We've been told ad naseum that Kinsman's prior acts, like being a "cleatchaser", can not be used against her because any action not directly related to the particular event doesn't doesn't prove or disprove anything. Why would that be different with Jameis? The fact he lied about the crab legs doesn't prove he lied at all in this case.
the basis for this rule is that you cannot use evidence that a person acted a certain way on one occasion as proof that they did it on another (i.e, because a defendant has robbed a bank before or was previously convicted of a drug charge does not mean he robbed THIS bank, or was selling drugs in THIS instance.) The reason for the rule is that a jury member that knows someone robbed a bank before will naturally think of that person as a "bank robber", and, therefore, any circumstantial evidence could easily sway their opinion of a defendant's guilt. Clear case of prejudice. It is said that such prejudice tends to 'reward the good man to punish the bad man because of their respective characters despite what the evidence in the case shows actually happened.' HOWEVER....
#fsucleatchaser may be different. There are, of course, exceptions for every rule.
Yes, evidence used to show an alleged victim’s sexual predisposition is specifically set out as inadmissible in a completely separate rule. But in a civil case, the court MAY admit such evidence (again, judge's discretion) offered by the defendant to support an affirmative defense of consent, AND IF "its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party." Also, a judge MAY admit evidence of an alleged victim’s "reputation", if the alleged victim "has placed it in controversy." (this second part will depend on what she, or her lawyers, have said, or will say, in regards to her chastity, fondness for athletes, etc.)
If I were defending James, I would argue that the identity of second shooter is incredibly relevant to the physical evidence in the case. THAT evidence would carry as much weight, for substantially the same purpose (which is to show that she likes to hook-up w/ african-american athletes), to the average juror as the #fsucleatchaser deal. Unfortunate, but true...regardless of the juror's race.
The rule specific to sexual offense cases is generally meant to keep one from arguing "everyone knows she often left so-and-so bar with strange dudes she'd never met before, so she MUST have done it that night too", or, "I can name three people that will testify that she likes giving h**d, so, therefore you should believe the testimony of Casher and Darby"...
in JWs case, (first, I have to wonder what else we haven't seen...the fact that she has responded at least once to a twitter feed called #fsucleatchasers would probably not be admissible, but if there is MORE, such as...) if there is an actual record of her bragging about prior hookups with african-american fsu athletes (which is apparently what the #fsucleatchasers twitter handle was used for), I would definitely argue that this is not just evidence of her general promiscuity, etc., but a much more specific kind of preference and routine, more akin to HABIT (admissible), than general character; and that it is relevant to HER intentions that evening, and a key piece of evidence needed, based on lack of additional evidence, to establish JWs affirmative defense of consent. I would further argue that this specific preference is similar to a case where a bank robber was seen wearing a bugs bunny mask. Although evidence of a defendant's prior history of robbing banks is irrelevant, if it was known that he always wore a bugs bunny mask in those prior instances, they all of a sudden become relevant...it's a stretch, but...
I would say 50/50 getting it in under those circumstances. 70/30 if an FSU Law grad is on the bench.
