re: Madison Brooks case cell phone data now in defense’s hands

quote:

---

Maybe the OT attorneys can chime in. Is character assassination as a defense technique just an accepted part of trials and viewed as an attorney defending their client to the best of their ability, or is it sort of frowned upon even though everyone knows it does happen?

---

I can't speak for Louisiana specifically, but in both the federal and Oklahoman rules of evidence, there is a specific provision above and beyond usual requirements of relevance called the "rape shield" law that limits what evidence can be taken in sex crimes with respect to past history and consent, even if it would otherwise be considered relevant. If X says Y raped her and Y's defense is that X consented, Y can't present evidence that X slept with A, B, C, and D to try to prove X is a slut who's lying about being raped, or what have you.

This is even assuming that consent is an issue in the case, which doesn't even sound possible if her BAC is as high as was reported. If she legally couldn't consent then past episodes of consensual sex wouldn't even be relevant in the first place, so there wouldn't even be a need for a rape shield law to keep that out... because it wouldn't be relevant.

Plus, most attorneys would hash all this out in lengthy pretrial motions and argument before it ever reached a jury. It's risky (and IMO foolish) to leave crucial evidentiary matters unsettled before trial, because what if your entire defense is consent and you don't learn until day 3 of trial that you can't get the evidence of consent in? Most of the time this shite is litigated well before it ever sees a jury.

Other posters have suggested that there were apparent discrepancies between what the various co-defendants said about what happened, and that the cell phone data, which includes cell phone data from the co-defendants, might be helpful in figuring out exactly who said what, and what defenses might be viable as a result. That sounds plausible enough to me (obviously I am not involved in the case, but that is very normal procedure).