Sex in the stationhouse: What’s the relevance?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Joshua Mauldin’s legal problems just got a bit more complicated. After being charged with (and confessing to) microwaving his infant for 10-20 seconds, prosecutors are now seeking to have introduced at trial evidence that he had oral sex with his wife in the interrogation room at the police station.
His defense to the charged crime is insanity in that his acts were the result of hallucinations, which he has suffered from since he was 10. Prosecutors want to introduce the tryst as evidence that he is lucid and does not suffer from hallucinations.
Assistant District Attorney Xochitl Vandiver said jurors should know about the alleged sexual encounter between Mauldin and his wife, Eva Marie Mauldin, because it reflected his state of mind. “That piece of information is relevant to the defendant’s guilt,” Vandiver said.
Relevant how? It reflected his state of mind at the time he received oral sex, but what does that have to do with his state of mind at the time that he microwaved the baby?
Sadly, it seems that the judge might entertain the state’s request:
Judge Susan Criss, presiding over the trial, declined to make a formal ruling Monday on whether the couple’s police-station liaison would be admissible during trial. However, she warned [defense counsel] Cammack that he would need case law to back up any argument that the encounter should be kept from jurors.
Case law? How about the Rules of Evidence, specifically the one dealing with relevance? EvidenceProf has the correct analysis, in my opinion:
‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Now, if defense counsel’s argument was that the defendant was catatonic and never lucid, this evidence could potentially be relevant. But defense counsel’s claim seems to be that the defendant was usually lucid but that he suffered from occasional hallucinations, one of which allegedly occurred when he injured his daughter. I don’t see how proving that the defendant was lucid days later when he allegedly had oral sex with his wife, however, is relevant to whether he was hallucinating when he injured his daughter.
I agree. This is nothing but an attempt to portray the defendant as having a bad character - evidence that should be inadmissible, without need for supporting case law. How this is not akin to the widely deplored “slut defense”? In fact, if anything, this is less relevant than subsequent sexual conduct of a victim in a consent case.
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
I think it unfair to slam the judge here. I think he’s just telling the lawyers that he wants the issues well-researched. This is a high profile case, and she wants it done right. A bit imperious, but hey, asking attorneys to research the law isn’t such a horrible thing.
As for your analysis, I think it spot on. Let me pile on, if I may. Even assuming some bare logical relevance, there’s the prejudice analysis to consider. What is the probative value here, little to none, whereas the possibility for prejudice is great. Moreoever, isn’t this evidence cumulative? Presumably, the state has a bunch of other evidence to show that he was lucid when he gave the confession. (I know Colorado v. Connelly says that the defendant’s mental state is irrelevant for purposes of voluntariness, but hallucinogenic confessions can be attacked.)
The evidence would be admissible in sentencing, if the guy makes an issue about his remorse. I would argue, if I were the state, that anyone who wants a blowjob right around the time when he’s describing the serious harm he inflicted on this little girl isn’t all that remorseful.
I guess it’s better to be safe than sorry. If there are going to be appeals stemming from this trial, then it’s better to create a record, but this isn’t some complicated fourth amendment issue. This is a relevancy objection.
But you’re right. In the greater scheme of things, asking for briefs on the matter isn’t a huge deal. I don’t think it was necessary, but that’s just my opinion.
If I were the judge, I would have laughed it out too. I’m wondering too why the prosecutor wants to bring this in anyway. She knows her venire, and I don’t try cases, but I think you risk ticking off the jury for a cheap shot in an open and shut case. This guy microwaved a baby for Christ’s sake. I would think that you would want that foremost in the juror’s minds. Why argue extraneous stuff when you have a kid without an ear because Daddy put her in the microwave?
I don’t try cases, so I am out of my element (i.e., I am just spouting off) but the kitchen sink approach seems like an unnecessary risk here.
Curious to think what people who actaully try cases think . . . .
I think I’m changing my name to “Xochitl.” Oh, wait…I just looked it up - it means “Flower” in Nahuatil (native language of the Aztecs.) That’d be almost as bad as the client I almost got appointed to today whose street name is “Snuggles…” but I digress…
It’s Nahuatl, not Nahuatil.
Gee, my Aztec spellchecker must not be working…
I wonder how it is pronounced.
Maybe he was just REALLY tense…
Oh that’s so lame.
My apologies…Although in a more serious vein, I agree with the idea that his sexual antics at the police station are irrelevant to his guilt. In Texas, sentencing’s pretty much wide open.
Pronounced “so-she-tle”