- 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: Women believe the women. Men believe in due process.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 5:03 pm to DawgfaninCa
Posted on 12/15/17 at 5:03 pm to DawgfaninCa
413 specifically allows prior sexual assaults -- you know, the cases your were focused on -- to come into evidence to prove assaults.
Rule 404 the one you quoted, says that in other cases you can still use similar crimes as evidence to show things like motive, etc.
Jesus Christ, I don't mind you arguing that you'd rather believe your scuzzy intellectual heroes rather than the women, but your getting the law wrong. It's much criticized, but you can introduce evidence of prior sexual assaults.
This post was edited on 12/15/17 at 5:13 pm
1
Posted on 12/15/17 at 5:17 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
A bunch of women accusing the defendant of sexually assaulting them on different occasions than the occasion the claimant is accusing the defendant of sexually assaulting her is irrelevant to the question whether the defendant is guilty of sexually assaulting the woman who filed the case that is before the court.
Federal Rule 413 says, explicitly, that such evidence can be relevant to the case and can be introduced.
You argument seems to be morphing -- at first it was the evidence can't come in. Now, it can't be used to show guilt? Whatever the frick that means. Once it's in, the jury can consider it.
And it of course is completely admissible in a civil sexual harassment case.
So all of your arguments dealing with the law are complete and total bullshite. Well done.
Posted on 12/15/17 at 5:28 pm to oman
quote:
413 specifically allows prior sexual assaults -- you know, the cases your were focused on -- to come into evidence to prove assaults.
Nonsense.
First, 413 relates to actual convictions of sexual assault not unproven accusations of sexual assault.
Second, 413 states "The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant."
The fact that a man is convicted of sexually assaulting a different woman on a different occasion is irrelevant to whether that man is guilty of sexually assaulting the women who filed the lawsuit against him.
quote:
Rule 404 the one you quoted, says that in other cases you can still use similar crimes as evidence to show things like motive, etc.
Once again, 404 relates to actual convictions of sexual assault and it clearly states that "Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character."
In other words, the fact that a man was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman cannot be used as evidence to prove that the man also sexually assaulted a different woman on a different occasion.
quote:
Rule 413. Similar Crimes in Sexual-Assault Cases
(a) Permitted Uses. In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant....
FedRuleEvidence 404(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident...
Posted on 12/15/17 at 5:49 pm to oman
quote:
A bunch of women accusing the defendant of sexually assaulting them on different occasions than the occasion the claimant is accusing the defendant of sexually assaulting her is irrelevant to the question whether the defendant is guilty of sexually assaulting the woman who filed the case that is before the court.
quote:
Federal Rule 413 says, explicitly, that such evidence can be relevant to the case and can be introduced.
Federal Rule 413 states, "In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant....'
The use of "may" is permissive in nature and relates only to previous convictions of sexual assault and only to any matter to which it is relevant. An example of relevance would be if the sexual assault that the man was convicted of committing was done in an identical manner as the sexual assault that the man is now being sued for.
It is bullshite to stretch 413 to mean a bunch of women making unproven accusations of being sexually assaulted by the man can be used as evidence that proves the man committed the sexual assault he is being sued for.
quote:
Rule 413. Similar Crimes in Sexual-Assault Cases
(a) Permitted Uses. In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant....
FedRuleEvidence 404(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident...
Posted on 12/15/17 at 6:03 pm to oman
quote:
You argument seems to be morphing -- at first it was the evidence can't come in. Now, it can't be used to show guilt? Whatever the frick that means. Once it's in, the jury can consider it.
Only if the defense attorney doesn't object.
Hell, a prosecutor can enter all sorts of irrelevant evidence if the defense attorney doesn't object.
And don't act like you don't know what "it can't be used to show guilt" means.
It obviously means irrelevant evidence cannot be used to prove the defendant is guilty of the sexual assault he is being sued for.
That is also what I meant when I said previous convictions of sexual assault cannot be used as evidence that proves the man is guilty of sexual assault in the case he is being sued for.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 11:55 am to DawgfaninCa
Here is a pretty good treatise. This will help focus your arguments on what you think the state of the law should be vs. what it actually is.
LINK
LINK
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News