The sloppiness I'm referring to isn't on the part of any alleged rape victim, it is on the part of those who heard about the Nebraska judge who wouldn't let the alleged rape victim say rape in her testimony.
Their story goes something like this: She got herself drunk and went home with some man she'd just met. Now she's claiming rape.
Their summary assumes that the woman is either a liar or irresponsible and their summary assumes that the man did nothing wrong -- except to pick up the wrong woman.
Most of these sloppy people likely jumped to their conclusion once they heard the man didn't use a gun or a knife and therefore didn't fit their definition of a real rapist. If these people weren't sloppy they could have learned that this defendant has been accused by other women of committing rape in the same way. And that way does not match their summary.
They don't seem interested in the woman's belief that something was slipped into her drink and that he used her impairment to get her out of the bar and to his home -- if they bothered to keep reading about this case to get to this information. Since no date rape drugs were detected in her system no jury will directly hear her belief by the judge's orders since that would be unfounded speculation.
If they considered the possibility that their summary is a kneejerk one based on their own negative assumptions about women who report being raped rather than on the details of this case, they would have to consider that this man could be a predator who is counting on their sloppiness and on the sloppiness of those who view this sloppy summary as reliable.
He certainly wants people like this on any juries he faces.