Unethical Conduct by Prosecutors

[billvon 3,131]

>If you're asking the defendant, it's generally not admissible to do that
>on the theory that you want the jury to convict for the crime charged not
> because the defendant is a bad person . . .

But isn't the fact that he raped someone before (for example) pretty applicable to determining that he is the sort of person who might rape someone?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

But isn't the fact that he raped someone before (for example) pretty applicable to determining that he is the sort of person who might rape someone?

Yes it is. But policy is against that. You cannot use evidence of a person's character or or reputation, or specific evidences to try to prove conduct on a given occassion, unless the evidence shows motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, etc. Modus operendi is an example of this.

Just because a person raped before does not mean a person raped again. They might make good suspects, but the policy is to prove that act of rape.

Policy reasons pepper the evidence code. for example, if someone trips on a bad sidewalk on my property, I get sued and the I fix it, they cannot show evidence that I fixed it to indicate that it was, indeed dangerous. Why? Because policy is for me to fix it and not have it held against me.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[justinb138 0]

So what you're saying is that evidence or testimony of this nature is only allowed when it tries to prove that the defendant did commit a crime, as opposed to showing that they would commit a crime ?

[lawrocket 3]

No. Let's say that a man is found dead. Autopsy reveals that he was killed with a mix of curare, strychnine and arsenic in lemonde.

The police go back and find that 10 years prior, his wife was convicted of killing her last husband with curare, strychnine and arsenic. Such a method of killing is her "modus operandi." This killing was done the exact same way, and they may be able to get this evidence in.

On the other hand, look at OJ. OJ beat on Nicole a lot of times. The jury never heard it. Why? Because it was not relevant. OJ's defense was simply, "I didn't do it."

Now, had OJ said, "I didn't do it, I loved Nicole and would never hurt her" now he has opened the door for introduction of the prior beatings. Why? He said, "I'd never hurt her." This evidence does not go towards showing he killed her, only that he was lying when he said he'd never hurt her.

Get it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Get it?

Yup.. Thanks.

• Quote