People accused of sexual assault – who are mostly men – will now be at a disadvantage when it comes to defending themselves from allegations.

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently ruled that that if a woman making a sexual assault allegation cries on the stand and is unable to respond to questions regarding her accusation, a video of an earlier interview with her can be played instead. While one can certainly understand why a victim would be unable to go over the details of her rape, but this situation will also be used to the advantage of women who exaggerate or make up their claims.

Andrew Fleischman, who works to free wrongly convicted people, posted key parts of the ruling on Twitter, adding that while he appreciates “the court’s concern here, due to the witness’s mental incapacity, I am not sure that this procedure comports with the Confrontation Clause.”

“How can you meaningfully cross-examine someone who has refused to answer questions?” he added.

Here’s the relevant portion from the ruling:

Our review of the record reveals that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. At trial, the victim responded readily to the State’s general questions, but once the inquiry reached the events of the rape, the victim had an episode requiring a break in the proceedings. When the examination continued, the victim was largely unresponsive, requiring the prosecutor to ask only leading questions. In light of these circumstances, the forensic interview was necessary to fill in the gaps in the victim’s testimony, and was thus more probative than her testimony alone.

Notably, as Fleischman pointed out, the court cases referred to by the Georgia Court of Appeals predate the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, which held that if a court wanted to introduce prior statements from a witness that was no longer available to testify, then cross-examination is a must.

As criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield noted on Twitter, the Georgia ruling “effectively eviscerated the right of confrontation of an adult accuser in rape trials” because you “can’t cross a video.”

The ruling essentially means an accuser can get out of cross examination by crying on the stand or refusing to answer questions. Because of the #MeToo movement and “believe all women” supporters, we are seeing more and more allegations of consensual sex and interactions being turned into accusations of sexual assault. Sometimes the women don’t intend to see themselves as a victim, but activists help them get there. Now, accusers can get out of being questioned about inconsistencies in their claims or text messages showing they willingly consented to sex simply by “breaking down” on the witness stand.

It is obviously unfair to anyone accused and may have consequences beyond rape allegations. Anyone could claim to be too traumatized to testify and avoid cross examination.

We’re at a point in society now where the rights of the accused are in trouble because of political beliefs. It’s leading to more false and exaggerated allegations, especially on college campuses, where due process rights don’t even factor into most school’s adjudication processes. Those unfair procedures are creeping into our actual legal system slowly, but surely.

The saving grace in this case is that the Georgia Supreme Court will likely weigh in, likely overturning this decision.