tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6493142765016058848.post4957873698814665046..comments2024-01-08T18:50:03.087-08:00Comments on LawAndOrder: Sexual Assault Conviction Thrown Out By Appeals Court.ichbinaljhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07968729252544011395noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6493142765016058848.post-23296344959382040402012-03-12T09:27:13.639-07:002012-03-12T09:27:13.639-07:00The Webster Smith case was a “he said -- she said”...The Webster Smith case was a “he said -- she said” case and for the charges on appeal, the critical question for the members was<br />the credibility of the sole prosecution witness. Evidence of a<br />motive to fabricate and that she had alleged that an earlier<br />consensual sexual encounter was nonconsensual in an attempt to<br />protect her career bore directly on her credibility as to the<br />allegations she made against Smith. It may have shown that she<br />had a propensity to lie about consensual sexual encounters when<br />her career was on the line. The materiality of this evidence is<br />not the “lurid nuances of the victim’s sexual past” as noted by<br />the majority, but rather the allegation that she had previously<br />lied about a sexual encounter under similar circumstances.<br />There can be no dispute that testing the credibility of a<br />witness through cross-examination is crucial to the right of<br />confrontation.<br />A more particular attack on the witness’ credibility is effected by means of cross-examination directed toward revealing possible biases, prejudices, or<br />ulterior motives of the witness as they may relate<br />directly to issues or personalities in the case at hand. The partiality of a witness is subject to exploration at trial, and is “always relevant as<br />discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony.”ichbinaljhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07968729252544011395noreply@blogger.com