Comments on: Oh (de)Jesus! Calling propensity propensity

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 04:57:57 +0000

Wow. Just. Wow.

Am I the only one think that the aberrant and compulsive, not to mention abhorrent, criminals are the ones sitting on the court itself? Seriously, this matter does not require the filing of another legal brief. These judges can be held politically accountable for their decisions and that is the only way to solve this problem; kick them off the bench.

I am not from CT but I doubt the state constitution has an asterisk that goes “except for people accused of of sex offenses.”

By: Woman in Blackw

Woman in Blackw — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:17:14 +0000

Just today my appellate court amended our rule (404(b)) to include a horrific sentence about “the prosecutor has to give notice, but if there is good cause, it’s okay to bring up other misconduct evidence in the midst of trial without notice.” Paraphrasing, but not by much. Trial, within trial, within trial. With no opportunity to prepare.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:42:18 +0000

Thanks a lot for offering! I’m sure I’ll be taking you up on it at some point.

By: Rauch

Rauch — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:45:43 +0000

As one who has been obsessed with this issue for over 15 years, it is time for lawyers across the country get united to fight these horrible decisions. And if you want to know how it all started, go read the briefs submitted to the courts. Remember, appellate judges only know what we tell them. If anyone has this issue coming up I will be happy to supply them with the articles and briefs I have written. e-mail me at rauch at emeraldis dot com

By: womanwearingblack

womanwearingblack — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:05:19 +0000

Holy crap. I think your state is the only one stupider than mine on 404(b)/ uncharged misconduct evidence! We have an immense test we now have to use, but in fact, if any lip service at all is given to the test, the appellate court defers to the ruling of the trial court.

By: Mark in Jersey

Mark in Jersey — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:46:15 +0000

Nonetheless, we recognize that crimes of a sexual nature are unique and distinct from crimes of a nonsexual nature because they often are “committed surreptitiously, in the absence of any neutral witnesses” and exhibit an “unusually aberrant and pathological nature . . . .” State v. Merriam Really? Arson, Stalking, Domestic Violence, Embezzlement, and many other crimes are committed in secret, without witness, damage victims greatly, and are pathological in nature... Should we allow evidence that someone is a compulsive gambler in larceny crimes? Should we allow prior drug treatment reports in the trial of a pharmacist accused of embezzling oxycodone tablets to get himself high? Evidence that the accused was obsessed with an old high-school sweetheart and use those old threatening letters, in a case involving the stalking of his current girlfriend? Does this open up the door to the change in the rules of evidence in all crimes of a secretive and pathological nature? Of course it is popular, and more and more "judicially correct" to not protect rights, but to bend over and cite "strong public policy concerns", a sneaky way that masks, and is a synonym for political reasons. However, isn't the protection of rights a strong "public policy reason"? It is easy to ignore the low recidivism rates for sexual offenders, especially those in treatment, when it is politically expedient to demonize sex offenders, and lump them all in together as untreatable, sociopathic scum, even though this is rarely the case (i.e. predatory, violent offenders). Also this gem from Snelgrove: Moreover, “[i]t is inherently improbable that a person whose prior acts show that he is in fact a rapist or child molester would have the bad luck to be later hit with a false accusation of committing the same type of crime Does the Court understand the principle of the presumption of innocence? Or is that down the toilet as well?