Introduction of personal photos by defence in rape trial?

[just_jasper]

Searched: introducing pictures in evidence, personal pictures as defence evidence. I'm having difficulty finding things and parsing legal language

Comments

[rosinarowantree]

I am not a lawyer and I know Wikipedia is not quite the last word, but this article on discrediting a witness's character might give you somewhere to start - particularly as it quotes legislation.

In England & Wales there is a sting (or used to be): if the defemce discredited (or tried to discredit) a prosecution witness by calling on previous convictions or other bad character, this opened the door for the prosecution to cite the defendant's previous convictions and other evidence of bad character.

As for whether such evidence as the previous partners' would be admissible, English law has 'similar fact evidence' as allowable if its value is accepted by the judge.

[meinterrupted]

I can't speak as to the character witnesses, but I know he would be unable to do so to discredit the victim. It used to be par for the course to paint victims of alleged rape as sluts or 'they asked for it' or something of the sort, but most (all?) states now have laws against that. It still happens, of course, but something so blatant as to introduce naked photos of the victim would definitely be looked at very very carefully by the judge.

[marycatelli]

It is still allowed if the evidence directly contradicts the witness's claims.

[world_dancer]

I'm not certain how pictures would discredit the witness. Even if she is actually a prostitute, that doesn't mean she agreed to everything the defendant claims. Pictures don't seem likely to prove consent one way or the other.

[acsumama]

According to my wife (lawyer in Pennsylvania and Arizona): If the man is not being charged with raping these other people, then the prosecution can't introduce evidence (testimony or otherwise) about them. The prosecution can introduce the fact of the defendant's past conviction on similar crimes *only if the defendant takes the stand.* Most defense lawyers do their best to avoid putting the defendant on the stand specifically because it opens up all these other things that the prosecution can now do, like cross-examining them and showing problems in their testimony. (However, the defendant has a right to take the stand if they really want to, and their lawyer can't stop them.) But even if they can introduce past convictions, they can't bring in the past victims to testify about his crimes against them. (They could still testify if, say, they had witnessed the rape he's actually being charged with

[squidger]

I'm only in law school, but here are my thoughts.

Assuming this is in federal court, it seems really unlikely that the previous partners could testify at all. Character evidence falls under the Federal Rule of Evidence 404. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404) In most cases, only the defense (and not the prosecution) can offer up character evidence. However, if the defense offers character evidence, the prosecution can offer evidence specifically to rebut it. (Like, if the guy or a witness takes the stand to say he is a "peaceful" person, the prosecution can then bring in evidence of an assault charge

[squidger]

Just noticed your last question about what stage this would happen. Like I briefly mentioned above, both sides usually need to provide a witness list before the trial begins so that depositions and other preparations can take place. If one side tries to bring in a new witness the day of trial, the judge is going to be really pissed. As for the pictures, if it's evidence under 413, there's that notice requirement. If it's just to potentially discredit a witness, a good lawyer would bring it up as a pre-trial motion, maybe even the day of or day before trial so the judge can rule on it then. I just saw a case where the morning of the trial, the two sides had a mini-oral argument in front of the judge regarding a facebook picture.