose with the FRE. That was pretty much how my professor (a federal judge) introduced the class, by telling us all legal shows will be ruined. It’s a super interesting class though, so I don’t mind too much.
kimsch says
9 October, 2014 at 12:38 amI’d like to see them take on some of these female teachers/male students cases. There’s one now where the teacher may be pregnant, and another where the underage father is being forced to pay child support. 6 years after the rape, he’s now 20.
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has lots of stories: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/?s=teach+women+not+to+rape
Allison Leotta says
9 October, 2014 at 9:37 amTry this one, Kimsch: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1015446/
kimsch says
9 October, 2014 at 2:31 pmIt’s the double standard. Women’s sentences are lighter. We wouldn’t accept that for a male teacher and an underage girl. Like the boy in the episode last night, he was thrilled! It goes back to the Biloxi Blues like story where boys were supposed to be experienced, but girls were supposed to be virgins.
Women commiting statutory rape is a problem. Especially when it’s a teacher/student where one has power over the other. There’s another case in New Zealand where Mom’s friend raped a 10 or 11 year old boy, and now she’s pregnant.
It’s not okay if the victim is male or female.
TokoBali says
9 October, 2014 at 5:39 pmThere I was in the comment section of last week’s episode, complaining about the false accusation trope, only to watch the opening scene of this one. I really thought to myself “oh no they didn’t!”
I just re-watched a lecture by a law professor/former defense attorney on why you, guilty or innocent, should never, ever talk to the police. (You regularly bring this up, Allison, about attorneys just sitting there while their clients talk themselves into jail.) One of the arguments he has for this is that there are thousands of laws in the books; so much that nobody knows the exact number. In other words, you don’t even know whether you are innocent or not. That’s why I enjoyed the ending so much, because that was exactly the producer’s mistake.
It’s a great lecture (maybe I posted it before). And part 2, where a detective tells how he interrogates suspects, is great as well. Fun fact: I came across the link when Ice T tweeted it. -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Stefi says
9 October, 2014 at 6:28 pmPlease watch this link. It’s a real police interview in Luton, England. The suspect is arrested in connection to a failed paid contract assassination.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/24-hours-in-police-custody/on-demand/57099-001
It’s a perfect example of how interviews are in real life.
Stefi says
9 October, 2014 at 6:01 pmWhat they got wrong:
1) Canada is a sovereign nation state! So Nick and Olivia couldn’t have question Maude on Canadian soil without Canadian approval.
2) There was no evidence that Adam had formed an intent to have sex with Maude before his arrival in Canada.
3) Charges could have been brought in Canada: Maude was under 18. Adam could have been charged with sexual exploitation; or luring a child and procuring.
The procuring would be the hardest to defend. Adam clearly enticed 16 year old Maude to a hotel with a job offer in a film that he knew would never be produced. He then encouraged her to have sex with him every which way. Therefore anything Adam paid or offered to Maude could be regarded as financial inducement to have sex.
James Pollock says
10 October, 2014 at 9:15 am“1) Canada is a sovereign nation state! So Nick and Olivia couldn’t have question Maude on Canadian soil without Canadian approval.”
Um… why not? Does Canada have a law against waitresses talking to American law enforcement officers?
“2) There was no evidence that Adam had formed an intent to have sex with Maude before his arrival in Canada.”
Except that he had no other reason to be in Canada. Seems like a reasonable inference.
“3) Charges could have been brought in Canada: Maude was under 18.”
And they still might. These are different crimes, so there aren’t any double jeopardy issues.
Stefi says
10 October, 2014 at 2:41 pm1) “Um… why not? Does Canada have a law against waitresses talking to American law enforcement officers?”
YES! (see Perimeter Security Pact)
2) “Except that he had no other reason to be in Canada.”
Except for conducting interview or any other reason he’s not obliged to give.
“Seems like a reasonable inference.”
Conjecture not supported by evidence… so irrelevant.
3) “These are different crimes, so there aren’t any double jeopardy issues.”
They arise out of the same set of circumstances, so there would be a double jeopardy issue vis-a-vis extradition. The only reason against trying it in Canada is they recently upped the age of consent from 14 to 16, so it might be hard to get a Canadian jury to convict.
James Pollock says
10 October, 2014 at 9:51 pm“1) “Um… why not? Does Canada have a law against waitresses talking to American law enforcement officers?”
YES! (see Perimeter Security Pact) ”
Alas, Wikipedia has never heard of it. I did a bit of Google research, and can’t find anything that even remotely suggests that American law enforcement officers cannot interview witnesses.
” The only reason against trying it in Canada …”
The main reason against trying it in Canada is that the crime he’ll be charged with is violation of 18 USC 2423(b) (sex tourism). It’s a crime to leave the United States for the purposes of having sex with a person under 18, even if it’s legal to have sex with someone under 18 where you’re going. The crime he’ll be charged with was completed as soon as he crossed the border into Canada. You don’t have trials in Canada for violations of U.S. law.
Stefi says
11 October, 2014 at 7:29 am@ James Pollock
“I did a bit of Google research, and can’t find anything that even remotely suggests that American law enforcement officers cannot interview witnesses.”
Well that speaks volumes about your research skills because you missed the Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations Act (S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 368) and Perimeter Security Pact.
The NYPD can’t carry out investigations in any foreign nation State without permission of both the US government or the host nation. They would send what’s known in international law as a commission rogatoire to the Canadians to seek assistance.
“The main reason against trying it in Canada is that the crime he’ll be charged with is violation of 18 USC 2423(b) (sex tourism).”
No he wouldn’t because there was no EVIDENCE of intent. So the only charge they could pursue is 18 USC 2423(c) but despite what you and Dick Wolf might think, Canada won The 1812 War, and any the choice of venue for any prosecution that involves an offence that took place on Canadian soil would be taken in consultation with Canada.
James Pollock says
11 October, 2014 at 8:59 am“Well that speaks volumes about your research skills because you missed the Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations Act”
I read this act. It doesn’t seem to say what you think it does. Rather, it defines how the government of Canada grants police powers to officers of the U.S. government, and under which circumstances a person or vessel may be seized by U.S. authorities..
But you don’t NEED police power to interview a witness. You just need the witness’ permission. In this sense, a law enforcement officer from another jurisdiction has pretty much the same authority as does a private investigator.
“he wouldn’t because there was no EVIDENCE of intent.”
As noted previously, we disagree about that.
“the only charge they could pursue is 18 USC 2423(c)”
Yeah, they won’t be holding a trial in Canada for that, either.
“despite what you and Dick Wolf might think, Canada won The 1812 War”
54-40 or fight. Not sure what the war of 1812 has to do with sex tourism.
“the choice of venue for any prosecution that involves an offence that took place on Canadian soil would be taken in consultation with Canada.”
Did you miss the part of the episode where Canada isn’t prosecuting him? He’s an American, who violated an American law, and is to be tried in an American court as a result. National sovereignty isn’t a question to be answered here.
So… yes, if they were questioning a suspect rather than a witness, there’d definitely be involvement of the Canadian government and Canadian law enforcement officers, because they have police power and NYPD does not. The unreality here is that the NYPD doesn’t investigate cases of sex tourism, because it’s a federal crime, not a state one.
In short, I think you missed the entire point of the episode.
Stefi says
11 October, 2014 at 2:51 pm@ James
You’re wrong! I’m sorry if that’s hard for you to deal with but they are not designated officers for the purpose of the act ,nor are they part of a cross border force, so no they have no legal authority to assume the role of peace officers in Canada. Also, they are not licensed or registered private investigators in Manitoba or any other jurisdiction. If you want to delude yourself that American police officers have jurisdiction to investigate crimes in foreign countries without that country’s consent be my guest. In the real world they send a commission rogatoire and wait for the Canadians to get back to them.
James Pollock says
12 October, 2014 at 12:33 pm“You’re wrong! I’m sorry if that’s hard for you to deal with ”
I’m not wrong. I’m sorry that’s so hard for you to deal with.
“they are not designated officers for the purpose of the act ,nor are they part of a cross border force”
Agreed.
“they have no legal authority to assume the role of peace officers in Canada”
Also agreed.
But they are not assuming the role of peace officers in Canada. They’re assuming the role of private citizens having a conversation with a Canadian citizen. It’s true, they lack any authority to compel anyone to talk to them. They cannot detain anyone. So they didn’t. They’re talking to someone who is willing to talk to them. Now, North Korea criminalizes talking to Americans without government authorization, and I think Iran does. Canada does not.
“they are not licensed or registered private investigators in Manitoba or any other jurisdiction. ”
You don’t have to be a licensed private investigator to conduct an investigation; there are several exemptions to the licensure law.
“If you want to delude yourself that American police officers have jurisdiction to investigate crimes in foreign countries ”
You’re making the mistake of generalizing from a single case to all cases. I did not, and do not, claim that American law enforcement officers have unlimited authority to operate as law enforcement officers in whatever place they happen to be in. THAT’S NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE. They interviewed a witness who was willing to talk to them.
“In the real world they send a commission rogatoire and wait for the Canadians to get back to them.”
No, in the real world, they call her on the telephone. Wait, no. In the real world, they call the local FBI field office, and then the FBI decides whether or not to call her on the telephone, depending on what their caseload looks like.
Allison Leotta says
16 October, 2014 at 9:55 amJames and Stefi, forgive my romance-writer’s imagination, but based on the way that you go at it on the blog, I have this vision that if you ever met in real life, you would immediately fall in love with each other.
Trev says
9 August, 2016 at 5:31 pmWow. I am a bit late to the party, just saw this episode on Netflix. Writing from Canada, with a background in Criminology (but not a law degree), this was another US show of interest. SVU has “gone to Canada” before (2.18, Manhunt), and might in the future.
It might be reasonably assumed that the SVU detectives did arrange with the FBI and Canadian authorities to speak to the waitress, but we didn’t see it. If Adam had paid the girl for sex, it would have violated Canadian law, because she was under 18; at the time this episode originally aired, paying some over 18 was still legal. We did not see money exchanged in the hotel video, so a conviction would be unlikely.
The issue of US Code section 2423 is more problematic; the term “illicit sexual conduct” means: a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A. However, in Chapter 109A, sexual abuse of a minor is defined in terms of a person who has attained the age of 12 years, but has not attained the age of 16 years; and is at least four years younger than the person so engaging. It would seem that the sex in Canada, where the waitress was 16, but not recorded receiving any money, would not violate 2423. A conviction in US Federal Court seems challenging, given the waitress would likely testify she was never paid for sex; not sure if the pretend script would matter in the way Barba was convinced it was. Not convinced an overworked AUS Attorney would bother.
Better show than many; love all the shows where they make up gun laws in a state where the actual gun laws are quite different.
quatisha brown says
14 January, 2025 at 7:36 amI just want the whole world to know about this spell caster I met two weeks ago,I cannot say everything he has done for me and my family I was going through online when I meant this wonderful man’s testimony online how he won a lottery through the help of dr Ose I decided to just give it a try and my life is back to me now after i lost my job due to covid he gave me a winning numbers to play lottery and i won 5000usd for my first play since then i have been working with him and he has been giving me numbers to play my lottery i can not write everything he has done for me if you need a lottery spell today contact him on oseremenspelltemple@gmail.com www.facebook.com/Dr-odion-spell-temple-110513923938220
whatsapp +2348136482342