Guh.

Finals exams have descended. The back window on my car has been utterly shattered by an errant baseball, while I was suffering through my Constitutional Law final. You see, today was by far the most rainy day of the year, so logically it had to occur the day before. Death to everyone.

Two exams left, then I begin caulking, grouting, painting and finishing random surfaces in NewHouse™. After that, house-warming and birthday. I think Lisa might be out of town, but we are taking pseudo-roadtrip later in the summer, so I think that can make up for it. It’s time for a trip to the springs in Sulpher, maybe that can be birthday destination.

Oh self-importance, how I love thee.

“Marital rape, all night long!”

Apparently discussions of antiquated legal doctrines and third-world countries help us bowl. We both did really well tonight. Lisa, I bowled my worst when we encountered Bob, so ha. Oh yeah, the above is a quote from Colin as I was dropping him off at your house…..

…concerning the subject of the legal note I am going to be researching tonight.  Sicko.

That should sufficiently explain my sentiments on this subject of bars at the moment.

I am in love with the anteaters, Pua and Stewie. I found their Flickr account, and am disturbingly cheery every time I look at them.

I stick by my prior statement that they are the best things in the world.

hearsay, I tell you!

Federal Rules of Evidence 413, 414, and 415, enacted as a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, permit prosecutors and civil plaintiffs to offer evidence of the defendant’s other acts of sexual assault or child molestation, “on any matter to which they are relevant.” George Fisher, Evidence 182 (2002).

“The new rules for sex offense cases authorize admission and consideration of evidence of an uncharged offense for its bearing ‘on any matter to which it is relevant.’”Susan Molinari, Concerning the Prior Crimes Evidence Rules for Sexual Assualt and Child Molestation Cases, Cong. Rec. H8991-92, Aug. 21, 1994. This means that evidence of offenses for which the defendant has not been prosecuted or convicted is admissible, alongside evidence of prior convictions.

So what’s the big deal? While I understand that the court is attempting to make it tougher for child and sexual predators to get off the theoretical hook, the application of these rules simply serves to usurp the power of FRE 404(b), which is a safeguard in our court system created specifically for this purpose.

Rule 404(b) provides that “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the perosn acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence or mistake or accident.”

“The purpose of Rule 404(b) in a criminal trial is to ensure that the defendant is tried on the merits of the crime as charged and to prevent a conviction based on evidence of other crimes or wrongs.” State v. Bassett, 139 N.H. 493, 496.

By allowing evidence of crimes for which the defendant has not been previously prosecuted nor convicted of in the past, courts are allowed to circumvent a major safeguard that has been built into our system. There is no right to trial, fair or otherwise.

404(b) provides a way to admit the evidence 413-415 seeks to welcome in, but it requires a standard. Our courts should not be welcoming a melee of conflicting opinions and stories. Rules are in place specifically to protect hearsay and plotting from wiggling their way into the system.

*Please note, obviously I find the crimes heinous, but it doesn’t mean that those on trial for them deserve any less than the full protection our courts provide everyone else.