The controversial decision by New York’s highest court to overturn Harvey Weinstein’s sexual assault conviction has some lawmakers focusing intense new scrutiny on centuries-old legal jurisprudence barring evidence of a defendant’s criminal propensity.
In the months since the New York Court of Appeals held in a split decision that the former movie producer had been denied a fair trial after a trial court erroneously admitted evidence of Weinstein’s past acts, lawmakers and legal experts also have been split over what legislative reforms may help hold sexual predators accountable without constricting defendants’ right to due process.
The decision 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.
Excellent commentary on the topic of propensity of other unsubstantiated alleged prior crimes and its desired allowance into court cases for the prosecution…
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. If the rules are changed for one group, then by rational thinking, they need to be changed for all, not just the group being charged with a sex offense crime.
Round here it’s called the victims rights act and it prevents the accused from defending themselves in court by restricting all evidence that might make the victim look bad no it’s the reason i couldn’t defend myself in court and had to take a plea deal very convenient for prosecutors