CrimLaw

---

Hard Cases Make Bad Law - More Fallout from the California Ex Post Facto Debacle:

(1) Prosecutors are still trying to get ahold of the Los Angeles Archdioceses' files even though they cannot be used in criminal proceedings under the claim that they might be usable in civil suits (which would seem to be none of the prosecutors' business). Gotta love how one attorney who represents 112 claimants is giving the Church advice on openess. There couldn't be any self interest involved in that advice, could there?

(2) A case made for eliminating statutes of limitations. I think that the California Legislature has basically done this already in abuse cases. The ex post facto came from the fact that certain alleged violations occurred when the SOL was shorter and prosecution began after the old SOL had run. Still, it's a bad idea. Try defending yourself 5 years after a claimed violation of a law much less 30+. It is very, very difficult. Where were you the second Tuesday of last month 20 years ago? Now, find witnesses and documents to prove it. Can't do it? No problem; after all the burden of proof is on the prosecutor isn't it? The jury never comes into court with a belief that if someone's charged they are likely guilty. And you'll have no problem countering the tearful testimony of that grief stricken complaining witness (Mr. Smith) who has just recovered his memories or the authoritative sounding testimony of the quack - oops I meant "expert" - who testifies as to the validity of repressed memories. And the fact that you may not even remember Mr. Smith is going to be oh so helpful as well. Just tell that to the jury - they'll understand.

.