|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @12:04PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
because I don't know enough about it to make a judgement. It's easy to read it, get pissed, then rant and rave about the implications but without more info it feels pointless.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"because I don't know enough about it to make a judgement. It's easy to read it, get pissed, then rant and rave about the implications but without more info it feels pointless."
Well, nobody is actually suggesting you should get pissed, rant, and rave. That would seem rather pointless and a waste of good activist energy. Instead, in my opinion the goal is to share this information with other men's activists and also with as much of the population at large as we can in order to get people to start looking into this a little more, and questioning whether these "rape shield" laws are a good idea.
I disagree with your statement that there is not enough information here to make the judgement that this man was denied a fair trial, and that the "rape shield" laws were the cause of it. I will admit that the details are rather sparse however, and encourage you to do a little research to find out what you feel are all of the important pieces of information missing from this article that would either satisfy you that we're doing the right thing by protesting the application of rape shield laws in this case or allow you to demonstrate to us why we're wrong to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Given the obvious potential that this evidence could be used to inflame the jury, the trial court conducted the appropriate balancing test ... and concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial nature"
In other words, it might piss off some people that she is a compulsive liar.
THQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @02:57PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
This is exactly why I wrote my first note: this story seems skewed to get a reaction. Since I can't find more info about the original case, I'm not inclined to respond as jenk has.
I know women lie (and lie and lie and lie...), but without more information about the case, those testifying about the victims, etc., I don't see the point in even posting this story.
We need more substantive info, guys, to jump on this kinda story. Without it, we're just spinning our wheels.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do NOT agree we need more info. It's simple. Rape shield laws were enacted, supposedly, to shield real rape victims from being humiliated/intimidated on the stand when defense attorneys wanted to make the woman look "tainted" by getting her to talk about her past sexual history. But this supreme court mentioned that legislation was specifically enacted to even protect women who had made prior accusations. There was no ploy here to bring up the woman SEXUAL history, but rather her history of making allegations ABOUT rape. If she has a pattern of making false allegations it SHOULD inflame the jury to look at her differently. This man is going to jail, and we DON'T know the actual charges/circumstances, so on this we can not comment. But, that being said, we DO know the "victim" has a history of bringing charges against men and that the witnessess would not have been called by the defense if their testimony would have been ambiguous. In simple terms, these two witnessess would have been devastating to the prosecution (else the defense would not have called them, therefore garnering the "victim" more support) and the prosecution wanted these witnessess excluded. Rape shield laws are being misapplied to protect false accusers, something the men's movement has been contending for years: and this case is a case in point for proof.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @07:27PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
But, that being said, we DO know the "victim" has a history of bringing charges against men and that the witnessess would not have been called by the defense if their testimony would have been ambiguous.
Give me a break. I know (very well) what defense attorneys do, and I know (very well) what people will do to protect those they care about or love, and I know (very well) what people will do when looking for revenge.
Don't come in here and pretend that the defense is always riding a white horse and is honest and good.
Unless you are privy to more detailed info, you DO NOT know enough to make a reasonable judgment in this case. You do NOT know that she has a history of making accusations. To assume otherwise makes you a preposterous grandstanding fool.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read that she had made previous accusations in the article. The defense would not have called previously accused RAPISTS that would have bolstered the prosecution's case. The defense team is hardly a "white horse", but neither did I imply, state, nor infer as such.
You have missed some key points, which I will restate:
1) The rape shield law was supposedly to protect "victims" from defense attorneys using people's supposed feelings of "antsi-ness" to shame the victim.
2)THEN legislation was enacted, according to the story, to protect "victims" supposedly, to prevent previous accusations from the accuser from being used against her.
3) The defense would not have called witnessess from the previous cases were they not devestating to the prosecution.
4) As a man falsely accused of rape I have DONE a LOT of research on date-rape and life-rape (false allegations). The original STATED intent of the rape-shield laws have had piggy-back legislation and addendums added to allow the broadening and deepening of the laws. These laws now prevent the defense from showing the "victim" of having a history of lying, mental-illness (specifically related to reality distortion), and making false allegations. WHY do you think feminist organizations pushed for this legislation?
I did have a good solid statement. I still do. My "grandstanding" was built on solidly understanding the facts of this case, rape case law, and the paradign shift in rape cases where rape laws contain many ommisions of our basic civil liberties. These laws are "different" (i.e. gender specific and gender targeted) and allow women who falsely accuse to side-step many of the probative questions that are germaine to the case.
If you want to debate this, that's cool. No hard feelings and I will listen to what you have to say. I only ask the same courtesy.
With respects,
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @02:06AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
No hard feelings, Steven. And, I apologize for sounding so harsh.
Now, I respectfully submit to you the following:
LITTLE ROCK - The state Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the rape conviction of Ralph Taylor and sai the victim's previous false allegations of rape are not admissible under the state's rape-shield law.
Save the typo (sai = said), this first paragraph of the story states that she has indeed lied about previous rape allegations. Now, I'm as freakin' upset at the justice system as anyone, having been jailed by false statements that could have locked me up for 10 to 20 years. Given that my personal radar is now in full gear for more judicial disdain, this article then proceeds to make the following statement:
Also, because the victim denied making up previous rape allegations, and Taylor's attorney could not prove otherwise, the testimony from the two witnesses was not admissible, Arnold wrote in the opinion.
Now I'm faced with inconsistent statements here. Thus, I must question the validity of the entire article as I cannot have real faith in what is being accurately portrayed. In addition, since I found nothing online to deepen my understanding of the case, I can only dismiss this report as it is contradictory. You may argue on any single point within, but you can't deny the basic flaw I've outlined here.
Also, the summary here uses the term 'date rape', yet I don't read that anywhere. Another inconsistency, but the submitter's fault.
Therefore, I submit that you do not know what has happening here. Just because this story states that the defense called some witnesses does not mean that they were actual 'maybe victims' of the accuser. They could have been acquaintances of the accuser, acquaintances of the defendant, people completely unrelated to anyone yet possible overheard conversations, etc. I've seen courtroom tactics that walk the edge of legal negligence just to taint a jury, even though it was OBVIOUS that what was being discussed should not have been introduced. Remember, once a jury is tainted it stays tainted. So, for point 3 of your rebuttal I stand fast on my position: I don't have enough data.
As for the rape shield law, yes, I agree that it is really a way to allow an accuser (female) to dodge the hard questions. I also agree that it should basically be done away with in total as it's done more harm than good. Yet, I wouldn't base an argument for its destruction based on the evidence provided us by this article as I'm not comfortable with the provided data, and there’s nothing worse for a movement than to create a martyr out of straw only to have it proven so.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @07:49PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
But, that being said, we DO know the "victim" has a history of bringing charges against men and that the witnessess would not have been called by the defense if their testimony would have been ambiguous.
Give me a break. I know (very well) what defense attorneys do, and I know (very well) what people will do to protect those they care about or love, and I know (very well) what people will do when looking for revenge.
Don't come in here and pretend that the defense is always riding a white horse and is honest and good. Anyone with the ability to read that possesses a bit of common sense KNOWS that this isn't true.
Unless you are privy to more detailed info, you DO NOT know enough to make a reasonable judgment in this case. You DO NOT know that she has a history of making accusations. To assume otherwise makes you a preposterous, grandstanding fool.
I've looked for more info (although I shouldn't have to...it shouldn't have been presented with so few facts) about this case, but I was unable to find anything. If anyone has more detailed information that we can examine please provide it. Also, what's wrong with you people? What would waiting for a bit more info really cost this forum?
Lastly, I don't want anyone to think that I believe this woman's story. This story is inconclusive prima facie. I'm not going to call all this woman a liar based solely on the data given. I'm not interested in appearing that ignorant. I'm not interested in becoming a loose canon hypocrite. Sadly, some of you are.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @08:14PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
You DO NOT know that she has a history of making accusations.
The above statement should read:
You DO NOT know that she has a history of making false accusations.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @09:45PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
The point is that this case is part of a larger pattern. When a man is accused of rape, or even just sexual harassment, the law gives lawyers free rein to rumage through his sexual past. But the woman who makes the accusation is protected from questioning. That's bullshit. And if Bill Clinton had cared about any male other than himself, he would have made sure that even worse than what happened to him wouldn't happen to any other male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @11:12PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that this is part of a larger pattern. And I agree that rape shield laws are poorly conceived, deviously devised. No argument there.
However, this is a specific case. If you want to 'get real, get active' then you need to address the facts of this case, not generalities.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We here are self-taught experts on this subject bubba. Call it a survival mechanism. I was falsely accused of rape. I have read TONS of literature on the date-rape/life-rape. I have answered your SPECIFIC comments in my response below your original response. You will find that this site and a few others we post at can be a fountain of information. Your point of view is just as important as anyone elses, but people here are pretty knowledgeable and you could learn something (I do all the time). Either way, stop talking down your nose to us. I wouldn't do it to you.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @01:05AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
um...you just did (talk down your nose at me). Oh, and my name isn't bubba. You may call me Shark.
You seem to be out of cogent agruments. When you're ready to provide more facts, then I'll listen to you. Otherwise, you're acting the fool, and very well at that. Enjoy!
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shark, you are missing the point. The point isn't whether the accusations were false, it is that they were inadmissable. The witnesses should have been allowed to testify, and it was up to the prosecution to cross examine them and show them to be poor testimony. The fact is that the rape shield laws directly hindered the right of the accused to have a fair trial with both sides presenting a full case. Maybe the witnesses would have proved a mute point, maybe not. We cannot know that. We DO know they were not allowed to speak at all and THAT is what we are protesting. You really should be careful coming in here and telling people what to think. It does not go over well, and makes people doubt your intentions.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @10:50AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not missing that point at all. I'm contending that we don't know enough to say that the information should have been allowed.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By that token we never know enough to be upset unless we have direct court transcripts. I agree making judgements on guilt or innocence is foolish, but we are not saying that. ANY evidence showing past behavior should be admissable, as I said that is what cross examination is for. The defense would not put up witnesses which would damage their case, and the prosecution would not argue against frivolous witnesses. Something was going on here, and I stand by my view that we should be angry about this. Every case like this enforces the feminist lace curtain of silence when it comes to false allegations.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @02:26PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Then we must agree to disagree. I have my point of view, which is to require more data ON THIS CASE before passing judgment, and you have your point of view, which is to pass judgment on the basis of the information provided within the article.
Another difference between us is as follows: my stance requires a closer examination of the facts on a case by case basis. Your position allows the defense AND the prosecutors to bring in any and all damaging prior past potentials against the accusor OR the accused (which isn't always the case, regardless of what some of the members here would have you and I believe). Thus, if Mr. Johnson happened to be, either previously or currently, involved with a woman that enjoyed having her hair pulled during sex, and Mr. Johnson enjoy that kind of thing also, then it can be brought into court. In a rape case, this would be quite damaging, no?
This is exactly your logic, and I disagree with it absolutely!
See, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You have NO idea what wasn't allowed in this instance for the prosecution. Neither do I. So, I decided to look around, try and find out more. I was unable to locate any other information. Thus, I choose not to attack the stance of the prosecution based solely on the info provided. And that's MY decision. You may do as you see fit.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point isn't whether the accusations were false, it is that they were inadmissable. The witnesses should have been allowed to testify, and it was up to the prosecution to cross examine them and show them to be poor testimony.
Damn. When I read this kind of self-rightous crap from Shark I think that I just cannot wait until the day that I serve on a jury. When that happens I will know that it is impossible to get a fair hearing, and I will vote accordingly unless the laws are changed to expose all of the facts.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And if Bill Clinton had cared about any male other than himself, he would have made sure that even worse than what happened to him wouldn't happen to any other male.
Well since BC was King of the World, and had a supermajoraty of both houses, and was under no political pressure to the contrary at the time, yes its appaling that he didn't ban 'rape shield' laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Unless you are privy to more detailed info, you DO NOT know enough to make a reasonable judgment in this case. You DO NOT know that she has a history of making accusations. To assume otherwise makes you a preposterous, grandstanding fool."
Please stop the name calling, it's uncalled for here. You're right, we don't know for certain that she has a history of making accusations. We also don't know for certain that she doesn't. There are two people who were prepared to tell the court that she had falsely accused them or rape in the past. Maybe those people would have been lying, maybe they would have been telling the truth. That's for a jury to decide. The problem is the jury didn't get to hear the testimonies at all, apparently because they might have "inflamed them" into thinking the defendant could be innocent.
" Also, what's wrong with you people? What would waiting for a bit more info really cost this forum?"
One thing I'd really like some of our visitors to start realizing is that this site is not the New York Times. We don't have hundreds of thousands of people reading these articles, and even if we do occasionally post something we maybe shouldn't have it probably isn't that big of a deal.
Now I'm still unconvinced in this case that posting this when we did was a bad idea, but even if I thought it was I'd still hope it would be the kind of thing that wouldn't be judged too harshly. This site has no paid editorial staff, nobody working on it with any formal training or degrees in journalism, and is run strictly by volunteers. I think overall we're doing a pretty good job, and that's probably why our readers expect such a high standard from us, but it would be nice if we could get a little more understanding when we post things and one or more of our readers happens to disagree with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @01:24AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I should not have name called. I apologize for that. However, I may do it again. No promises. Besides, if you're going to corner me for this, then you should corner everyone that name calls on this site, and that's going to take up most of your time. This must include all those individuals that attack women with such terms as; bitch, cunt, whore, feminazi, rag, etc.
As for this case, I DO believe that this doesn't meet the standards I've seen on this site. It is unclear at best which side the circumstances involved favor. Thus, we risk looking insignificant due to our lack of due diligence.
Finally, I still want you to understand that I'm not condoning what happened in this case. I'm just as outraged about this type of injustice as anyone here (and I've been falsely accused of some bad acts). Yet, I would STILL like to see more data before holding this guy up as a martyr.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should not have name called. I apologize for that. However, I may do it again. No promises.
That isn't much of an apology.
Besides, if you're going to corner me for this, then you should corner everyone that name calls on this site, and that's going to take up most of your time. This must include all those individuals that attack women with such terms as; bitch, cunt, whore, feminazi, rag, etc.
First, I'm not cornering you, I'm asking you not to call people names here. There's no reason to get defensive about it and insist that if I'm going to ask you not to call the people who are posting in this thread including myself names that I need to go hunt down everyone who's ever called anyone a name and make the same request in order to establish a protocol by which to ask you that.
"As for this case, I DO believe that this doesn't meet the standards I've seen on this site. It is unclear at best which side the circumstances involved favor. Thus, we risk looking insignificant due to our lack of due diligence."
We don't conduct our own due diligence here, we're dependant on the due diligence of the reporters whose articles we post links to. We hope they've done some fact checking, but we never know for sure that they aren't making the whole thing up. That's the drawback of being a small website which doesn't write it's own articles instead of being the New York Times. Based on the facts presented in this article, specifically that these testimonies were not allowed in the courtroom because former accusations of rape are inadmissable due to their ability to "inflame the jury" as the judge put it, and that they are part of the "rape shield" laws which we already know were designed to keep accusers from feeling uncomfortable on the stand, I would say he wasn't given a fair trial. Perhaps there are some other facts out there somewhere which might show otherwise but that could also be said about any article we post a link to.
"Finally, I still want you to understand that I'm not condoning what happened in this case. I'm just as outraged about this type of injustice as anyone here (and I've been falsely accused of some bad acts). Yet, I would STILL like to see more data before holding this guy up as a martyr."
I understand that you're unconvinced either way, you've done a good job of making that clear from the beginning. As far as holding this guy up as a martyr, well certainly I agree that we'd need to do more research before we did that, but posting an article for discussion and holding the guy up as a martyr are two seperate things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @02:46PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
ok, point 1 - I didn’t owe you an apology at all. In deciding to do so, I’m not bound by what you consider an apology. I can now state that you should have been more gracious, yet that doesn’t require you to do so.
point 2 - Yes, you did corner me. That’s exactly how I perceived it, so that’s what it was to me. In addition, don't presume to tell me what to do, as this is an open forum. I used no foul language (in this instance), so if you have a problem with the term 'fool' and want to 'corner' me about it, be prepared for a rebuttal, which is exactly what this is. Your position of passing judgment without more facts is foolish in the extreme to ME. I personally don’t care how it appears to you.
point 3 - this story is WOEFULLY lacking in details. In addition, it contains inconsistencies. those 2 things together make it assumptive. I’m not asking for the world, and I do agree that it’s worthy of discussion. However, when I ask for more facts and members (including you) start stating that I have all the facts I need, I will indeed let you know that I not only disagree, but consider your position untenable. You don’t get to decide if this story presents enough facts to make me feel comfortable taking one position over another. It isn’t up to you. It’s solely up to me.
point 4 – Yes, I used the term martyr. If I view it that way, so be it. You, however, may view it in any light you wish.
I’ve stated my position, you’ve stated yours. I am fairly certain that neither of us will budge.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok, point 1 - I didn’t owe you an apology at all.
Well, actually you did. When someone's being civil to you and you start calling them names you owe them an apology.
In deciding to do so, I’m not bound by what you consider an apology.
I don't care much if you choose to apologize or not, but if you're going to apologize I'd hope you make it a sincere one.
I can now state that you should have been more gracious, yet that doesn’t require you to do so.
More gracious than not returning the name calling and simply asking you to stop? Seems you have different standards for what is acceptable levels of graciousness for your own and others behavior.
point 2 - Yes, you did corner me. That’s exactly how I perceived it, so that’s what it was to me.
Well, if you're the type of person who gets defensive whenever he's been calling people names and someone asks him to stop, then I'm not surprised you percieve it as "cornering" or in some way being unfair to you.
In addition, don't presume to tell me what to do, as this is an open forum.
And now suddenly my request was an order, being yet a third way it was utterly unfair of me to ask you to stop the name calling.
I used no foul language (in this instance), so if you have a problem with the term 'fool' and want to 'corner' me about it, be prepared for a rebuttal, which is exactly what this is.
Have you prepared additional rebuttals for the terms preposterous, grandstanding, rant and rave, loose cannon, and hypocrit?
Your position of passing judgment without more facts is foolish in the extreme to ME.
Your position of calling someone a fool simply because you think one of their positions is foolish seems the more foolhardy to me, but even still to be convincing you need spice up that rebuttal a bit with some specifics on which facts you think are missing.
I personally don’t care how it appears to you.
If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented on it in the first place.
point 3 - this story is WOEFULLY lacking in details. In addition, it contains inconsistencies. those 2 things together make it assumptive. I’m not asking for the world, and I do agree that it’s worthy of discussion. However, when I ask for more facts and members (including you) start stating that I have all the facts I need, I will indeed let you know that I not only disagree, but consider your position untenable.
To do that you need to state which facts are lacking to draw the conclusion we have.
You don’t get to decide if this story presents enough facts to make me feel comfortable taking one position over another. It isn’t up to you. It’s solely up to me.
Nobody said otherwise, and in fact my first reply to you in this thread had already recognized that fact...
" encourage you to do a little research to find out what you feel are all of the important pieces of information missing from this article that would either satisfy you that we're doing the right thing... "
point 4 – Yes, I used the term martyr. If I view it that way, so be it. You, however, may view it in any light you wish.
You can view this post as an attempt to make a martyr out of him all you like. You can also look at the Statue of Liberty and call it a giant fish, but that doesn't make it one.
I’ve stated my position, you’ve stated yours. I am fairly certain that neither of us will budge.
Well, since all you've backed up your position that my argument is a non sequitur with is name calling and defending the right to name call I admit I haven't budged any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, actually you did. When someone's being civil to you and you start calling them names you owe them an apology.
Sorry, hombre, but you don't determine when or to whom I must apologize for anything. Fool is a term of reference, and it was properly applied in this instance. Any term I may use to describe a person(s) position or attitude is tantamount to name-calling. Your stand here is silly, and foolish.
More gracious than not returning the name calling and simply asking you to stop? Seems you have different standards for what is acceptable levels of graciousness for your own and others behavior.
Since you offer no comparisons then your response is inappropriate.
Well, if you're the type of person who gets defensive whenever he's been calling people names and someone asks him to stop, then I'm not surprised you percieve it as "cornering" or in some way being unfair to you.
If this is how you see it, then sure. I can’t obviate you from your own personal feelings here, which are obviously clouding your judgment.
And now suddenly my request was an order, being yet a third way it was utterly unfair of me to ask you to stop the name calling.
Hey, I used the following ‘preposterous grandstanding fool.’ Is this really the kind of language you want to call someone out on the carpet for? Well, even so, my statement stands.
Have you prepared additional rebuttals for the terms preposterous, grandstanding, rant and rave, loose cannon, and hypocrit?
I used the term rant and rave, and never once suggested that anyone should do so (although it obviously happened, as it always does here, and even by me). So, you’re trying to legislate our demeanor here? My god, man, John Adams is rolling over in his grave!!!!
Your position of calling someone a fool simply because you think one of their positions is foolish seems the more foolhardy to me, but even still to be convincing you need spice up that rebuttal a bit with some specifics on which facts you think are missing.
So, now you’re name-calling? Saying my position ‘seems’ foolhardy is the same as calling me foolhardy. Syntax makes no difference here. Yet, I suspect (yawn) that you’ll say that you are not name-calling nonetheless. Oh well.
You can view this post as an attempt to make a martyr out of him all you like. You can also look at the Statue of Liberty and call it a giant fish, but that doesn't make it one.
Oh, now this is priceless. Since you do not know my personal perspective on this issue, your comment above is typical misdirection, and poorly done at that.
Well, since all you've backed up your position that my argument is a non sequitur with is name calling and defending the right to name call I admit I haven't budged any.
I’ve backed up my position on the article and its inconsistencies more completely elsewhere in this thread. If you choose to do so, you may read further and make your own conclusions. Also, I was absolutely correct in stating that not one person here, at the time I made the statement, had enough information to prove that she ‘lied’ about previous rape allegations.
Finally, if you have the time and are so inclined, please reread the summary, which make a biased false secondary fact (date-rape…how did that happen?) that I can find NO evidence of anywhere. If you or I or our brethren here were to read a similar misrepresentation of the facts surrounding a case on a feminist site (example: “Appeal turned down for woman convicted of DV against boyfriend” where the actual case involved severing the man’s genitals) we would be up in arms at the toning down of the facts surrounding the case. Well, at least I would.
Ok, this is all I have time for today. Busy fighting the Girl Scouts, of which I was initially judgmental and remain to be so. Yes, hypocrite on this issue.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @09:28PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
all I I know is my ex put false accusations of DV on me that caused me to get locked up for 10 day on her word alone.
She did it to former men in her life too.
The court could give a shit less about justice as long as the DV advocates are happy.
Quote for the asshole judge "despite conflict in her testimony and inconclusive evidence -SOME THING MUST HAVE HAPPENED..."
-yeah, she is punishing me with the system, that is what happended
They gave me 30 days, I was out in ten though... It may sound trivial, but for a man who never did wrong to anyone in jis life ten days is a long time. I feel bad for victims of political prejudice now.
Rape sheild laws should sheild the accused too - from public denigration before the facts.
feminism is sexism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 22, @11:15PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I was accused of some very heinous activity, and the police report still stands to this day. Did I do what the report says? Of course not. Did anyone in the courtroom (victim advocates are bullshit to the extreme) give a rats ass? Nope. Am I bitter. A little.
Do I still want to know the facts as best I can have them? Hell yes. Regardless of what's being said to or about whom, I want the facts.
FACTS! I'll make up my mind after I know more. Not before.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see where you're coming from, but before you put someone away for 13 years we owe them every chance to defend themselves. The courts need to recognize that false accusations are a real problem, not just a trivial statistical anomaly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @02:10AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
absolutely. I agree with you 100%. But, to pose the question don't you agree that one should be able to show that she lied? failing that, then it's he said/she said, and now we're talking another dimension entirely. So, if she falsely accused someone of rape, why not have the victim of the accusation demand that she be charged with filing a false claim, then find her guilty, THEN retry this case?
I know, it's almost impossible to do. So, what next? I'm open for debate on the topic.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shark,
Let's try this again. I agree with your premise that before we "hold this guy up to be a martyr" we should know that he IS one. Fair enough. You seem to be a logical person, and I respect that.
One thing you brought up in your last post I can address. We, our society, have so gotten used to hearing "charged with a filing false police report" that it misses an important point. This may take a bit, so allow me some room to get my thoughts in order.
The usual disclaimer we see in papers after a woman is found to be blatantly lying about rape is this final line in the story: "the ADA's office is considering filing charges for 'filing a false police report'." Now understand 2 things about this:
The first is that the press know this is a red herring. They follow stories all the time and have regular contacts, which they must maintain, in the DA's office. Burning these sources loses them a "scoop". Why do I point this out? Well, when the man is charged with rape the charges were not "considered", "looked at", or "under further review". He is summarily arrested as their is enough compelling evidence to grant a warrant. When a woman is PROVED to have lied about rape that evidence is also substantial enough for an arrest, and possibly, a conviction. The press knows this, but the DA has to say SOMETHING to "wrap up" the case. Usually the case in question, that has reporters even asking, is newsworthy. So the press can't just drop it without another word. So .... the "the DA's office is considering bringing charges" is printed and the story is done. But in reality IF the woman is charged it is often, if not always, pled down to almost nothing. The press is a willing accomplice to this half-truth, and most of the public doesn't have this register on their radar.
The second point is that a woman who has gone as far as the woman in this story has is open to far more criminal charges than just "filing a false police report". See, the bar for punishment in these cases has been dropped so far, and the public so used to it, we accept this answer. A woman who has testified is subject to many MORE charges. I know that you, Shark, being a logical person, probably have the word Perjury come to mind. But I have looked into this subject and done some research. The woman CAN, but NEVER is, charged with several charges, depending on what actions she has taken, and what has happened to the man who was falsely imprisoned. Allow me to deliniate:
----Obstruction of justice: if she willfully withheld evidence that was exculpatory.
----Tampering with evidence: this goes to obstruction, but more to planting, removing, or altering any evidence.
----Witness tampering: if she tried to get a friend to "help" her story along.
----Conspiracy: if her friend DID lie, and at the "victim's" request, then you have conspiracy.
----If the man is raped, beaten, or otherwise harmed (even financially) in prison then she can be charged as an accomplice (there is a specific term, but it escapes me, sorry) in these crimes.
See, the public is so used to this low bar of "filing a false police report" that we just accept it. And the DA's are scared to death of the appearance of causing a "chilling effect" on victims they never file these charges. And with the Feminazi political apparatus being able to destroy that DA or ADA's career,the "publc servant" is more interested in preserving a career than a persons life's work. And lastly, since the public is often blind, and often willfully so, to what happens to men who are imprisoned for false allegations, and few PAC's want to go to bat for them, the issues surrounding life-rape (it's frequency, causes, and remedies and deterrents) the subject garners little sympathy or understanding.
Sorry to be snippy earlier. When we get to know you on this board you will find that, through your posts, (and get a PERM name, it helps for respect, and it's easy) we will know your stance on issues. Often we get users who don't get a "handle", who come in, post for a few days, and make ridiculous statements, false stats, and just to stir up trouble. In time we will get to know you, your ideas, and their respective merits. Again, sorry to have been rude. Get a perm Handle, and things will be a bit easier.
I hope my post was helpful.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's try this again. I agree with your premise that before we "hold this guy up to be a martyr" we should know that he IS one. Fair enough. You seem to be a logical person, and I respect that....
Wrong. Let's assume that all males accused of rape, D.V., child molestation, and more are martyr's until the system is fixed to allow for a fair and unbiased trial.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll drink to that, Warble.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, if she falsely accused someone of rape, why not have the victim of the accusation demand that she be charged with filing a false claim, then find her guilty, THEN retry this case?
This has got to be a feminist troll baiting the group.
I cannot wait until I serve on a jury and get to acquit a rapist simply because men cannot get a fair and unbiased hearing.
No true man will convict another male of rape, if they are of a noble character, until the Marxist Feminist court systems are fixed by law or overthrown by just people.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 23, @02:12AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
anon, I have to ask: When did you find out that she falsely accused former boyfriends of DV? You better say AFTER she accused you or you are your own worst enemy in this case.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
all I I know is my ex put false accusations of DV on me that caused me to get locked up for 10 day on her word alone.
Exactly. Worse all of the exonerating evidence is suppressed by law. I will never vote on a jury to convict a male of DV, rape, and etc. until the feminist influence in the court system is eliminated. It is like going to a communist court and hoping for a fair hearing. NOT! Ain't gonna happen. No male is going to jail by my vote until the laws are fixed.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They gave me 30 days, I was out in ten though... It may sound trivial, but for a man who never did wrong to anyone in jis life ten days is a long time. I feel bad for victims of political prejudice now.
It is sad that so many male are finding out about the Marxist Feminist government in a trial by fire. If only they would listen.....
Yet they cannot say they have not been warned because we are out there and we are telling the truth.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't give a rat's hairy behind whether or not she was lying, telling the truth or what. Any male on that jury who saw the defense have testimony squelched should have voted "not guilty." On principle. Period. Just because the "Rape Shiled" laws have gotten out of hand.
Yes, once upon a time the victim would have been forced onto the stand and subjected to a tag team grilling until they foound some inconsistancies with the story on the third go-around, and then had it hammered until she looked like a kook. Once upon a time she would have been asked qll manner of ridiculous question. Yeah - back in the 1940s.
Now exculpatory evidence is suppressed as a matter of business as usual in the name of pheminist dogma. And the best way to stop it is with two little words.
Jury Nullification.
Part of the duty and power of the jury comes in judging not only the case, but the law. If the law is unjest, or unjustly applied, they have an option:
Jury Nullification.
Prosecutors base their decision to prosecute an allegation in part because of their percieved chance to gain a conviction. No prosecutor will touch something they fear will have a certainty to put a tally in the "L" column.
Jury Nullification.
Men fear juries and trial because of the expense and lack of faith in the system to treat them fairly. Hence they often plead guilty to things they didn't do to avoid it. Imagine, though, how they might be heartened knowing that men all over the place were becoming aware of their rights, and how they are discriminated against in courts because they are men.
Jury Nullification will do this.
A juror is not empowered merely to decide facts based on eviudence, but are allowed to judge their perceptions of truthfulness and credibility. And if they find the prosecutor lacking, they have their option.
Jury Nullification.
No more trial by innuende, by allegation, by statistic. PROVE it, Ms. D.A. Beyond a doubt. Or face a "Not Guilty"
Exercised with "Jury Nullification."
No Justice, No Peace.
Jury Nullification.
It is far better for a thousand guilty men to walk free than one innocent man be imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit (James Madison, I believe...)
Jury Nullification.
As activists we should team with the Fully Informed Jury Association, and get the word out - if we hang tohgether, we can force changes in the system by removing their power to weild "process" against us. With one simple weapon, two simple words.
Jury Nullification.
Why do prosecutors like to stack juries with women? Because they find it easier to lie, intimidate, control, and bully them. Because it is easier to appeal to the "Well, even if it's wrong, it's the law" impulse, their desire for stability and want for a protector. They have believed the myth that "women don't lie" about rape, abuse, incest, and such. So when a women ssays "He did it" the sisters stick together. Time to stick together, brothers. Men don't lie.
Not guilty. Jury nullification.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats our Gonzo ...
And I like the INFORMED JUROR idea. Can we get a link?
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.fija.org/
http://www.caught.net/juror.htm
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you sir!
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is where you and I differ, Gonzo: Although I know that women lie, I also know that men lie. So, with this, I'm interested in knowing ALL I can in any given situation.
I have a son and a daughter. When it comes to life, I want honesty both ways for and from them. I strive for nothing less, and expect nothing less. Each has been well taught that this is the finest of virtues. If anything criminally wicked were to befall them, I would want absolute justice. If they were to commit a crime, the same: I want absolute justice.
I've served as a juror on several occasions, and found the process terribly one-sided. Anyone that believes the system is fair from a defense standpoint is not very well informed and has no real world experience in the matter. So the prosecution has a great deal of power, and loads of money with which to make someone guilty of something, whether true or not. When OJ was found not guilty, and everyone railed on and on about the injustice of it all, they weren’t well informed enough to understand that on the very same day dozens of men (and women) were found guilty of crimes they didn’t commit. That’s the system. It’s all a balancing act, and the balance has been skewed and media fed ‘feminist’ for quite some time now. So, OJ may have been guilty, but his release didn’t counteract all the wrongs done to men in the pervious few decades. It is instead forced upon the collective, segmented in innumerable specials of injustice, that this is the norm, the typical finagling of the guilty man and his team of evil accomplices. Yet the truth lies elsewhere. The members of this forum know the actuality.
But I’m not writing of generalities here. I’m discussing this case, which may or may not be a travesty of justice. No one here knows (unless they have info not shared) whether THIS judge should have allowed THIS testimony in THIS case. Assuming otherwise from the linked report shows a lack of sensibility, and a rush to judgment. I’m not the type of person that typically does such a thing (although I am a bit of a hypocrite...the girl scout thing has me up in arms). I certainly do question this occurrence, I certainly do want to know more. And that’s the key here; I want to know more.
Jury nullification? Not guilty? I don’t know enough in THIS case to make that decision.
If we want to make this a general discussion, then I'm all for it. Let's start a related thread and move on down the road with it. Let's get together, debate, then create an open letter to the members (which is something we should do for several situations, such as paternity fraud, DV, family court issues, etc. A series of open letters, if you will.) that will be contained in a special section chosen from the sidebar under navigation. This would allow any current member, newcomer, or faintly veiled phem to get a handle on what we feel as an 'organization' in common. From that, we could create a type of men’s activism constitution, refine it, follow it.
However, in this case, this situation, I’ll stand steadfast once again by my original assertion: I don’t know enough about this case to state anything definitive one way or the other on whether the defense should have been allowed to introduce the evidence in question. I request more information.
The Shark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see what he is saying. I also agree with his "needing all the facts". Let me explain. I remember during the William Kennedy Smith trial how "all of a sudden" 3 other women, who had never filed a complaint, suddenly wanted to testify as to W.K. Smith's previous acts of sexual assault. This struck me as terribly unfair. The women had never filed a single complaint. Their stories were completely different, and since no pattern was evident, they were not admissible. And their wanting to come forward seemed (varying from one story to the next) contrived for publicity to spiteful women he had hooked up with and not further pursued. The judge did not allow these witnessess to testify as he felt that it would unfairly predjudice the jury. As it turned out, this was a good thing, as W.K. Smith was innocent ( I watched the whole trial, and the jury agreed, taking only 75 minutes to render a verdict).
Now, referring to the case that started this thread I would like to know the particulars of what the witnesses would have added AND their motivations. That being said, I would disagree with Shark on one item: the witnessess, and this ignores their veracity, were obviously damaging to the prosecution's case. Also, unlike the W.K. Smith case, these witnesses were not 11th hour "show ups". How do I know? Fair enough. In our legal system all the evidence must be presented before the case, including a witness list. Now, they COULD have been not on the defense team's official witness list and be called as rebuttal witnessess, but logically I can pretty much dismiss that. How, they had knowledge of the PREVIOUS accusations, and therefore would not have been rebuttal witnessess to the accusation of the rape. Since they were not (again, logical and deductively arrived at, but not KNOWN) rebuttal witnessess, but rather "presentation of pattern" witnessess, they were on the witness list, deposed, and the prosecution would have had to have realized they would have been bad for their case. So a motion for non inclusion (not the legal term, but you get the idea) by the prosecution was granted, and hence the grounds for the appeal (among what else others none of us know) that went to the Supreme Court (state).
As a generality, the Feminazi crowd HOWLED about W.K. Smith's team getting the "suddenly appearing" witnessess disallowed. It was so unfair they cried. But when a man wants to do the same thing, THAT's unfair. In simple speak: to the Feminazis FAIR = unfair/"different".
That alone speaks volumes
Hope what I posted added to the discussion.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jury Nullification.
But the defense might not even get to bring those points up...I remember one of the crackdowns the feds did on a marajuana farm. They were tried and convicted as dirty drug dealers, but the defense wasn't allowed to mention that the farmers were growing it for medicinal purposes under state law. Many of the jurors were horrified to learn that they had given a lengthly sentence to people growing weed for cancer and lukemia patients, etc.
Could have been the same with this jury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FYI...
Source:
http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2003b/20031211/ cr03-550.html
*355ark*sc1*
11 December 2003
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR03-550
RALPH TAYLOR,
APPELLANT,
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
Opinion Delivered
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CR-2002-838,
HON. J. MICHAEL FITZHUGH, JUDGE,
AFFIRMED.
W.H. "DUB" ARNOLD, Chief Justice
Appellant Ralph Taylor was tried and convicted of rape in Sebastian County, Arkansas. Taylor was sentenced to thirteen years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant's sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in determining that the victim's prior false allegations of rape were sexual conduct within the meaning of the rape-shield statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-42-101 (Repl. 1999). Our jurisdiction is thus pursuant to section 16-42-101 and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(8). We find no error and affirm.
The record reflects that on July 5, 2002, Martha Tippey reported that she had been raped by Taylor. At trial, the victim was asked if she had ever falsely accused anyone, besides Taylor in the present case, of rape. After the victim answered in the negative, Taylor's counsel asked the victim a second question, ifshe had ever falsely accused a certain specific individual of rape. The State objected to the second question. Taylor, then, withdrew the second question; however, Taylor failed to request the victim's answer to the first question, had she ever falsely accused anyone of rape, be stricken. Taylor argues that as a result of the trial court's ruling regarding the second question, he withdrew the first question asked and answered by the victim so that he would not be bound by her answer of "No."
Taylor contends that he proffered the testimony of witnesses who confirmed prior false accusations of rape made by the victim. The first witness, Johnny Moore, was a friend of both the alleged victim and Taylor. The second witness, Harold Wilkins, was a pastor to both the victim and Taylor. Both of these witnesses testified that the victim had previously accused another person of raping her. This proffered testimony was ruled inadmissible by the trial court. The trial court based its ruling on the fact that Taylor did not prove that the prior allegations supposedly made by the victim were false; further, the victim did not admit that the prior allegations were false.
The rape-shield law provides for the exclusion of evidence of any kind about the victim's prior sexual conduct. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-42-101(a). Subsection (b) states:
(b) In any criminal prosecution under § 5-14-101 et seq. or § 5-26-202, or for criminal attempt to commit, criminal solicitation to commit, or criminal conspiracy to commit an offense defined in any of those sections, opinion evidence, reputation evidence, or evidence of specific instances of the victim's prior sexualconduct with the defendant or any other person, evidence of a victim's prior allegations of sexual conduct with the defendant or any other person, which allegations the victim asserts to be true, or evidence offered by the defendant concerning prior allegations of sexual conduct by the victim with the defendant or any other person if the victim denies making the allegations is not admissible by the defendant, either through direct examination of any defense witness or through cross-examination of the victim or other prosecution witness, to attack the credibility of the victim, to prove consent or any other defense, or for any other purpose.
(Emphasis added.)
This court has interpreted the phrase "prior sexual conduct" broadly, such that it encompasses sexual conduct that occurs prior to trial, not just conduct occurring prior to the time of the alleged rape. Martin v. State, 354 Ark. ___, 105 S.W.3d 369 (Oct. 2, 2003); Short v. State, 349 Ark. 492, 79 S.W.3d 313 (2002); Laughlin v. State, 316 Ark. 489, 872 S.W.2d 848 (1994). The purpose of the statute is to shield victims of rape or sexual abuse from the humiliation of having their personal conduct, unrelated to the charges pending, paraded before the jury and the public when such conduct is irrelevant to the defendant's guilt. State v. Babbs, 334 Ark. 105, 971 S.W.2d 774 (1998); Graydon v. State, 329 Ark. 596, 953 S.W.2d 45. Accordingly, the trial court is vested with a great deal of discretion in determining whether the evidence is relevant, and we will not overturn the trial court's decision unless it constituted clear error or a manifest abuse of discretion. Id. In fact, a defendant must file a written motion in order for the provisions of subsection(c)(2)(C) to be invoked. Bradley v. State, 327 Ark. 6, 9, 937 S.W.2d 628, 629 (1997).
Taylor argues that the prior allegations of the victim are admissible because they are evidence of misconduct, not sexual conduct. Taylor cites to West v. State, 290 Ark. 329, 722 S.W.2d 684 (1987), reh'g denied, 290 Ark. 329, 722 S.W.2d 284 (1987), where the defendant anticipated that the alleged victim would deny that she ever made false accusations of rape against other men. The defendant proffered three witnesses who would testify that the victim had made similar false accusations. Id. This court held:
If the prosecutrix does deny on cross-examination that she made the statements or admits making them but asserts them to have been true, then the defense should be permitted to prove that the statements were made, if that is not admitted, and that they were false. That proof would be admissible not merely as affecting the prosecutrix's credibility but also as raising a possible doubt about the truth of the present charge.
West, 290 Ark. at 333, 334. In West, this court denied the State's petition for rehearing, but for purposes of clarification, addressed the rape-shield-law argument raised by the State but not specifically mentioned in the majority opinion.
That law excludes evidence of any kind about the victim's prior `sexual conduct' and defines `sexual conduct' as deviate sexual activity, sexual contact or sexual intercourse. See Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-1810.1 and 41-1810.3. As conceded in the State's petition, the victim's purported conduct, asproffered by appellant here, simply is not sexual conduct as that term is defined by law. Thus, appellant's proffered, relevant testimony clearly was not excludable under the Rape-Shield law, and the trial court, in ruling otherwise, committed error.
West v. State, 290 Ark. at 340A (supplemental opinion denying rehearing).
However, West was subsequently superceded by a 1993 amendment to the rape-shield statute. See Ridling v. State, 348 Ark. 213, 72 S.W.3d 466 (2002). "The 1993 act inserted the language emphasized and set out in the foregoing provision, and by doing so, the General Assembly specifically broadened Arkansas's rape-shield law to include both (1) evidence of a victim's prior allegations of sexual conduct with the defendant or any other person, which allegations the victim asserts to be true, and (2) evidence offered by the defendant concerning prior allegations of sexual conduct by the victim with the defendant or any other person if the victim denies making the allegations." Booker. v. State, 334 Ark. 434, 976 S.W.2d 918 (1998).
In Booker, this court held that where no evidence was presented to show that the victim's prior allegation of rape was true, and no evidence was provided that she denied having made the prior allegation, the rape-shield statute as amended did not apply. Booker, supra. The defendant is required to demonstrate or prove that the victim's prior allegation is false. Booker, supra.
Here, Taylor argues that the expanded rape-shield statute does not apply because there was no evidence that the victimdenied making the prior allegation. However, a review of the record reveals that during cross-examination, the victim denied making a false allegation of rape:
Taylor's Counsel: Have you ever falsely accused anybody else of doing something like this to you?
Victim: No, I have not.
Taylor's Counsel: Are you sure?
Victim: I'm certain.
Therefore, the victim's denial that she previously made false allegations of rape against another person means that the rape-shield statute as amended does apply to the facts of this case. Taylor's counsel, then, asked the victim a second question regarding a certain specific individual. However, Taylor's counsel withdrew that question. The victim's denial that she had formerly made false accusations of rape against another person means that the rape-shield statute as amended applies to the facts in this case. Ridling, 348 Ark. at 224, 72 S.W.3d at 473. However, assuming Taylor withdrew both questions regarding previous allegations of false accusations, the correct manner in which to have the testimony removed from the purview of the jury was to move to strike the testimony or request that the trial court admonish the jury to disregard the witness' testimony. Bearden v. J.R. Grobmyer Lumber Co., 331 Ark. 378, 961 S.W.2d 760 (1998). Here, Taylor did neither.
The evidence sought to be admitted by Taylor is just thesort of evidence that the rape-shield statute prohibits. Given the obvious potential that this evidence could be used to inflame the jury, the trial court conducted the appropriate balancing test set out in section 16-42-101(c) and concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial nature. See Butler v. State, 349 Ark. 252, 82 S.W.3d 152 (citing Harris v. State, 322 Ark. 167, 907 S.W.2d 729 (1995)); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-42-101(c) (Repl. 1999)). We cannot say that the trial court's ruling was a manifest abuse of discretion.
Further, Taylor failed to file a written motion pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-42-101(c) seeking to have evidence admitted which would otherwise be inadmissible under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-42-101(b). Subsection (c) states in part:
(c) Notwithstanding the prohibition contained in subsection (b) of this section, evidence directly pertaining to the act upon which the prosecution is based or evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct with the defendant or any other person may be admitted at the trial if the relevancy of the evidence is determined in the following manner:
(1) A written motion shall be filed by the defendant with the court at any time prior to the time the defense rests stating that the defendant has an offer of relevant evidence prohibited by subsection (b) of this section and the purpose for which the evidence is believed relevant.
Here, Taylor did not file a written motion; therefore, the trial court properly excluded the proffered testimony. See Hill v. State, 327 Ark. App. 28, 45 S.W.3d 406 (2001).
Affirmed.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welp... I've really had too many beers to be commenting, but I'm a glutton for punishment. Take this with a grain of salt, but here goes...
Having read the ruling and the news article... I don't believe the text of the ruling adds significantly to the information available, but it does fill in a few minor gaps and insconsistancies in the article.
The testimony was not admitted because the defense did not establish that the allegations were in fact false. Failure to establish this allowed the court to consider the allegations to be "allegations of prior sexual conduct" which are inadmissable under the rape shield law in AK.
A key quoted feature of the "failure to establish" was the fact that the plantiff denied having made false allegations. This fact was presented (albeit clumsily) in the Arkansas News Bureau article.
There was one fairly big inconsistancy in the article (makes you wonder if a school kid wrote the article). In the first paragraph it appears to assert that the false allegations are proven. A better constructed opening sentance would have been along the lines of :
"...of Ralph Taylor and sai (sic) the victim's previous ALLEGED false allegations of rape are not admissible under the state's rape-shield law"
To Jen's (my wife's) dismay I have to agree with Sharky that the article was too poorly written to rely on. However, I think we all, including Sharky, agree that rape shield laws played an important role in the disposition of this case, and the role they played was detremental to the defendants position. That much appeared evident to me even before I looked up the ruling.
It was a basic "two he's said, one she said" situation, and due to the wording of the Rape Shield Legislation (specifically the ammendment), what "she" said was used to disallow the two "he's" from saying anything. It also appears that there would have been no way for the defense to trump the plantiff's denial... since they proffered no material evidence, and her word (true or false) disallowed any other rebuttal.
If none of this makes sense then just ignore it... I'm gonna get another beer. This stuff is too depressing.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn DaveK!,
First off, I have to sit and read this and let it "perkolate" into mah nahgun (mamma always did accused me of riding short yellow bus!). The rich and at the same times vague legal language takes time to be translated by the likes of simple minds such as myself.
That being said: Go to the head of the class for research!! Out-freaking-standing! Your only downside is that Jen (the one with those nice little biscuits - I'm so NOT sorry for THAT one Jen!~) is also very good at presenting points. I would pay REAL MONEY to be at y'all's dinner table and watch a well thought out argument! I think Dave gets higher technical merit, but Jen is one of them feisty Eye-Talions who probably uses her biscuits (oops, sorry) ... err .. feminine wiles (despite what we see here) and a frying pan to make her points. (I am on a roll to-NITE! - thank you - I am here all week!) It reminds me of watching My Cousin Vinny where Joe Pessi and Marisa Tomei have the leaky faucet aregument. "Are you SURE you fixed it" .... "I'm positive ....."
All in all, gotta read the text to make a better determination of what happened, but still ... really gotta give Dave the Research Gold Star for doing the boring drudge work of research. And, whadda ya know, maybe after a few more beers Dave can win an argument with Jen (or at least remember it that way). (audience applauds at Steve's wit!)
Same MRA time .... Same MRA channel ....
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I wasn't blown away or anything, but I had drank quite a few Yuengling's (mmm... beer), enough that the cops would've cuff'd me and stuff'd me if I'd been driving. Usually I don't get totally incoherent unless someone pulls out Jose (he's not always a friend of mine) ;).
Even drunk I can type pretty fast, computer geekdom has it's advantages... usually it's content that suffers. I've posted stuff before when I was buzzing that I reread the next day and said to myself "what the hell were you thinking!".
Regarding debate... Funny, but I remember winning EVERY argument with Jen. I never let the facts get in the way of unabashed hubris.
Marisa Tomei... MMMMMMmmmm, I love it when a good looking woman knows what Positraction is.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 25, @02:35PM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
Great wrok (burp), Dave. (ok, kidding off).
Thanks for finding the appropriate info. Very kind of you to offer up the decision AND comment on it whilst a bit over the tip.
As I stated earlier, it was never a point of me not firmly believing in the destruction of the rape shield law(s): it is the process of affirming this journalist's consistency and integrity with respect to this story. I know life is rarely (if ever) black and white, but all I wanted was more facts.
Thanks for getting them!
Now, if it isn't too much trouble, would you be kind enough to let us all know how you came upon this info? I know, go to the state's website, blah blah blah. Yet, often little tricks exist of which I am most excited to be privy.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For me I always start at the state .gov site and follow every judicial branch link I can find. Typically it doesn't take long to find a database front end that'll let you search their archives. This one wasn't too bad, although I needed to know beforehand that it was the state supreme court that made the ruling... once I got to the supreme court section of the judicial branch site there was a search engine for their rulings. Sadly regional courts rarely publish their rulings online so I couldn't get back to the origonal rape prosecution.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
