[katieanna]

The fact that the judge allowed testimony of 'prior acts' tells me the judge thinks there is evidence to convict. Remember, judges know the case and all evidence before trial begins. I can't imagine the judge would allow prior acts if he didn't believe guilt of the defendant.

Now, I don't understand how the "prior acts" clause can be constitutional given that the alleged prior acts did not result in any charges. Almost sounds like hearsay. It is part of CA law, but, not permissable in other states.

[berkeleybeej]

Now, I don't understand how the "prior acts" clause can be constitutional given that the alleged prior acts did not result in any charges. Almost sounds like hearsay. It is part of CA law, but, not permissable in other states.

Actually the "prior acts" conforms to the Federal version of "prior bad acts". Additionally, the CA version has already been before the State Supreme Court and its validity upheld.

[somerville]

I am not a lawyer, but I think they allow prior acts because pedophiles never prey on just one victim.

But two years ago, the US Supreme Court struck down California's retroactive law for victims of child molesters. They let out about 800 child molesters out of jail because of the ruling. Anyone who is molested prior to 1988 is out of luck in California.