The Rape Shield Law II
Being the victim of sexual torture, Karen Tipton is guaranteed protections under the
so-called "rape shield law," Alabama Code, Section 12-21-203. Simply stated, it says in
the prosecution for criminal sexual conduct, the victim's "past sexual behavior" is not
admissible. "Past sexual behavior," is defined as "includes, but is not limited to, evidence
of the (victim's) marital history, mode of dress, and general reputation for promiscuity,
nonchastity, or social mores contrary to the community standards." The law states such
evidence shall be introduced to the court IF THE JUDGE FINDS "SUCH PAST
SEXUAL BEHAVIOR DIRECTLY INVOLVED THE PARTICIPATION OF THE
ACCUSED." !!!!!!!!!!
It goes on to give the required procedure before such private, confidential information is
released to anyone--even in court. The defense lawyers must notify the court of intent
to introduce this "evidence" into court, and the judge conducts an "in camera" (private,
confidential) hearing to examine the defendant's "offer of PROOF." If the defense is
able to show "proof" the victim's past sexual behavior directly involved the attacker, then
the judge tells the defense lawyers what they can enter into evidence.
so-called "rape shield law," Alabama Code, Section 12-21-203. Simply stated, it says in
the prosecution for criminal sexual conduct, the victim's "past sexual behavior" is not
admissible. "Past sexual behavior," is defined as "includes, but is not limited to, evidence
of the (victim's) marital history, mode of dress, and general reputation for promiscuity,
nonchastity, or social mores contrary to the community standards." The law states such
evidence shall be introduced to the court IF THE JUDGE FINDS "SUCH PAST
SEXUAL BEHAVIOR DIRECTLY INVOLVED THE PARTICIPATION OF THE
ACCUSED." !!!!!!!!!!
It goes on to give the required procedure before such private, confidential information is
released to anyone--even in court. The defense lawyers must notify the court of intent
to introduce this "evidence" into court, and the judge conducts an "in camera" (private,
confidential) hearing to examine the defendant's "offer of PROOF." If the defense is
able to show "proof" the victim's past sexual behavior directly involved the attacker, then
the judge tells the defense lawyers what they can enter into evidence.
I want to make something very clear here. Everything that is in the FBI "victimology"
report of four years ago is confidential under the rape shield law. EVERYTHING!!!!
And much of it has already been published on the front page of the newspaper!!!!!!!!!
Doesn't anyone see something wrong here??????? It is an overt, public display of
misconduct on the part of Sherman Powell and Catherine Halbrooks (inside and outside
of court), and a judge that fails in his sworn duty to uphold the law. A large portion of
the defense's case has been based on the victim's past sexual behavior, a topic they are
not even allowed to discuss under the law.
report of four years ago is confidential under the rape shield law. EVERYTHING!!!!
And much of it has already been published on the front page of the newspaper!!!!!!!!!
Doesn't anyone see something wrong here??????? It is an overt, public display of
misconduct on the part of Sherman Powell and Catherine Halbrooks (inside and outside
of court), and a judge that fails in his sworn duty to uphold the law. A large portion of
the defense's case has been based on the victim's past sexual behavior, a topic they are
not even allowed to discuss under the law.
Judge Thompson allowed three weeks of histrionics by Catherine Halbrooks, all of
which was prohibited by the rape shield law. He ruled it all as admissible, with no offer
of proof, as required by law. When they were unable to produce the "proof" in court,
the Judge still gave it his stamp of approval. The one time he held an in camera hearing
on the matter, he ruled that looking at pornography on the Internet "is not a sexual act,"
and therefore isn't covered under the rape shield law. It's a strange ruling, since "sexual
BEHAVIOR" is what he's supposed to be ruling on. But it's an absurd and impossible
ruling when you consider the "offer of proof" was Halbrooks saying it showed Karen
was "aroused" at the time of the murder. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Does that sound like
PROOF to you? It did to Judge Thompson. How can the judge accept it both ways
one minute apart, in the same ruling????? How can he rule (allegedly) looking at
pornography on the Internet is not a sexual behavior, but IS "proof" of
promiscuity to such a degree that "anyone could have killed her?" It is an
internally inconsistent argument that no competent unbiased judge could make. Powell
and Halbrooks are supposed to show Thompson PROOF that any "evidence" is
PERTINENT to The State of Alabama vs. Daniel Wade Moore--not just more wild
claims. In this case, they have to show PROOF that Karen's sexual behavior
INVOLVED Daniel Moore!!!!!
Otherwise, the information is required, by law, to remain confidential.
which was prohibited by the rape shield law. He ruled it all as admissible, with no offer
of proof, as required by law. When they were unable to produce the "proof" in court,
the Judge still gave it his stamp of approval. The one time he held an in camera hearing
on the matter, he ruled that looking at pornography on the Internet "is not a sexual act,"
and therefore isn't covered under the rape shield law. It's a strange ruling, since "sexual
BEHAVIOR" is what he's supposed to be ruling on. But it's an absurd and impossible
ruling when you consider the "offer of proof" was Halbrooks saying it showed Karen
was "aroused" at the time of the murder. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Does that sound like
PROOF to you? It did to Judge Thompson. How can the judge accept it both ways
one minute apart, in the same ruling????? How can he rule (allegedly) looking at
pornography on the Internet is not a sexual behavior, but IS "proof" of
promiscuity to such a degree that "anyone could have killed her?" It is an
internally inconsistent argument that no competent unbiased judge could make. Powell
and Halbrooks are supposed to show Thompson PROOF that any "evidence" is
PERTINENT to The State of Alabama vs. Daniel Wade Moore--not just more wild
claims. In this case, they have to show PROOF that Karen's sexual behavior
INVOLVED Daniel Moore!!!!!
Otherwise, the information is required, by law, to remain confidential.
Glenn Thompson has defied the letter and the spirit of the rape shield law. He has
required no "offer of proof" to justify the sleazy attacks on the victims. He has
overlooked repeated overt misconduct on the part of the defense lawyers. He has
failed to show any consideration whatsoever for the laws that protect victims from these
very abuses. As a matter of fact, he has presided over what I believe to be the most
overtly unethical defense in this area's history, and the most destructive media circus this
town has ever known. And they're still at it, and will continue to do so, bypassing the
judge entirely most of the time and going directly to the Decatur Daily with information
they are not even allowed to mention in court yet.
Go back in your mind to the headlines of the first trial (or see the sleaze factor page),
and calmly review the rape shield law. And tell me how Glenn Thompson can claim to
be a competent, unbiased judge.
required no "offer of proof" to justify the sleazy attacks on the victims. He has
overlooked repeated overt misconduct on the part of the defense lawyers. He has
failed to show any consideration whatsoever for the laws that protect victims from these
very abuses. As a matter of fact, he has presided over what I believe to be the most
overtly unethical defense in this area's history, and the most destructive media circus this
town has ever known. And they're still at it, and will continue to do so, bypassing the
judge entirely most of the time and going directly to the Decatur Daily with information
they are not even allowed to mention in court yet.
Go back in your mind to the headlines of the first trial (or see the sleaze factor page),
and calmly review the rape shield law. And tell me how Glenn Thompson can claim to
be a competent, unbiased judge.
Full Text of the Rape Shield Law
See for yourself...