Insane, is the first word that comes to mind.
If you are an attorney who is at all familiar with 1108 Propensity evidence, you will have to read it to believe it.
People v. Duffett
The Appellate Court upheald the conviction, stating:
1) That even if Jeff could rebut the propensity evidence, allowing him to present evidence that his possession of the porn was for a nonsexual purpose would fly in the face of section 1108 that allows crimes, including possession of child pornography, to show that a defendant has a propensity to commit the current offense.
They explained that it is OK to use a prior that did not require sexual intent to prove he had a propensity to molest children, because possession of child porography is a strict liability crime, sexual intent is either presumed in every case, or is irrelevant.
First off, sexual intent isn't presumed in every case because it isn't an element of the offense. You don't need to have a sexual intent to be found guilty of possessing child pornography. So, there is no reason to presume it.
It is, in fact, irrelevant. But only as to a conviction for possession of child pornography.
Lack of sexual intent doesn't then become irrelevant in showing one's propensity to molest children.
By not letting him explain that the prior was not sexual, the jurrors made the assumption that it was sexual.
In essence, the court tricked the jury into thinking that Jeff was a child porn collecting pedophile
2) They said Callahan does not apply because the defendant was not trying to show how he conducted himself within the law under circumstances similar to those here.
Callahan actually says a defendant is allowed to present evidence of good conduct under circumstances similar to those used to show propensity. Which was exactly what he was trying to do with the LAPD Detective.
They got that blurb from the brief Jeff's appellate attorney filed.
She misquoted Callahan in her brief and the Court used that misquotation to deny him.
Doesn't a court's ruling have to be based on the actual law and not something they made up?
How could an Appellate Court be so unfamiliar with the law as to make that mistake to begin with?
3) That even if the witnesses had testified it wouldn't have resulted in a different verdict because of the enormous leaps in logic, that would have to be made by the jorrors, blah blah blah.
However, the jurrors themselves said it would have made a difference.
It is hard to imagine a court making a ruling based on what they say the jurrors would have done, rather than what the jurrors themselves said they would have done.
4) That the LAPD witness testimony was not probative because it didn' t prove the only reason Jeff had the porn was because of his work with Yanuck.
That is contrary to the holding of the Court in Callahan that states that a prior instance of good behavior similar to that used to show propensity is both relevant and probative.
It doesn't need to support, or be supported by any other testimony to be admissable.
A defendant's right to present rebuttal evidence, once the prosecution has presented 1108 propensity evidence, is so well established that the California Judicial Council spells it out along with the jury instruction CALCRIM 1191.
There is no other ruling, anywhere, other than People vs. Duffett that holds a defendant may not rebut propensity evidence.