There are a few different things he is accused of doing so Im not 100% what you are referring to with "it".
He is accused of initiating sex with a woman later an evening after consensual sex had finished and she became "half-asleep". The legal questions to be answered is: was she half-asleep, ie, does he contest that statement and if so, what conclusion can be reached by a court.
Furthermore, there is an accusations that consensual sex was agreed under a condition, and that Assange broke that verbal agreement by ejaculating inside her. Its a rather odd situation for a sexual molestation case, but I guess that the court would first have to establish if both parties had reached the same understanding, and if the above mentioned act then broke it.
On either of the two cases, my best guess is that we will never know.
Where are you getting "half-asleep" from? From gillianseed's translation of the actual case file "They went to sleep and she awoke with the sensation of him entering her." (see his comment in reply to yours).
In many jurisdiction initiating sex with an unconscious person is consider the same as non-consensual sex (one can't consent if one is unconscious). Some jurisdictions, like England and Wales, explicitly include sleep in the legislation around consent (i.e. a sleeping person cannot consent to sex, a reasonable person could not believe sex was consensual when the other party is asleep).
This is much more serious than "half-asleep" makes it appear.
The confusion seems to stem from a text message she wrote afterward, in which she called it half-asleep. The police document however wrote that she was asleep. Which should be seen as more accurate depend I guess.
> Sofia also said that, when she was half asleep on her side, she had been aroused from slumber to feel that Assange was inside her.
Which is quite different from a plain "half asleep", especially with the rest of the sentence: "aroused from slumber to feel that Assange was inside her".
Even in its best light, assuming "half asleep", this begs the question of whether someone in that state can consent to sex (under the Swedish legislation), and/or whether a reasonable person could believe that there was consent.
I'd say no... but I will grant that this sort of question is why judges and juries are necessary.
It indeed begs the question and the concept of "helpless state" in which the law talks about. I am not sure that there exist any precedence, as I think the law that this would normally trigger has so far only address situations when a person is in a helpless state because of drugs or mental status.
He is accused of initiating sex with a woman later an evening after consensual sex had finished and she became "half-asleep". The legal questions to be answered is: was she half-asleep, ie, does he contest that statement and if so, what conclusion can be reached by a court.
Furthermore, there is an accusations that consensual sex was agreed under a condition, and that Assange broke that verbal agreement by ejaculating inside her. Its a rather odd situation for a sexual molestation case, but I guess that the court would first have to establish if both parties had reached the same understanding, and if the above mentioned act then broke it.
On either of the two cases, my best guess is that we will never know.