Prior bad acts should be admissible
Allow Admission of Prior Bad Acts
The judge in the Phil Spector case, Larry P. Fidler, has allowed admission of testimony by four women whose stories appear similar to that which Lana Clarkson might have told had she lived. However, he rejected prosecutors’ requests to introduce six other incidents into evidence. Two misdemeanor gun charges from the 1970s were considered too old; others, including one in which Spector allegedly pushed the barrel of a gun into a woman’s cheek were ruled too dissimilar to be “relevant.” The law generally proscribes the introduction of evidence of prior bad acts.
It should not.
Prior bad acts can show that a defendant has a propensity to commit crime. This is particularly true if the person was an active alcoholic during the commission of the prior misbehaviors as well as the one for which he or she is being prosecuted.
Defense attorney Bruce Cutler, in attempting to block testimony by women who alleged they were previous victims of Spector’s, argued that none of the allegations were true. “They are not victims of any crime and we know that because they filed no criminal action.” However, failure to file a criminal complaint is not proof of the non-existence of a crime, particularly when the crime involves a celebrity in what would have been a “he said-she said” case. All of the women who allege that Spector pulled a gun on them were alone with him. Those looking for fame are not likely to press charges against influental people who can help them.
One of the promises a plaintiff or witness makes in a trial is to tell the truth “and the whole truth.” Testimony should be heard by anyone who can shed light on the defendant’s motives, which include a need to wield power resulting from egomania rooted in alcoholism. Let the jury sort it out.