The documents cannot come through the back door of impeachment re:credibility because the victim’s credibility is not an issue in a prospective defense of good faith error…the only affirmative proposition on which her credibility might be an issue is the corpus itself, which is conceded for purposes of what I suppose is a mens rea (not) defense.
Huh? I think we have established that good faith error is not a defense. So my examples certainly assumed that the defense, being unavailabe, was not being asserted. We were discussing ways of getting false representations into evidence despite the lack of such a defense.
Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad joke.
You mean "How deep does the bunny hole go?
Well, here is a case where a court excluded evidence that the complaining witness used false identification. The evidence was offered for impeachment in a forcible rape trial.
n Am I correct in assuming that you meant to argue that a law that limits a defendant’s ability to cross examine the victim in a statutory rape case about her misrepresentations of age violates the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution? I’m not so sure that’s the point ascenray was making, but I’ll take a stab at it.
You are correct that the challenges to a defendant’s right’s on cross-examination is founded on his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. In Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, SCOTUS stated:
However, the confrontation clause does have limits. The trial court:
So, you’re absolutely right that the right to cross examination implicates the Sixth Amendment, and has a Constitutional basis. However, I don’t think that was ascenray’s point, and there are limits to it’s use.
got it.
presumably then there’s a forcible charged;, and prospect of instructing on statutory as a lesser included?
So they have to prove her age, which then makes her earlier fraud a prior inconsistent as to truth of the matter stated.
I don’t think it could come in otherwise, ie as a “general veracity” issue.
in other words, somehow you have to make her sworn statement re:her present age (and hence her age as calculated to the date of the incident) relevant.
query:can a prosecutor join statutory and forcible in the same indictment? Or does it have to be a lesser included component of the forcible whenever the complainant is a minor?
It is unclear from the statement of facts, bu I think the complainant was too young to drink, but not too young to fuck.
there is not a factual nexus to tie her age related misrepresentation to a bouncer re:over 21 to get in and drink with an (argued) misrepresentation as to the consensual nature of the sex.
I think if her age were at issue for some charged component of liability, and you defend on tht fact, you could, maybe, get the false id at the bar in.
But that really isnt any good to us in this case. We’re actually looking for back door sympathy on a statuitory charge. For that, the misrepresentation must be to the defendant
Right. But I couldn’t find any cases like that online. I included this case to show that at least one court agrees with those who have argued that the probative value of misrepresenting one’s age is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Even though, in that case, the possible prejudice is murkier than in this case. There is no risk that the jury will invent a mistake of age defense for the defendant because age is not an issue.
It’s not a lesser-included offense. Blockburger analysis – they are two separate crimes, since each requires proof of an element that the other does not.
What he said. Shoot I haven’t thought about Blockburger analysis in some time. . .