Reply With Quote
Says dude that's replying to every single one of my lol posts
Unless of course Blake loves the tidal waves of cuck comments that gets hurled his way? Food for thought ...
Says dude that's replying to every single one of my lol posts
I think you love to call me a cuck so I'm not gonna stop you or anyone else from stooping that low. I usually see that as a cue that your adult talk is done
Coming from the guy who's had none ITT, that means alot
Says the dude who's daily and only contribution is Je R
"adult talk"
Actually I have
seriously, do you have nothing better to do than whine about my lols?Says the dude who's daily and only contribution is J
I'm don't really care.
Vy cares right after posting his down syndrome memes tho.
Actually, you haven't.
I do. I've contributed to the thread.
Just trying to shut the idiots up out so the "adults" can have a discussion.
"Adult talk"
you've also contributed to thread with down syndrome memes.
Seriously did you not have anything better to do instead of mock people with down syndrome? Seriously?
I'm not the one whining, son.
stooping to Blake's level
Actually I did. I destroyed one of your lousy legal opinions.
More adult cuck, I mean, talk.
Lotsa deflection going on in this thread.
So far, there's been absolutely zero defense of statutes which exclude evidence of an accuser's prior false rape accusations -- evidence which is routinely admissible and highly relevant in any other case. Having tried several cases, juries routinely base their verdicts on credibility determinations -- they're voting with their hearts on who they "believe" more 9 times out of 10. Keeping this sort of evidence out not only raises serious cons utional issues, it prevents a defendant from having a fair trial.
Also, there's been zero defense of the exclusion on evidence prior sexual history -- evidence which is highly relevant to the question of consent, to whether the accused's alleged assault was knowing or not, and can show a course of conduct where the accused and the victim have a past sexual history. All of which is highly probative. You can complain about putting the victim on trial -- but if she's a , but legitimately was raped, juries are smart enough to separate one's past from the crime they're evaluating. However, if she's a , and her iness makes her non-consent blurry, that's fair game.
If you're capable of engaging in "adult talk," prove it.
Boyfriend and Girlfriend have been dating for a year. Sometimes they have rough sex. Girlfriend enjoys it when Boyfriend "takes her against her will." They've had aggressive sex where this scenario plays out several times. The relationship goes forward with no problems. Girlfriend then catches Boyfriend cheating on her (or she gets angry at him for any other reason, take your pick). Girlfriend and Boyfriend have aggressive/rough sex, just like they always have. The following week, Boyfriend gets arrested for rape. Should the couple's past sexual history be excluded from evidence?
that's what we have judges for: to determine what is germane to the legal questions and what is gratuitously prejudicial. your opinion, thinly supported as it is here, that judges have their hands completely tied, is no doubt overstated.Should the couple's past sexual history be excluded from evidence?
In some state's, they do.
Do you have any proof of your assertion that my "thinly supported" opinion that judge's hands are tied is overstated, counselor?
Still waiting on your response to this WH
My understanding is that you can bring in this evidence either under the 400 rules (character) or 600 rules (credibility), then it's up to the judge to establish if it can be used or not (as any other evidence).
Cases where prior false rape accusations were allowed to be introduced as evidence include:
United States v. Stamper, 766 F. Supp. 1396, 1399 (W.D. N.C. 1991) (false rape accusations go to the motive or bias of the complainant);
Phillips v. State, 545 So. 2d 221, 223 (Ala. Crim. App.1989) (evidence of prior false allegations was admissible as exposing victim's corrupt state of mind);
People v. Hurlburt, 333 P.2d 82, 86-87 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1958) (false rape allegations are admissible as showing the complainant's animosity towards the defendant);
People v. McClure, 356 N.E.2d 899, 901 (1l. App. Ct. 1976) (since false rape allegations concerned motivation in bringing current charge, evidence of these false charges should have been admitted);
State v. Anderson, 686 P.2d 193,198-201 (Mont. 1984) (evidence of prior false rape accusations should be admitted as probative of the state of mind of the complainant)
This was mostly all lifted from here, which is a good read:
http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/vi...3&context=jleg
Now, all of those cases predate the Federal Rape shield law (1994). But let's not pretend that's some new feminist wave. Almost all jurisdictions had similar rape shield statutes by the mid 70s.
FWIW, for a case post-Federal Rape shield law, check out: People v. Jovanovic, 263 A.D.2d 182, 700 N.Y.S.2d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1999)
you apologize for rapists. for the most part outside of the regular Counselor Crayola schtick I have argued on merit. I'm addressing what you are saying directly. You dissembled into this semi coherent whine since I've been gone. Good job, Crayola.
All I can think of when I read it is that it is the rationalizations that you tell your client when you lose.
If you cannot find jurors that find the proper significance of the court's instructions or that can grasp the legal standard then that is on you just as much as it was for your failure to make a compelling case. Hearguessing the juror's intent after the fact is very laughable. This is doubly hilarious in light of your very own obvious personal bias.
Fact is that there are well defined historical prejudices against women as relates to sex and a standard for review to protect victims of sex crimes from people like you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
