So someone rapes your wife.
On the witness stand, she has to say “He jumped out of the bushes and we had intercourse without my permission”
The way these tyrant judges work, the jury will never know why the woman didn’t use the word rape. If the victim doesn’t call it rape, the jury won’t either. This is how you get juries, who after sentencing find out what the truth was, saying “if we knew the facts we would not have voted that way”. Think about all the things that are kept from juries. Someone rapes 12 women, but on trial number 13, the defence is allowed to call the rapist a “honorable and upstanding member of the community”, but the prosecution cannot mention that the guy has a track record.
Look up “fully informed jury” on the internet for an education.
“the defence is allowed to call the rapist a “honorable and upstanding member of the community”, but the prosecution cannot mention that the guy has a track record.”
Actually, if the defense “opens the door” to reputation witnesses (the “honorable” testimony), the prosecution can then ask about specific intances of bad prior act. (E.g., “So he had a good reputation? Even though he raped Mrs. X on 1/1/2001 and Mrs. Y on 1/1/2003? Would knowledge of those events change your opinion?”)