re: Harvey Weinstein conviction overturned

quote:

---

It disturbs me that our system’s fundamental rules of a criminal trial have so much gray area that even a panel of 7 appellate judges make a decision on a 4-3 split.

---

Evidence of an uncharged prior bad act can be admitted not to prove guilt in the instant case, but to show knowledge or intent.

Louisiana's versions:

quote:

---

In order to show intent, evidence is admissible of similar acts, independent of the act charged as a crime in the indictment, for though intent is a question of fact, it need not be proven as a fact, it may be inferred from the circumstances of the transaction.

---

quote:

---

When knowledge or intent forms an essential part of the inquiry, testimony may be offered of such acts, conduct or declarations of the accused as tend to establish such knowledge or intent and where the offense is one of a system, evidence is admissible to prove the continuity of the offense, and the commission of similar offenses for the purpose of showing guilty knowledge and intent, but not to prove the offense charged.

---

All depends on the case and what one is trying to prove by using it.