[writmeister]

Under this same theory that a jury should consider a complainant's entire sexual past to assess her credibility, do you think that a jury should also be allowed to hear all extraneous misconduct in assessing a defendant's guilt?

Current law does not allow such evidence's admissibility unless it is relevant to a particular issue at trial.

[JLS]

Yeah, I know a little bit of the history of the jury system. The way the jury system originally developed it was your neighbors who knew if you were a habitual liar or not that made up your jury.

It is only in recent centuries that knowing a defendant became a disqualifying characteristic. So yes I think that the defendents past behavior is relevant. Heck many think past behavior ie reputation, is why Kobe Bryant will not be convicted and Mike Tyson was. You see this making past acts not admissible only works for the defendant who is not famous or infamous.

And think about the comparison of the Bryant and Tyson cases:

1. Bryant guy with a good reputation and persona, Tyson a guy will a well known junvenile record and an bad persona.

2. Bryant alledged victim woman with a bad reputation, Tyson victim according to the jury a woman with a good reputation.

3. Both women went to the room voluntarily. Both cases became a he said/she said case.

[Howlin]

do you think that a jury should also be allowed to hear all extraneous misconduct in assessing a defendant's guilt?

You can bet if there was ONE IOTA of evidence that he had anything at all like this in his past we would be hearing about it.