"Annette Heathmon, had made other false claims of prior sexual assault against him."

Why did he even see her again after the first one?

"Why did he even see her again after the first one?". Ken, this is not to say your point lacks merit -- it doesn't -- but assuming people will act logically is a bad bet (especially when it comes to relationships).
But this isn't a poor relationship choice, he/she should act logically, 'why didn't they do ABC instead of XYZ' issue. This issue is about a chilling reality: courts operating outside of fairness if not proper procedure (according to the 9th circuit). And for this one, wow! this is ice cold chilling. 1) Prime, A1, police recorded evidence CLEARLY gouging at the heart of the alleged victim's credibility. 2) the case, due to insufficient corroborating physical evidence, hinging very heavily on the alleged victim's credibility/testimony. 3) A judge and then the supreme court of Nevada validating what appears to be EGREGIOUS unfairness.
I'd like to think there is more to the story and the presiding judge & the SCoN saw something else that made the conviction ultimately the right one (despite the barred testimony). But our courts should be and have more than earned skepticism toward them. I do wish the presiding Judge's reasoning behind barring the evidence could be known/posted. I'd love to hear it....

I'm sorry, but if you continue to have sex with a woman who has already falsely accused you of sexual assault with the cops, you deserve everything you get.

I'll save my sympathy for the people who don't cheerfully dig their own grave and then jump right in.

>>I'm sorry, but if you continue to have sex with a woman who has already falsely accused you of sexual assault with the cops, you deserve everything you get.

Absolutely correct because in the U.S. stupidity is a crime.

Why? possible reasons not neccesaraly for this case: they live together and it takes a while for a man to move out, since there aren't the gov't support structures in place to help him. Throwing her out make him look like an evil person.
Or him leaving gives credibility to her accusation,
or thinking that 'winning' previous cases would strengthen tour situation, preventing her from trying it again.
a child.

> I'm sorry, but if you continue to have sex with a woman who has already falsely accused you of sexual assault with the cops, you deserve everything you get.

So you've just shrugged at every woman who's beaten up by a guy who's beaten up before?

Or does the lack of concern only work in one direction?

We monkeys are not Vulcans. We make stupid decisions all the time. We use emotion where logic would serve us better.

It's human nature, and a legal code for humans should probably take account of it.

Why did he even see her again after the first one?

Why do women stay with men who beat them Ken? Its the same mentality

And I got to disagree, slightly, with momof4. I dont think such people 'deserve' such treatment, they do though bear some, if not most, responsibility for their situation.

a legal code for humans

There's your problem. Males are considered sub-human by our legal code.

I'm sorry, but if you continue to have sex with a woman who has already falsely accused you of sexual assault with the cops, you deserve everything you get.

Maybe then a woman who continues to meet a guy who has beaten her up deserves to get beaten up and the guy should never be in jail.

"So you've just shrugged at every woman who's beaten up by a guy who's beaten up before?"

Pretty much, yeah. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who chose to be victims. People randomly targeted for victimhood, yes. So a man or woman who is beaten and choses to stay (yeah, it's a choice) shouldn't whine about the obvious outcome of their decision.

Heartless, yeah, but I'm not a fan of saving adults from themselves.

It's even worse than this blog post makes it sound. From the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: "Opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt:"

This man and woman had known each other for 10 years, were not married, not in a stable, monogamous relationship, and not living together.

"Although Heathmon [the accuser] submitted a letter recanting her accusations against Jackson, she ultimately recanted that recantation..."

"In her testimony, Heathmon discussed other instances in which Jackson had allegedly physically or sexually assaulted her but had not been charged with any crime. In response, Jackson sought to introduce testimony from officers who had responded to or investigated Heathmon's previous claims of assault and found that her claims were not substantiated. The district court precluded this testimony..."

The court allowed her to give her side about the previous cases in which she had made false accusations, but did not allow him to give his side.

"Jackson was convicted of burglary, battery with the intent to commit a crime, first degree kidnapping with the use of a deadly weapon, and two counts of sexual assault with the use of a deadly weapon."

This wasn't a case of "he said/she said" because they completely excluded the "he said" part and there was no other evidence to support what "she said". This was more like institutionalized sexist bigotry.

Why should a male be allowed to defend himself against sex assault charges? We all know womyn never lie about such maters.

Note: "that he may not have committed." The key word is "may." The 9th Circuit didn't find that he was wrongly convicted. It merely found that the trial court made an erroneous evidentiary ruling by excluding certain evidence.

I'd say the system did work the way it's supposed to. This is precisely why we have appeals. Judges are human and sometimes make lousy calls. This was one of them. A higher court overturned it.

It's possible that an innocent man spent 10 years in prison. If so, he will now either be released or he'll be re-tried. Either way, he's better off than he would be if there had been no appeal.

It's also possible that he's guilty, will be re-tried, and will be convicted all over again.

Oddly enough, surveys show that 99% of all the people convicted in a jury trial go to prison believing that the judge made a bunch of mistakes, the DA was unfair and biased against them, the defense attorney didn't work hard enough, and all the prosecution witnesses lied. And they expect their appellate attorneys to undo all of that.

Everyone convicted of a crime in California has a right to appeal. Less than 5% of appeals result in a reversal. Does that prove that the system doesn't work or that it does?

I'd say the system did work the way it's supposed to. This is precisely why we have appeals. Judges are human and sometimes make lousy calls. This was one of them. A higher court overturned it. -- JD at August 12, 2012 4:52 PM

The problem is that how do you make up the ten years in prison? Money? Convict her?

What are his job prospects in anything more than digging ditches?

so JD, what part of Suppressing exculpatory evidence is the system working the way it was supposed to?

This didn't go up just one level, it went up through the Nevada Supremes before going to the 9th district.

Do you understand the magnitude of wated time and money, beyond wasting a life?

"CONCLUSION
The district court erred in concluding that the state court determination that the exclusion of the police witness testimony did not constitute a violation of Jackson's well established right to present a complete defense. The excluded evidence was relevant and vital to his defense, and the total exclusion of this testimony was arbitrary and disproportionate to the purposes the evidentiary rules were intended to serve. The Nevada Supreme Court decision holding otherwise was an unreasonable application of clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. We therefore reverse the district court's judgment and remand with directions to issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus, releasing Jackson from detention unless the state retries him within a reasonable period of time."

That he "may not" have committed a crime, sure is possible. After all its not like he got a video of her admitting nothing happened, as in the case of that man in California a few months back.

But the cold hard truth here is that the only evidence we know about right here right now, is that "she said" XYZ happened.

Was there physical evidence?
DNA (Which is not necessarily proof of violence, just sexual contact)?
Corroborating testimony by people who heard or saw a struggle?
Did he write or talk about having assaulted her to anyone?

Indeed was there ANYTHING here, that would explain why this man was convicted, showing some form of evidence that a crime actually took place?

For that matter, given her history of false allegations, what prosecutor would even take on such a case? And how BAD was the defense attorney, that he couldn't shoot it full of holes within a 5 minute cross examination?

Did the system work? It worked to release him...but it took 10 freaking years.

Was the system working when it convicted him? Unless we're not hearing some pretty strong evidence...I have to say no, it failed pretty miserably, reasonable doubt was intended for this very kind of case.

"Never stick your dick in CRAZY!"

"Never stick your dick in CRAZY!" -- jefe at August 12, 2012 8:52 PM

It's not that easy. I've done strange more than once that you don't notice until later.

JD writes....:Note: "that he may not have committed." The key word is "may." The 9th Circuit didn't find that he was wrongly convicted. It merely found that the trial court made an erroneous evidentiary ruling by excluding certain evidence.

I'd say the system did work the way it's supposed to. This is precisely why we have appeals. Judges are human and sometimes make lousy calls. This was one of them. A higher court overturned it.

It's possible that an innocent man spent 10 years in prison. If so, he will now either be released or he'll be re-tried. Either way, he's better off than he would be if there had been no appeal. "

When our government takes away someone's freedom (3 life terms), the reason needs to be close to unassailable. But yes, mistakes are made by judges as well as police, investigators, attorneys, eyewitnesses, experts etc etc. However, mistakes should be reasonable. A coroner may miss a tiny abrasion under a fingernail but it is absolutely expected he/she will never miss a bullet lodged in the brain.
Assuming the description at Wrongly Accused is accurate (for our discussion we must assume it is), we have a case with little physical evidence to support the charge as well as no eyewitnesses (no weapon found, no indication of force, no injuries observed by the responding officer, no outward appearance of rape by the examining nurse). So the case clearly hinges on how truthful the alleged victim's testimony. Considering the defense had very compelling evidence that DIRECTLY spoke to the alleged victim's credibility (police documented incidents of prior rape claims deemed dubious), fundamental fairness says it should be allowed as evidence.....unless their is a VERY compelling reason not to do so. As best as I can tell, the compelling reason seems to be a rule of evidence that is at the judge's discretion. Considering the clear and unfair implications of barring the defense's testimony on the basis of a gray area in the rules of evidence, this is an error on the level of missing a bullet lodged in the brain.

Yet the system worked because after 10 years a 3 judge panel sees the compelling unfairness and rules 2-1 for setting aside the conviction? Hardly. That dissenting judge overlooked the issue of fairness (as apparently multiple other judges had) and ruled there was no certainty of procedural error(not that it was procedurally right, just that it wasn't procedurally wrong). To me that isn't a working system, that is a case of something happening almost due to a whim. To me a working system would be judges always siding with fairness unless a trial rule UNAMBIGUOUSLY says the issue of fairness must be overlooked. That really isn't expecting too much is it?

In the original trial the judge allowed the woman to testify, in court, in front of the jury, about the previous times when she said the defendant raped her, but didn't allow the defendant to present his evidence, which included police reports and witnesses, that her previous accusations were false.