Joe Rogan Thread

[vy65]

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)

Most, if not all, rape shield laws are legislative overrides of the 400s (relevance) and the 600s (witnesses and impeachment). That's why they're problematic.

Interesting that there's a federal rape shield law. Most rape cases are state matters (you'd need a hook for federal jurisdiction that's missing in most routine cases) which probably explains why the statute came along so late. The other cases cited either predate rape shield laws or come from jurisdictions where you wouldn't expect the most progressive rules of evidence.

The article looks interesting. Importantly, it recognizes the need to establish a rule allowing the admissibility of prior false accusations which I think is a totally good idea.

[vy65]

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)

Just as an example, here's the Texas override (meaning it's not discretionary): (a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence. In a prosecution for sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault, or attempt to commit sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault, reputation or opinion evidence of the past sexual behavior of an alleged victim of such crime is not admissible.

[vy65]

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.

You use a lot of words, but you've said nothing.

[vy65]

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.

Seriously, what the are you talking about? Do you know how to write in coherent English?

[vy65]

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.

This is beyond stupid. Jurors can only evaluate the evidence before them. If material evidence (prior false accusations, prior sex acts, etc) is not admitted because the court excluded it, the jurors verdict will be affected. This has nothing to do with the courts instructions, or the charge, or voir dire. It's an evidentiary issue. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[ElNono]

Most, if not all, rape shield laws are legislative overrides of the 400s (relevance) and the 600s (witnesses and impeachment). That's why they're problematic.

Interesting that there's a federal rape shield law. Most rape cases are state matters (you'd need a hook for federal jurisdiction that's missing in most routine cases) which probably explains why the statute came along so late. The other cases cited either predate rape shield laws or come from jurisdictions where you wouldn't expect the most progressive rules of evidence.

The article looks interesting. Importantly, it recognizes the need to establish a rule allowing the admissibility of prior false accusations which I think is a totally good idea.

No doubt there's a high bar, and in a lot of these cases, it had to be escalated to appeal courts. But there is precedent, and as long as the facts of the case align with it and you can make a compelling argument, there's no reason not to try.

Ultimately, justices always make these determinations on evidence, even the SCOTUS. What gets heard doesn't always paint the whole picture. It's a complicated balance between expediting justice and making sure the important stuff makes it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

dubdubdub

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is beyond stupid. Jurors can only evaluate the evidence before them. If material evidence (prior false accusations, prior sex acts, etc) is not admitted because the court excluded it, the jurors verdict will be affected. This has nothing to do with the courts instructions, or the charge, or voir dire. It's an evidentiary issue. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Fact is that women that are portrayed as promiscuous are not given an impartial jury. The republic passed a law addressing it. There is also standard for review for exceptions as has been pointed out for all your whining over rejection. Whether you made a poor argument to the judge or do not know how to convey things to the layman is besides the point. In addition that that whine, you were still whining about the behavior of jurors that you supposedly took part in selecting and then argued with background known. Sorry if I combined your examples of failure.

I will say that you have so far argued one point I have made and that was one you knew you were right. Your intellectual cowardice speaks clearly about your position on what you ignore.

[vy65]

So the problem is jury bias? Or is it the lawyers fault for failing to convey things properly to the lay juror? Can't have it both ways fuzzy?

And again, the issue has nothing to do with voir dire, or appeals, or what's argued to the judge. It's about the admissibility of a certain kind of evidence. You have no idea what you're talking about

[vy65]

Do you talk like you post in real life? Seriously, every time you post you sound like one of those annoying people in undergrad philosophy who tried way too hard. do your everyday interactions take three times as long because you talk like one of those pretentious bags at your local college coffee shop and no one understands a god damn word you say?

[TheSanityAnnex]

I can read a ducks post once and understand what he trying to say, FuzzyLumpkins three times minimum.

[TheSanityAnnex]

its not my fault you no one can understand my stream of consciousness style of writing

[vy65]

The illegal Mexican dude who cuts my grass speaks better English than Fuzzy.

[Ginobilly]

Lol joe rogan
50 year old, wannabe MMA washed up c-list celebrity who couldn't make it in Hollywood.
Telling Kids it's cool to smoke dmt and you people put this got on a pedestal.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The illegal Mexican dude who cuts my grass speaks better English than Fuzzy.

What part specifically did you have a problem understanding? I've been hammering grandma's reading ability for years now and so that explains that hard on but you? Just seems like more lack of creativity.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I will say that now the dig on me is that I write at a higher level than a 5th grader, you people look like poorly educated halfwits. Good job.

[Blake]

destryed

Right, if you're good with rape shield laws....and it looks like you are.....you destroyed yourself.

Lol Joe Rogan

[Blake]

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?

attorney to girlfriend: Have you ever had rough sex

Girlfriend: no

attorney: did he rape you

Girlfriend: yes



that's how its probably gonna go

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So the problem is jury bias? Or is it the lawyers fault for failing to convey things properly to the lay juror? Can't have it both ways fuzzy?

And again, the issue has nothing to do with voir dire, or appeals, or what's argued to the judge. It's about the admissibility of a certain kind of evidence. You have no idea what you're talking about

'The problem?' Sorry but we are discussing your whines. You complained about jurors choosing as they want. The issue of societal bias and the basis for rape laws as a cons utional issue in its own right is something else. One is an example of your bungling. The other is the basis for legislation and society as a whole. Yours is a false equivalence. I would say 'the problem' is your incompetence.

I know that federal law as evidenced by EN's earlier post has exceptions because of amongst other things cons utional conflicts and a standard for review to adjudicate it. I don't think you have shown an ap ude with Texas law such that you can be considered an authority to say that Texas has no similar provisions much less other states. Frankly you are critiquing the law and not mentioning the cases that argue cons utionality over the past say 50 years since rape shield laws were passed.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I will say that now the dig on me is that I write at a higher level than a 5th grader, you people look like poorly educated halfwits. Good job.

Proof this got clicks and reads the posts of those he has on ignore. Ultimate loser move.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Rule 412. Evidence of Previous Sexual Conduct in Criminal Cases

(a) In General. The following evidence is not admissible in a prosecution for sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, or attempt to commit sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault:
(1) reputation or opinion evidence of a victim’s past sexual behavior; or
(2) specific instances of a victim’s past sexual behavior.
(b) Exceptions for Specific Instances. Evidence of specific instances of a victim’s past sexual behavior is admissible if:
(1) the court admits the evidence in accordance with subdivisions (c) and (d);
(2) the evidence:
(A) is necessary to rebut or explain scientific or medical evidence offered by the prosecutor;
(B) concerns past sexual behavior with the defendant and is offered by the defendant to prove consent;
(C) relates to the victim’s motive or bias;
(D) is admissible under Rule 609; or
(E) is cons utionally required to be admitted; and
(3) the probative value of the evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.
(c) Procedure for Offering Evidence. Before offering any evidence of the victim’s past
sexual behavior, the defendant must inform the court outside the jury’s presence. The
court must then conduct an in camera hearing, recorded by a court reporter, and
determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible. The defendant may not refer to
any evidence ruled inadmissible without first requesting and gaining the court’s approval
outside the jury’s presence.
(d) Record Sealed. The court must preserve the record of the in camera hearing, under seal,
as part of the record.
(e) Definition of “Victim.” In this rule, “victim” includes an alleged victim.

Here's Texas. http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/pd...01405515-1.pdf

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The notion that the previous case speaks to the "nature of the accuser" demonstrates quite clearly how it is prejudicial. At best you have a conflict between what you claim and an impartial jury. Perhaps if you could substantiate how in that particular case the differences would have made meaningful difference. All you do is beg the question. You of course are speaking from a position of gross ignorance to the facts of any of the cases.

I just see you being vicariously threatened really.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_412

412 for the feds is much the same.

[Blake]

I do think that victim's prior sexual history (off limits per rape shield laws) is highly relevant in rape cases. Don't you?

Oh lolol...You actually disagree with rape shield laws

Good lord you're a jackass and an idiot. Lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

vy just wants to badger rape victims on the stand.