Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Procedural posture d moved in limine to exclude

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: o the basic, very similar cases...don't need the grotesque...throw out dissimilar cases...cases that happened years before etc. UNITED STATES v. LECOMPTE [Evidence Concerning the Accused in a Criminal Case: Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts Admissible for a Non-Character Purpose: Past sexual offenses of a child FRE 414] Facts: LeCompte molested his wife's niece while she was lying on a couch Forced her to touch his penis and touched her breasts. Procedural Posture: D moved in limine to exclude evidence of prior uncharged sex offenses against another niece by marriage. First trial evidence admitted under Rule 404(b). o On appeal, the Court held that the District court's admission under rule 404(B) was improper and reversed conviction. Not a question of identity here...just claiming that the acts didn't happen period. Not they happened and it wasn't him. o Previous courts may have let this in on a theory of motive, but that's very controversial Motive and propensity overlap so much Motive argument = most men don't want to have sex with children, this one does, therefore unlike most men, he has a motive to...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online