Well, the jury came back in Worcester’s trial of The Commonwealth versus Raymond Grenier
(hereinafter, the “Defendant”). The verdict…on the remaining charges…was guilty. Guilty of assaulting a sex worker (prostitute) as well as trespass.

The allegations came from a June 15, 2014 incident in a Sutton cornfield.

According to said sex worker, she was working as a prostitute in the Main South section of Worcester when the Defendant picked her up around 3 a.m. She said he agreed to pay her for oral sex and he drove her to the Sutton cornfield in Sutton.

She testified that, “I told him I wanted my money first … and he wouldn’t give it to me…He said he’d give it to me when he was ready. I said, ‘you’re going to bring me home right now.’ He proceeded to get very angry.” She claimed that the Defendant then punched her on the left side of her head and then punched her again in the ribs. She said he then pushed her out of the truck and she fell onto the ground.

“He turned on the truck and started driving behind me…I had to jump off the trail because I thought he was going to hit me with the truck.”

She said she then walked along a dirt trail to the road and started to flag down cars. One of the cars called the police. Sutton police officer Bryan Lefebvre testified that he responded to the call and met her along the side of the road.

The officer testified that “She appeared to be upset and on the verge of tears. Her eyes were welling up, she was speaking quickly, hyperventilating”.

At trial, defense counsel argued that the sex worker was lying. He argued that she had made the story up for “self-preservation”. In other words, to avoid prosecution for her profession.

Counsel argued that” For self preservation, she says I’m the victim … there’s nothing stronger as a motive. He described her tears as “tears of rage” because “She’s walking around for an hour thinking this is the biggest rat fink she has ever met.”

The jury convicted the Defendant after less than an hour of deliberations.

Interestingly, unknown to the jury, the Defendant initially had been facing upwards of 12 counts against him. In fact, they had included charges of indecent assault and battery. At the time, there were three women who claimed he had assaulted them.

Between the arrest and trial, however, two of them died from “unrelated” causes.

    Attorney Sam’s Take On Crimes Against Sex Workers

There were days, not so long ago, when a sex worker claiming to be attacked would be given little to no attention. In fact, I once handled a matter where the complainant was a sex worker and the judge actually wondered aloud whether it was actually legally possible to “commit rape on a prostitute.”

The fact is that a sex worker or, if you prefer, prostitute does not lose the right to say “No”. We may unfortunately still hold the provincial line that the contract is void as it is illegal when it comes to payment, but we have matured to the point in understanding that we are still dealing with a human being. Therefore, the robbery, assault or sexual assault of a sex worker is a robbery, assault or sexual assault that can and will be prosecuted.

Of course, the circumstances do lend themselves to attack by an experienced criminal defense attorney. One has to wonder, however, about the argument as it is reported in media accounts on www.masslive.com focusing on the complainant’s description of the offense and the Defendant’s conviction.

Defense counsel says that he complainant had made up the story because she was trying to ward off being arrested herself. However, there is nothing to indicate that she was in any danger of such an arrest as the police arrived having been summoned, albeit indirectly, by the complainant herself.

I do have to welcome back into our lexicon the descriptive “rat-fink”. I had not heard that one since the 1960’s and have never heard of sex workers using such language.

Contact Information