Thou shall not covet…but if you do it’s IRRELEVANT!

We’ve had a terrible loss, up here in WA state. Another man’s appeal was denied.

Jace appeal is due to be decided on September 4th. We will not know for a number of months after what the outcome is – we anticipate he will win on a concession to his sixth amendment right.

Amendment 6
– Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Of course that concession while most likely be followed closely by a refiling of criminal charges against my son for the crime he did not commit. Back to square one.

But I digress, this other mans appeal had a lot of strong, valid points – none of which the appelate court seemed to care a wit about. Most notable within the opinion was their interpretation of the word ‘Irrelevant’.

ir·rel·e·vance

/i(r)ˈreləvəns/

noun

• The quality or state of being irrelevant:”the document was withheld on grounds of irrelevance“

It is a known fact to all of us here that the police lie. In Jace media report the police state they arrested men who are ‘”individuals clearly stating their interest in having sex with a child.”

So one would assume, if these men are clearly stating their interest, that any evidence proving, or disproving, their interest in sex with a child would be….Yup, Relevant.

However, the appellate courts ruling quoted “State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870, 886, 204 P.3d 916 (2009) (evidence of child pornography was not admissible in trial regarding child molestation because it would only show defendant’s general predisposition and not his sexual desire for the specific victim). If evidence of a defendant’s use of child pornography is not admissible unless it relates to a specific victim, it is only logical that a lack of evidence is not admissible to show the defendant’s lack of disposition toward children unless it relates to the victim.”

There are a lot of examples running through my mind….like the man with the blueprints to a number of banks, who was only interested in architecture???

Circumstantial? Yes. But so is the entire prosecutors case since no child was harmed!

But worse than that to me is these are lawyers, and a lawyer would know that:

The definition of relevance is normally stated as “evidence which has at least some tendency to make a fact at issue more or less true”.

Effectively, the state of WA has now declared that a persons predisposition to child pornography has no bearing on a case involving attempted rape of a child.

Put in another way the TRUTH is IRRELEVANT.