Originally Posted By: The Italian Stallionette
Of course if Strauss is innocent or if the evidence says he should not be charged, so be it.

BUT, it's just wrong to me that in cases like rape you can dig up all kinds of shit about the accuser's past, BUT if the defendant has had similar arrests for same charges, in some (if not all?) states, it can't be known to the jury.

That being said, it is sad that some women would falsely accuse a man of rape. I just can't imagine any woman wanting to go through the legal process based on a lie. Takes all kinds I guess. frown

TIS


Texas rules of trial procedures prevent a defendant from bringing up an alledged rape victim's sexual history. Pre-trial motions may result in such history emerging.

This is what has happened in the Strauss case. The accuser's veracity is being questioned by investigators. A defendant's arrest and conviction record at trial would prejudice the jury, so it is disallowed.

"Generosity. That was my first mistake."
"Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us."
"Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."