Is a complaining witnesses prior sexual history admissible? Why not?
If there is an allegation, why wouldn't we want all evidence to be presented?
Especially if the Facts are directly related to the allegation.
If you were the subject of a False Allegation I can guarantee that you would want ALL the evidence presented, but it doesn't work like that under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Injustice)
If an allegation is TRUE then there should be nothing to hide. Right?
If an assault occurred then the proof and evidence will bring out the truth.
But...when there is NO proof...No Facts physical or medical...just a story ( a he said he said ) story almost 5 years after an alleged date...and there is PROOF...physical facts and evidence that the complaining witness was having admitted and documented risky sex (To Numerous to Count) and you are charge with "exposure" not infecting anyone...then ALL EVIDENCE should be allowed.
How could any rational person disagree with this?
No comments:
Post a Comment