- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Deputies arrest 4 in LSU student Madison Brooks case
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:54 am to JudgeHolden
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:54 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
That is the law in almost every state and in federal court.
Well, we live in a matriarchy now. I neither like it nor deny it.
This post was edited on 1/25/23 at 11:55 am
0
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:55 am to sec13rowBBseat28
quote:
So the accused past sexually assaultive behavior can be brought in?
I think only if the victim is under 17 under Rule 412.2.
Under 404(B), other crimes evidence is generally not admissible.
quote:
B. Other crimes, wrongs, or acts.
(1) Except as provided in Article 412, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, of the nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial for such purposes, or when it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act or transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding.
Maybe you could get in evidence that these bubbas had a pattern of hunting up drunk girls for sex to show "absence of mistake or accident," but I doubt it.
Look. I took evidence with Professor Pugh when he could still see. It has been a long time since I looked at these issues. But very generally, past wrongs by an accused are not admissible.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:55 am to USMEagles
quote:
It looks like legislation dictating what's admissible as evidence in a criminal trial. That seems like it would present giant separation-of-powers issues. There's a whole framework of precedent and common law around admissibility of evidence and letting a bunch of low-IQ state legislators mess with it is a terrible idea.
Beyond that, I am sorry but a victim's past sexual conduct seems extremely relevant to a rape case. Anyone made uncomfortable by that assertion is probably self-conscious about her own promiscuity.
This girl could have had trains run on her daily for the last two years. That is completely irrelevant to the night in question.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:56 am to YeahYeah
Looks like they're pushing for it. Good. Hammer those guys
Oh look, Chad ruins another thread
Oh look, Chad ruins another thread
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:58 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
That is completely irrelevant to the night in question.
It's not irrelevant to rape trials in general. If there is any question of fact around consent, a chaste woman is much less likely to be lying than a promiscuous one. It's not plausible that a chaste woman would screw the UPS guy on her back porch and then cry rape when caught. It's more plausible a promiscuous woman would consent to this act and then lie.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:59 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
This girl could have had trains run on her daily for the last two years. That is completely irrelevant to the night in question.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 11:59 am to Sasquatch Smash
quote:
Does the driver have to be impaired or distracted to have hit her given those numbers?
You’re barking up the wrong tree first of all.
2nd of all, 300 feet includes reaction time which is damn near equivalent of low beam lighting. She was struck and killed at whatever rate of speed he was still traveling at impact. 2 lanes, can’t avoid a human in the road with no cars around you.
The context of your post coming at me suggests his rate of speed is pretty important though.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 12:00 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
She wasn't driving so there is no legal limit.
It's a reference to her inebriated state
Posted on 1/25/23 at 12:00 pm to USMEagles
quote:
It's not irrelevant to rape trials in general.
The frick it isn't. The only relevant facts are the facts of the case. Liking dick doesn't have anything to do with whether a rape occurred in a specific instance.
quote:
If there is any question of fact around consent, a chaste woman is much less likely to be lying than a promiscuous one. It's not plausible that a chaste woman would screw the UPS guy on her back porch and then cry rape when caught. It's more plausible a promiscuous woman would consent to this act and then lie.
This ain't how facts work.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 12:03 pm to LNCHBOX
That makes no sense.
How would you, just as a private person trying to form an opinion, analyze a "he said / she said" dispute? You'd start with what you know about the people involved.
How would you, just as a private person trying to form an opinion, analyze a "he said / she said" dispute? You'd start with what you know about the people involved.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 12:05 pm to USMEagles
quote:
That makes no sense.
It makes more sense than using a someone's past sexual encounters as any sort of evidence a rape didn't happen.
quote:
How would you, just as a private person trying to form an opinion, analyze a "he said / she said" dispute? You'd start with what you know about the people involved.
Courts don't operate on he said/she said. Actual evidence relevant to the case is brought.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 12:05 pm to YeahYeah
quote:
he viewed video filmed by one of the suspects. He noted the video showed the suspects “callously” laughing as the young student slurred her words inside of the car, but does not show the assault.
quote:
Defense lawyers hoped the videos would prove that the sexual encounter was consensual. Instead, Myers said the video combined by statements investigators say they obtained from Carver about the student’s behavior at the time was enough to convince him that a crime had occurred.
I hope thats all the video there is and this shite blew up in their face. That video probably isn't graphic enough to get the plea deal and the DA can be the first to run a train on these a-hole before their new prison husband gets a chance.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 12:07 pm to USMEagles
Anyone know if where the memorial is on side the road is where she was actually hit? I don’t think it matters but the memorial is set up near University Villas, across the street from Pelican Lakes.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 12:08 pm to billjamin
quote:
Defense lawyers hoped the videos would prove that the sexual encounter was consensual. Instead, Myers said the video combined by statements investigators say they obtained from Carver about the student’s behavior at the time was enough to convince him that a crime had occurred.
Oh look, the race baiter dickweed lawyer was dead wrong and made it even worse for these thugs.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 12:09 pm to USMEagles
quote:
Beyond that, I am sorry but a victim's past sexual conduct seems extremely relevant to a rape case. Anyone made uncomfortable by that assertion is probably self-conscious about her own promiscuity.
This has been the law since the late 70s or early 80s in most states.
Consent is an individual event. Remember that if you are accused of rape, you can put on evidence that you and the accuser had a sexual relationship before the incident in question. You cannot try to prove that she consented with you because she consented to others before.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 12:10 pm to USMEagles
Beyond that, I am sorry but a victim's past sexual conduct seems extremely relevant to a rape case."
Doesn't matter. Past sexual conduct is NOT admissible. Period.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 12:11 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
This has been the law since the late 70s or early 80s in most states.
Consent is an individual event. Remember that if you are accused of rape, you can put on evidence that you and the accuser had a sexual relationship before the incident in question. You cannot try to prove that she consented with you because she consented to others before.
I shouldn't be surprised that I'm getting the downvotes for this, but I am. Really makes you scared if your fate ever came down to a jury.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 12:11 pm to billjamin
quote:
the DA can be the first to run a train on these a-hole before their new prison husband gets a chance.
I really wish Tony Clayton was handling this case. Hillar just does nothing to inspire confidence in me.
But as long as her family is satisfied, I guess that's good enough.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 12:11 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Courts don't operate on he said/she said. Actual evidence relevant to the case is brought.
People's statements are evidence. Judges and juries are tasked with assessing the veracity of evidence. There's no obfuscatory hand-waving you can do that will make that not true.
Posted on 1/25/23 at 12:12 pm to windmill
quote:
Beyond that, I am sorry but a victim's past sexual conduct seems extremely relevant to a rape case."
Doesn't matter. Past sexual conduct is NOT admissible. Period.
she was too drunk to consent. if this is proven then nothing else matters per La law.
Page 112 of 419
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News