Prior-bad-acts evidence, part 2

On Jun 3, 7:17 am, s...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> In article <2ggg435ao1s30hrp62vm36voiijuur3...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Jacobs  <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 13, 7:22 am, s...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> >> what would his prior acts have to do with
> >> her propensity to commit suicide?

[I answered: it doesn't.  Rather, it shows he was more likely to have murdered her, but the prosecution can't put on such evidence unless defendant opens the door by an affirmative defense that such evidence could refute]

> The prosecution can't bring up the defendant's prior acts with other
> people.

Generally right, unless the defense somehow opens the door.  There's lots of ways they could do that. either by blunder, or even as a conscious tactical decision that the defense lawyer feels, on balance, will be better for his client's side.

There are also in most states and in the Federal system, rules of evidence that allow prior bad acts to be admitted into evidence for a variety of other purposes, but not simply to bolster the natural prejudices of the jury that someone who has previously done such an act is likely to do it again.  That is always an impermissible reason.

> If the defense suggests that maybe the dead woman committed suicide,
> the prosecution gets to bring up the defendant's prior acts.

As stated in the post you quoted above, this is rebuttal evidence, to refute the likelihood of the defense theory of suicide (by adding weight to the likelihood of the other possible cause of death that has been brought up in the case, murder).  The prosecution cannot put on such evidence in its case in chief to infer guilt from prior guilt, but only in rebuttal of some other cause posited by the defense.

> If the defense suggests that maybe the dead woman was murdered by
> someone else, the prosecution gets to bring up the defendant's prior
> acts.

Not always, only if the previous acts form a pattern factually similar to or logically leading to the act in question, not just to say "if he did it before, he probably is the one who did it this time too."  This is a very fact-specific inquiry and blanket rules don't apply.

> If the defense suggests that the defendant has an alibi, the
> prosecution gets to bring up the defendant's prior acts ("Whenever he
> was involved with a woman, he always spent Saturday night with her, so
> you shouldn't believe his claim that he was playing poker with four
> police officers and the Mayor.")

That has nothing to do with putting on evidence of his prior bad acts.   That has to do with refuting his alibi by putting on evidence tending to show that he was actually somewhere else when the deed occurred, making it more likely that he might have been at the scene of the crime in question.

> So when doesn't the prosecution get to bring it up?

When all they offer it to prove is "if he did it before, he probably did it this time too."

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.

Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685      (fax) 410-740-4300