As long as you are willing to abandon the concept of innocent until proven guilty, you have a point. It seems to me to be too much of a sacrifice, but I am sure you have your own reasons.
It is **one **example of **one **instance of bad behavior by **one **member of the team. And, for the record, had he not been falsely accused by the alleged victim in the Duke Hoax, he would not have been convicted of assault at all. Can you provide for me a definition of “general” that includes “singular?”
Your assertion was that the team exhibited general bad behavior. If by “team” you meant “those on the team as well as those not on the team” you should have made that clear. Of course, by stating that up front, you would have revealed early on that your assertions carry no weight, and are not deserving of serious consideration. You have failed utterly to support your premise, and, frankly, are embarassing yourself with your continued equivocations.
You are being utterly ridiculous. If you really think that one third of a team being charged with criminal behavior is not indicative of bad behavior, then we have different definitions of bad bahavior. If my son came home and told me he had been charged by the police, you had better believe there would be consequences, whether or not the case ever went to trial. Of course, if he could show me it was all a mistake, and he had not done this, and that the police were persecuting him, then that would be different - got any evidence of that here?
And yes, the assault is one incident. But it is one incident in combination with one third of the team being charged with offenses. Sounds like one of the more serious ones to me. But you (without providing any evidence of course) know that without the presumably false accusation of rape, he would not have been convicted. And the behavior of the ex-captain of the team during that trial is at least conceivably relevant to an ongoing pattern of behavior from a group, wouldn’t you say?
If you choose to believe that everyone who is charged with a crime is guilty of that crime, I am sorry for you. In my opinion, it is a belief without merit, as the case in point illustrates.
The offenses were public drunkeness. In Durham.
This was outside a bar in Washingtion D.C. He got into a fight. His judgment was continued contingent on no further legal problems… The judge revoked this when he was indicted for rape. Without the false accusation of rape there would have ben no conviction. Q.E.D.
What the fuck are you on about? The behavior of an ex-captain during a trial is somehow relevant to the behavior of current members on campus? To put it simply for you, NO. If you are referring to members of a group, you are not allowed to introduce non-members and cite their behavior. Is that really such a difficult concept for you to understand?
Was the ex-captain charged with perjury? What was his “general bad behavior” exactly? That he failed to convince a judge? This is a crime now?
In KC Johnson’s long (and IMO excellent) blog on the Duke/Nifong case, he has several times made reference to a law enforcement practice in Durham of treating college students more harshly than residents. This could contribute to an impression that the team’s behavior has been worse than it really has.
I’ll take a look at that… I have read bits but nothing to do with this particular instance. It would run counter to what I have generally seen, where college students get treated more leniently than residents of cities, but it might be the case in Durham. Would it also explain why the lacrosse team was charged more than other students, assuming that 1/3 of the student body as a whole had not been charged? If they have… holy crap there are some issues there.
My experiences have generally been police don’t charge people, especially students, with these kind of low level type offenses if that is all that they see happening - they’ll send the person along home. If you start to shoot your mouth off to a cop then the situation changes. Not that I am commenting on whether that is a good or bad thing. But if there is evidence that the Duke community, and in particular the lacrosse team, is unfairly targetted by the police and treated more harshly than other groups, that would change my impression as to whether there was a history of bad behavior associated with the team (the team of course being an entity into which individuals enter and depart, with the team (and any reputation) continuing onwards)
The problem with rape shield laws is that they create a bit of a double standard in a rape case. These laws do not automatically bar discussion of past sexual encounters by the alleged victim. Instead, they set the bar fairly high for admission of these standards. Maryland’s law is somewhat vague and says that past sexual history can be admitted if relevant or if it impeaches the alleged victim’s testimony, but not if it is “inflammatory or prejudicial.” It gives the judge a lot of leeway about restricting it.
However, the prosecutor can bring up evidence of past misconduct on the part of the accused rapist. The accused’s sexual history and history of violence is fair game (and it should be) in order to paint a picture about the type of man he is. If we allow this sort of background information to be presented, then why can’t we allow it for the alleged victim?
Actually, that’s the classic test for the admission of ANY evidence at any time: the probative value of the evidence must outweigh the prejudicial value.
If I recall correctly, you are a lawyer, so let me ask you this: how admissable is the past history of the alleged rapist? If he has a past history of violence and sexual promiscuity, what is the standard for bringing that up?
I’m not asking to start a debate, I’m truly curious.
True, but if the case hinges on her version of the events vs. his version of the events, it seems that all relevant evidence should be allowed. And it seems that since the burden of proof is on the state to prove the accused did this, the defense should have a lot of leeway to make its case.
Yeah whatever! It is you who is really grasping at straws here, hearsay is a consistent standard across not only criminal but IIRC civil, rape shield laws only restrict the rights of the accused for those who are accused of rape and allow such questioning on ever other crime. Not even on the same planet.
Admission of prior bad acts against the accused for the purpose of suggesting that he acted similarly this time is generally not permitted.
However, his prior bad acts might be admissible for a couple of other purposes. Most common is the effort to show a common plan, scheme, design, or a lack of mistake. If the crime alleged is dressing up like a police officer and gaining entry into a victim’s house before raping her, and the accused was previously twice convicted of dressing up as a cop and getting into homes and committing rape, then it’s likely that his past offenses could be admitted. On the other hand, if the current crime is kidnapping a woman from the side of the road at gunpoint and raping her, then the prior crimes would probably NOT be admissible to show a common plan, scheme, or motive.
There was a period of time when almost all previous sex crimes were admissible in the trial of a new sex crime, under the theory that the prior sex crimes shows a “lustful nature” or a “lascivious intent”. Thankfully, we seem to be past that particular fiction nowadays.
Evidence of this type is known in lawyer-speak in many jurisdictions as 404(b) evidence, referring to that portion of the evidence code that addresses the admission of prior bad acts.
Really? Then who was at your keyboard, logging in as you and posting gems like:
The admission of hearsay evidence is the classic “restriction on the right to face one’s accuser.” When hearsay evidence is admitted, you CANNOT CONFRONT YOUR ACCUSER.
I’m just a spectator in this thread, but I think you’re incorrect here. This isn’t “Bricker’s distraction”. YOU were the one who started it, when you said that the writers of the Constitution wanted to always give the defendant the right to face their accuser.
You said:
Bricker responded:
Bricker was pointing out that at the time the Constitution was written (and before that, and after that) hearsay evidence can be admissable. Hearsay does not allow you the right to face the accuser. Therefore, you cannot state that the founding fathers guaranteed that you can always face your accuser.
And yet (in response to the question about hearsay) you said:
Breaking this down:
Get the person who said it on the stand, allowing cross examination
In HEARSAY you cannot “get the person who said it on the stand” - that’s the whole point of hearsay.
…this is the system the founding fathers set up…
The founding fathers did not set up a system to exclude hearsay.
…and what rape shield laws have destroyed.
Rape shield laws did not “destroy” such a system, because there never was such a system.