No, I finished my first year of law school about seven years ago. Apparently, I come off as a greenhorn, though.
Reminds of the time I asked one of my female acquaintances whether she was pregnant and it turned out that it was just her loose summer dress billowing outward a bit. I felt a bit of an ass then and I do this time as well.
Hamlet, do the cases and statutes really say that the evidence is inadmissible, or do they say that it is not relevant as a defense. I suspect it is the latter, in which case I doubt the objection would be sustained. The judge, after all, will be instructing the jury that the defendant’s state of mind is not to be considered. Where is the prejudice?
chula, again, how is the jury being prejudiced? And lying about your age in order to induce someone to have illlegal sex with you? I’m not so sure it is a white lie. Possessing a fake ID is a crime, and hence, quite serious. This is not a case of false modesty, but deception, fraud even.
I could see a judge going either way on it.
In that case, my sincere apologies for teasing you. It just sounded like something a 1L would do - hear the words “strict liability” and start talking about torts, since that’s the class where you hear the term the most.
First of all, the question in your example was if she had ever lied to anyone about her age. In my opinion, the fact that someone has lied about their age does not increase the likelihood that she is lying while under oath about having sex with someone. In terms of prejudice, it is very clear that the attorney is asking the question in order to get evidence before the jury that they are not allowed to take into consideration when deciding the guilt of the defendant. Sure, in real life the judge has a lot of discretion in these matters and could decide either way. IMO, the judge should not allow the defense attorney to get away with such an obvious stunt.
Since it was my question he was answering let me say that I didn’t find it confusing at all. In fact it helped me to make sense out of the whole term. Strict liability in civil matters makes sense, but in criminal matters it strikes me as pure idiocy.
I never ceased to be amazed by what I learn in any of these statutory rape threads. The entire area of law seems to turn logic on its head.
Ok. That’s what we call a foundation question. It makes for a nice transition and allows for objections and whatnot to be resolved on a low point in the presentation. Then after the judge has ruled and the jury is paying attention again, you can ask more dramatic questions. And what would someone have to lie about for you to doubt her credibility? If she lied to the defendant about her age, it was a very important fact to the defendant. The defendant’s freedom depended on it.
Again, not so. Mistake is not a defense. Therefore evidence of misrepresentation of age is not relevant for that purpose. However, the jury must consider witness credibility in deciding the guilt of the defendant. Guilt must be beyond a reasonable doubt. If evidence is relevant for one purpose and not for another, it may be admitted for the purpose to which is is relevant. And the introduction of prior inconsistent statements of witnesses is a classicmethod of impeachment.
It is the jury’s job to weigh the evidence and assess credibility. If the star witness deceived the defendant about her age or showed a false ID, why should the jury not find out about it?
Some people see the “stunt” as offering no defense based upon good faith belief. It is in the eye of the beholder. You can’t make out a case for prejudice merely by showing that your case is worse off after the introduction of the evidence than it was beforehand–that’s relevance. If the evidence didn’t hurt your case, why would I want to introduce it?
My suggestion to an individual genuinely concerned with strict liability for this particular crime is as follows:
Some fertile minds at work here!
OK, there are two rationales being offered above for the admission of the victim’s fake ID and phony birth certificate: first, to the extent that they go to establishing the victim’s true age, which negates an element of the crime; second, to the extent that they have some impeachment value.
Unfortunately for those who lust after the Diana Degarmos of the world, neither one holds water.
As GFactor points out, if the documents are offered to prove that the victim is in fact over the age of consent, then they are out-of-court statements offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statements. That is the classic definition of hearsay. Admission of any document, hearsay or otherwise, also requires foundational testimony concerning its authenticity, usually by the records custodian or other person authorized to make the certification.
So you can’t admit the phony driver’s license or birth certificate into evidence for the purpose of proving that what they say is correct, because you cannot authenticate them.
How about the second idea - impeaching the witness by showing she lied about her age?
A prior inconsistent statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, but it must have been made under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition.
But can we just offer into evidence the fact that she lied about her age to the accused, for the inference that she’s lying now about the sex that took place? In other words, she lied about her age, so she’s more likely to be lying to the jury now.
Not likely.
As both Hamlet and chula suggest, the probative value of this is slight – especially if the girls’ testimony is cumulative to other evidence. It might be a closer question if the case is literally a “He said - she said,” affair with the only evidence of the sex act being the accusation of the victim, but in general the prejudicial value of the evidence will outweigh the probative, and it will be properly excluded.
As I said, there might be a fundamental belief that nobody truly can be tricked into sleeping with a minor. And if he truly was, then there were probably circumstances that should have made him think twice (like maybe I shouldn’t be sleeping with such a complete stranger).
From the point of view of the law, the harm is so detrimental that it doesn’t matter whether the defendant “meant” to do it. The law sets up a situation in which an individual has an incentive to err in favour of avoiding sex in such situations.
Yes, and relevant evidence may be excluded at the discretion of the judge “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury,” which is obviously the issue I was referring to.
Previously lying about her age is an example of using a specific instance of conduct that tends to show the witness’s character for truthfulness (Rule 608(b)). A prior inconsistent statement is what you present when you want to call into question whether the witness is telling the truth now about a matter that is material to the case. (E.g., “You claim you had sex with the defendant?” “Yes.” “Didn’t you tell the police that night that no sex took place?”) Here, her age is established by documentary evidence, not her testimony, so prior statements about her age are not relevant.
[Slight quibble] There are really two prior inconsistent statement rules. The one that most lawyers are most familiar with is the one that creates an exception to the hearsay rule. A prior inconsistent statement may be introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted if it was made under oath. Obviously that’s not the case here.
The second rule, the one I mentioned and cited (discussed in Federal Rule 603) deals permits impeachment with a prior inconsistent statement. In other words, using the inconsistent statement not to prove that it was true, but to prove that the person who made it has said different things at different times, and is therefore not credible. Though it would be nice to be able to introduce the evidence to establish that the minor really was 21, as she told the defendant, her statement was not made under oath, and would not be admissible for that purpose (we don’t really have a fixed hypothetical anymore, but I’m assuming she didn’t lie at the prelim or something). Therefore, we can only use the statements (if we can use them at all) to attack her credibility.[/slight quibble]
Again, we have no fixed hypothetical, so I am making assumptions, but I am assuming that there is no physical evidence of the sex. I am also assuming that they were not discovered in flagrante delicto. Maybe there were some statements made by the defendant, but I’m betting that the key evidence that sex happened is the minor’s testimony. Others might be testifying that she told them about the sex, but there are probably no other witnesses with firsthand knowledge. So her credibility could be crucial. If her testimony were cumulative, then her credibility would not be as important, and the prejucial/probative calculus would be different.
Yeah, right. “Well, Okey-dokey, Mrs. Jones, so your daughter’s 17, eh. I just wanted to get that straight before I tried to fuck her!!!” :eek: Boy, that’ll endear you to the folks.
Can’t you just see the Jonses standing at the door as they proudly watch their baby walk out to the car with her new friend. “Oh, my,” they say, “What a responsible young man he must be to think ahead like that before trying to fuck our daughter!!!” :eek:
But wait. How do yo know the parents aren’t lying? Maybe the girl is 21 but the parents tell everyone she’s 16 in an attempt to keep her out of trouble. Or maybe she really is 16 and her parents tell you she’s 17 because they know that your dad has lots of money and they are hoping you’ll do the deed so they can pressure him for some money to keep from pressing charges.
These laws are idiotic.
[QUOTE=chula]
Yes, and relevant evidence may be excluded at the discretion of the judge “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury,” which is obviously the issue I was referring to. [\QUOTE]
Right. But you still have not explained how unfair prejudice might occur.
I bet the prosecutor asks her her age on direct. And if she testifies about it on direct, she can be cross-examined about it, even if other evidence corroborates her testimony. But even so, 608(b) permits the examination I proposed
In other words, it’s up to the judge unless you are trying to prove the inconsistent statements with other witnesses or documents. Asking her about it while she is on the stand is permissible, but the judge can say no. Which the judge could do anyway.
You don’t see how a jury might be confused and misled if they were presented with evidence that she told the defendant she was not a minor? It seems pretty clear from this thread that the typical lay person would consider such evidence as evidence of the defendant’s innocence. The judge will instruct the jury that what the defendant believed about her age not relevant, but if the judge believes the jury is likely to take it into account anyway, then s/he should not allow it. If the witness does have a propensity for dishonesty, the defense should be able to come up with an instance of lying that does not risk introducing otherwise inadmissible evidence.
Hmmm.
This looks like a job for jury nullification.
Yes, in this country, a jury does have the constitutional right to aquit a defendant if they believe the law is wrong.
Seems to me that in cases where girls looked quite a bit older than their ages, juries could say, “hell, she looks twenty-five.” and acquit based on the idea that it is wrong for the law to hold someone liable for a crime in the case of mistake of fact (i.e., the victim’s age.)
Of course being as how the reasonable belive that the “victim” was over the age of consent isn’t even admissable as evidence, this could be problematic.
How many of you are lawyers, anyway?
Eep. That was much, much snarkier than I had intended it. I’m genuinely curious about how many of you are lawyers.
Isn’t tricking someone else into committing a crime illegal? I’d say obviously, but I expect I’m missing subtlies. In how hot water would said girl be? <analogy>a minor faked a [deed to some property] based on which a man [used it in good faith but in doing so commited a strict liability something]</analogy>
Similar to Shade’s last point, would there be a viable civil case against a girl whom lied about being over age formable by the defendant in this case. Also the ‘don’t sleep with strangers’ vibe coming from some posters here is crazy, how many people that you know well do you actually know the age of (seen their birth certificate etc.) An 18 year old who goes out with a person a year ahead of them at their school could ask them and be told they are 19 and never susspedt that person had skipped two years ahead, and just lied to keep from seeming the odd one out in class.
I think that you have that backwards. I don’t speak German but the Spanish word for rabbit is conejo.
Haj