Reply With Quote
FuzzyFeminazi just wants to send men to jail based on a woman's false accusations.
gyBlumpkins trying to bury ^ this ^
FuzzyFeminazi just wants to send men to jail based on a woman's false accusations.
This response is proof you did. Care to specify which jurisdictions tie the judges hands?
You've already admitted there's no blanket bar to such information and that judges hands aren't completely bound by rape shield laws. Judges decide whether evidence is germane or prejudicial, and that's as it should be. There may be cases where evidence is improperly excluded, and that's what you're there for.
This is incorrect. In some states, the laws render the whole swath of evidence inadmissible. It's not discretionary -- i.e., the Mike Tyson case. That some states have exceptions is besides the point, although you'll surely claim otherwise.
The response is proof of nothing.
Again, do you have any proof for your assertion that my "thinly supported" opinion is overstated? Should be a simple enough question to answer.
be specific if you can. you've already backpedaled significantly.This is incorrect. In some states, the laws render the whole swath of evidence inadmissible
you suggested upstream that rape shield laws tied judges hands and excluded information wholesale. that was overstated. if you won't accept your own posts as testimony against you I'm afraid I can't help.
Texas and the feds do. Where do you practice law? From what I was reading Texas' 412 is more stringent than most.
I get the impression that you are completely misrepresenting who and what you are.
http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.ed...ext=clevstlrev
In Olden v Kentucky, the federal court guaranteed a persons 6th amendment right even in the case of a rape shield law that did not allow for a motive exception in 1998.
I think vy is lying to us.
I think he's overstating his case. No doubt there are rulings at trial that, from time to time, abrogate people's rights.
Well, he certainly does not practice in Texas because we quite clealry have the motive, consent, and cons utional catchall clauses as does the federal statute. I know that CA, OH, and the feds do too. I'm looking up IN right now cause that is where Tyson was tried.
Ultimately though even if a state has no such provisions, one can appeal with precedent to the feds. He's full of .
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/evidence/evidence.pdf
IN does not have a motive exception but it does have the cons utional catchall. It does have exceptions for consent and plausible other.
In some cases they do. Do you deny that?
Do you have a link to me saying all rape shield laws exclude the same evidence in all jurisdictions?
Again, what evidence do you have that my "thinly supported" opinion is overstated. You've been grasping at straws for a while now.
So basically you're gut tells you something. Thanks for giving us all the FYI.
Keep shepherdizing dem cases fuzzy
He's reading the state's rules of evidence that I have posted and Oden V KY which makes you look ignorant as , Crayola.
You clearly do not practice in Texas. They have the exceptions you've been crying for. Tyson had them too. He could argue for his 6th amendment rights in the IN courtroom under their procedure.
As opposed to you grandstanding on a platform of bluster?
I have linked 1 case, dimwit. It was the one where the feds guaranteed the right nationwide you claimed people didn't have.
Other than that it has been states rules of evidence and explicitly stating their exceptions.
I don't think you are really a lawyer for these reasons. You clearly have no clue.
man, I guess you're right. I don't know how I or Alan Dershowitz missed this.
Fuzzy, I can't believe you outwitted the Former Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at HLS -- someone who's recognized as one of the pre-eminent civil liberties lawyers in America.
Last edited by vy65; 07-29-2015 at 03:35 PM.
You think you know what that case says. But you really don't.
So you appeal to someone else's authority? You're supposed to be a lawyer, Crayola.
I'm not arguing with Dershowitz. I'm arguing with you. You have anything else or is this all you have?
I do like the schmarmy cultist routine though. 'I know what it means but I won't tell you.' What a putz.
I appeal to Alan Dershowitz's opinion on the matter.
Funny you say you're not arguing with Dershowitz, because his argument and my argument are the same.
And again, you think you know what the case says -- but you couldn't be more incorrect.
For the record, I've been arguing that Rape Shield Statutes can prevent evidence of prior false rape accusations. The Mike Tyson case is an example.
Fuzzy, you claim that the Olden case stands for the proposition that:Dershowitz argued that the trial court had uncons utionally barred admission of evidence that would have acquitted Tyson: allegations that his accuser, a nineteen-year-old woman, had previously falsely accused another man of rape to avoid angering her father about her sexual activity. Because such evidence related to the victim's past sexual history, it was ruled inadmissible.
"Guaranteed the right nationwide." Which is funny because Olden's holding had nothing to do with the Kentucky Rape Shield Law:
In reality, the court held that excluding evidence of cohabitation was reversible error. Not because such evidence was allowed under the RS statute -- the Supreme Court didn't disturb the state court's holding that the RS statute wasn't involved -- but because such evidence was required to be admitted under the 6th amendment.The court specifically held that evidence that Matthews and Russell were living together at the time of trial was not barred by the State's rape shield law. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 510.145 (Michie 1985). Moreover, it acknowledged that the evidence in question was relevant to pe ioner's theory of the case. But it held, nonetheless, that the evidence was properly excluded as "its probative value [was] outweighed by its possibility for prejudice." App. to Pet. for Cert. A6. By way [488 U.S. 227, 231] of explanation, the court stated: "[T]here were the undisputed facts of race; Matthews was white and Russell was black. For the trial court to have admitted into evidence testimony that Matthews and Russell were living together at the time of the trial may have created extreme prejudice against Matthews." Judge Clayton, who dissented but did not address the evidentiary issue, would have reversed pe ioner's conviction both because he believed the jury's verdicts were "manifestly inconsistent," and because he found Matthews' testimony too incredible to provide evidence sufficient to uphold the verdict. Id.
Again, you couldn't be more wrong.
Last edited by vy65; 07-29-2015 at 04:36 PM.
But I dunno ... into to philosophy 101 super student/pothead Fuzzy is probably right
What is it with lib s and being faux-intellectual and thinking they're the expert on everything?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
