He Says, She Says
Law360 reports New York’s State Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Harvey Weinstein’s sexual assault conviction “has reignited a decades-old legal debate around whether sexual assault prosecutions should be excluded from the rule against allowing propensity evidence in criminal cases, so as to aid juries assessing the plausibility of a defendant’s consent defense, or whether doing so could result in wrongful convictions or have an unanticipated effect on cases that lack a chorus of survivors. “
While it is important to prosecute perpetrators of rape, just as important is “protecting due process and the fundamental presumption of innocence.”
It has been suggested that our laws need to keep up with the changing times. What specific changing times are being alluded to? Courts seeing defendants as guilty until proven innocent?
New York Assemblymember Amy Paulin does not believe allowing propensity evidence in sex assault cases would lead to wrongful convictions. “When you have multiple witnesses, the odds of having a wrongful conviction are nil to none,” she sold Law360. In most cases, Paulin is probably correct, but what about that almost nil minority which would be incarcerated – or even just one innocent person? Too many in our legal system are willing to sacrifice one innocent lamb “for the good of all mankind.” Benjamin Franklin stated: “It is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer,” a statement echoed by other founding fathers.
Either allow propensity evidence in any case or in no cases. If you have to make an exception for something, generally it is NOT the right thing to do.
I agree. Propensity evidence is not evidence of the crime at trial, and serves only to prejudice a jury. There is no non-moral-panic justification for allowing it in sex cases while not allowing it in other types of crimes. A burglar’s prior history of arrests cannot be used to prove a current burglary accusation, but it could prejudice the jury.
Ben Franklin did not originate that quote but William Blackstone did as seen in Blackstone’s Commentaries from England (10 guilty escape vice 1 innocent suffer) to which those in the colonies embellished and used it in their mission at the outset of this nation (where Blackstone should be given true credit when citing it with the interpretation of its importance in the US legal system foundation by Franklin, et al).
Also, if the prosecution is going to be allowed to present unsubstantiated alleged prior event evidence such as discussed here, then one needs to allow other unsubstantiated alleged prior acts evidence against the accuser as well (which is commonly not allowed in defense evidence) to balance the “hearsay” evidence thinking in play.
Have a good weekend FLA…
I would argue that if a defendant’s past conduct should be admissable, then so should the accuser’s.
I have to commend this propensity evidence article. Talk about falling in and out of character. I even have to commend FAC for bring this article to the attention of those on the sex registry in any and all situations.
While facts can be fact the bottom line is do the facts justify the crime or the character qualities of the parties involved Examples can be a simple Internet encounter, being duped with come on’s (provoked), even an encounter with a He said she said encounter can be a abusive affair of misuse. So where does the forbearance come in to play when many are on lifetime probation, in prison for decades, are controlled by authority abuse. And yes authorities do abuse and misuse their positions.
Opinions can be just abusive when faced with these circumstances.