Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
Comments
You can’t do that. Each criminal trial is about the evidence of the case at hand not prior convictions which are inadmissible. Only time you can bring up past convictions is to impeach the credibility of a witness, so if the defendant chose to testify you could bring it up as a way to discredit them. Prosecutors also have to run this by the judge beforehand so they can weigh how useful a prior conviction would be to the jury against how unfair it would be for the defendant
Thanks for this. I"ve often wondered about it, especially when I see law being practiced on TV.
Think about how messed up it would be if the state could just arrest and convict someone of a crime if the only evidence they had was:
better 10 guilty creeps go free than one innocent saint be found guilty. I see how it is set up.
Thank you and our other legal pros here for your first person insights, it really helps someone like me understand the reality behind the curtain, though it's a bit disheartening at times to hear about the backroom stuff.
My perspective on the various explanations here is that it seems the purpose of these deals is to make sure some punishment is meted out in cases where the original charges, ostensibly believed to be true when they were applied, are not air tight and the prosecutor does not want to take an "L" on an all-or-nothing situation. This might be cynical, but I don't understand why DA's would press charges and then not be willing to stand behind their prosecutors' support for them in court. As much as we all want the victims to receive some justice, or at least some sense of of it, isn't it better to let the case play out and and risk having the defendant either walk or go all the way down on the original charges based on the strength of the evidence and the deliberations of the jury? This seems more like a contract negotiation in which both sides use the other's fear of losing out than it does the application of law and due process. I guess the end result is an outcome that "S-u-c-k-s Less" for both sides than it could have for either side.
There are also logistical concerns. It’s impossible for all cases to go to trial
Sigh.
Your summary of the law is over-simplified and not correct. As an attorney, I get bothered by mis-statements of the law, so I looked it up. 😉
Admissibilty of similar conduct evidence is a complex matter governed mostly by Rule of Evidence 404. While you can’t use evidence of other bad behavior or similar conduct solely to prove bad character (unless character is in issue), there are numerous exceptions to the general rule.
Here is the Georgia evidence code exceptions sub section:
”Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts shall not be admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. The prosecution in a criminal proceeding shall provide reasonable notice to the defense in advance of trial, unless pretrial notice is excused by the court upon good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. Notice shall not be required when the evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts is offered to prove the circumstances immediately surrounding the charged crime, motive, or prior difficulties between the accused and the alleged victim.”
See, generally, O.C.G.A. Section 24-4-404.
Here is a link to the statute and a small sampling of case law:
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2020/title-24/chapter-4/section-24-4-404/
Oy, vey. I got a headache just trying to read that link. It makes me wonder how anyone could even sit still long enough to read things like that in law school. My hat is off to anyone with that kind of patience.
It also makes me wonder (philosophically) about the "law" and how, for example in the Supreme Court, there can be so many interpretations of the law. How can a law be "good" if so many people can interpret it so differently. But I digress. I'm going for an Advil.
Haha! Yeah, understanding the law takes much patience. Statutes (rules passed by legistlatures) are (often) the starting point for understanding the law. However, human nature is complex and factual reality is infinitely varied. Therefore, statutes can not ever account for every situation. This is where attorneys come into play. Attorneys are assigned a ‘side’ for which to advocate the most advantageous application of a statute (or regulation, derived from statutes by administrators of said statute). It is the job of the judge to apply the statute to a particular set of facts based on the competing advocacy of the attorneys and also informed by existing judicial interpretations of the statute under similar factual circumstances. Layer ontop of this ‘facts’. When the parties to an issue can not agree upon the relevant facts, then a ‘fact finder’ must determine which version of the facts to believe. Juries are the primary ‘fact finders’ in our crimminal system of justice. Alas, I only scratch the surface here… 🤣
Alas, a scratch for which I have no apparent itch. Hats off to you guys/gals of the law.
Why would I bring up those exceptions when they clearly don’t apply to what you said? You can’t use prior convictions as character evidence that they committed a different crime.
Hooh boy! A new topic to get us the old debate about QB's. Love it.
Well we can all agree that Justin Fields was Jake Fromm's backup, right! 😉
Back on topic, I too hope Anderson finds light while incarcerated and comes out with a new mentality for building a new life, leaving behind the negative aspects of his past.
Ummmm… I think I would enjoy stomping you in court… you should stay in the shallow end. 😇
@Hemingwey you sir, strike me one the most mild mannered, and pleasant DAWGS (attorneys) along with @Bdw3184 it has been my privilege to get to know you both (virtually) right here in our DawgNation forum.... and yet EVEN YOU SIR have that EXTRA FIERY side!!!! AWESOME!!!!!