Rules of Evidence

The rules of evidence are very specific and have been hammered out at the Federal and State levels through years of experience in watching the results of criminal and civil cases. The intent of these rules are to provide for a fair and just outcome. One of the Oklahoma rules, Title 12 O.S. § 2404(A)(1), is to prevent what might be perceived by a jury as a bad character trait, or a previous crime, from being used by the prosecution to prejudice the jury’s opinion of the defendant, instead of letting the facts speak for themselves. There is an exception built right into this rule (Title 12 O.S. § 2404(B)), which says it may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident. This is a well thought out and well written statute.

Weakening the Rules of Evidence

In an attempt to once again weaken the rules of evidence and to fix something that is not broken, the Oklahoma State legislature has proposed a legislative bill (HOUSE BILL 1093) that will bypass the above rule in cases of domestic abuse. At first blush, you might say that maybe domestic abuse cases may need some special consideration. However, this poses a very real to the rights of the accused. This increases the risk of sending an innocent person to prison based on perception instead of facts. §2404(B), along with several other exceptions, provide the prosecution ample opportunity to enter this type of evidence to show a pattern of behavior. Furthermore, if a jury was to find a defendant guilty of the crime, then the defendant would be looking at a much stiffer punishment for having previously committed the crime of domestic abuse. This proposed new law does not offer greater opportunity for the truth to come out, but instead plays into the mudslinging insanity that has irreparably damaged innocent lives of late.

Especially Faulty Language in House Bill 1093

Beside the fact that this law is redundant and more effectively handled by the current statutes, it adds dangerous language that opens the door to broad interpretation and possible misuse.

Here is what I mean, look at the words highlighted below from § D of the proposed bill:

D. For purposes of this rule, "domestic violence or abuse" means any incident of controlling, coercive or threatening behavior, violence or other act of abuse against a person in a relationship as specified in subsection C of Section 644 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. The violence or abuse may be psychological, physical, sexual, economic or emotional.

The current statutes defining Domestic Assault and Battery couldn’t be clearer. Look for yourself, I have attached them to the bottom of this post.. This bills new definition of domestic violence or abuse would bring in an unrealistic number of normal domestic issues into the fold of what would be considered as domestic abuse. Remember that this applies to the following people: spouse, significant other, former person you lived with, or blood relative. You can no longer threaten those people in any way. No limiting sweets, sex, or spending money without a risk of that relationship being brought before a jury to be judged. You can’t even threaten such limitations.

Conclusion

Who among us is flawless? Who among us has had perfect relationships? When accused, should the prosecutor be able to spread before a jury all of your dirty laundry, or only that which is pertinent to the case at hand? This bill is redundant and flows from the same river that drowns our airwaves with fear mongering, innuendo, and unsubstantiated claims. Haven’t we learned from history? We have more than enough laws and rules of evidence (see below). Let’s focus our legislative energy on improving education and broadening our economic base for a stronger Oklahoma.

The Law

Title 21 O.S. 644(C)

Any person who commits any assault and battery against a current or former spouse, a present spouse of a former spouse, a former spouse of a present spouse, parents, a foster parent, a child, a person otherwise related by blood or marriage, a person with whom the defendant is or was in a dating relationship as defined by Section 60.1 of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, an individual with whom the defendant has had a child, a person who formerly lived in the same household as the defendant, or a person living in the same household as the defendant shall be guilty of domestic abuse.

Title 21 O.S § 641. Definition of Assault.

An assault is any willful and unlawful attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporal hurt to another.

Title 21 O.S § 642. Definition of Battery.

A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.

The law allows a police officer to use deception in an investigation. This means that during an interview by police, they can make false claims about what witnesses have seen or evidence they have recovered. They can say just about anything they want in order to get a confession as long as the deception does not result in what would be considered coercion sufficient to make someone confess to a crime they did not commit. Let’s be clear, this means that they can get away with almost any lie just short of telling you a loved one has died.

For instance, a detective might tell a burglary suspect that they have a witness who saw them enter a house, or that they found the suspects fingerprints inside the house. If the suspect knows he had never been in the house, then you might think there is little chance of getting a confession. But, recent studies have shown that suspects often confess to crimes they did not commit under the false impression that cooperating, even by admitting to something they did not do, will benefit them in the long-term, only to realize that they have created far greater problems for themselves.

Here is another example of how this might play out: A detective might tell a woman that her children will be taken from her and placed into foster care if she does not confess to a crime. The threat of losing her children is sufficient to make some people admit to doing something they didn't do. This borders on coercion, but once you have confessed it is hard to put that genie back in the bottle, because the police will begin to look through your life with a fine tooth comb trying to find anything to corroborate the confession they believe they just got. Also, the confession will be used against her in any hearings to take away her children.

Should police be allowed to blatantly lie to suspects? On the one hand, it is a very persuasive and efficient method to motivate a guilty person into confessing. It would also seem that an innocent person would see through these lies and quit talking to the police immediately. On the other hand, people who have something to fear can be intimidated and potentially pressured into confessing to something they did not do. This is especially true of non-residents without papers, people with difficulty speaking English, and those who have little or no education.

What should you do? If the police are interviewing you, they probably are looking at you as a suspect. Politely tell them you have nothing to say, and that you want an attorney.

Domestic Violence - Flawed Bill