This would show that Jeff did not possess the pornography in question during the period of time he had contact with the alleged victims.
The judge excluded the LAPD Detective's testimony as irrelevant.
Jeff had a clear right to present evidence that in November, 2001, his computers were seized and searched pursuant to a warrant during an identity theft investigation and that no porn of any kind was found on any of his computers.
This might indicate to the jury that he was not a pedophile, because if he was, he likely would have had porn on his computer then too.
The court excluded the witness, stating that it was neither relevant nor probative, and that "... the fact that he didn't have child pornography on his computer in 2001 has both nothing to do with the fact that he did in 2002."
This is absolutely, without a doubt, 100%, the opposite of the law.
In People v. Callahan the court stated "... the issue of whether one has a propensity-“natural inclination or tendency”-to behave a certain way is not resolved dispositively by the fact that one has behaved that way on another occasion. However, the fact one has behaved a certain way before does have a probative value on whether a person is capable of such conduct and whether he/she is disinclined or not to engage in such conduct.
Therefore, proof that a person has not behaved in a similar situation to the situation used to show tendency or propensity is probative to show he/she does not have that tendency.
Just as evidence of prior bad acts is not dispositive that a person behaved that way again, proof that they did not behave that way given a similar opportunity is probative of whether he/she does not have a propensity. Such evidence would have probative value in showing that the accused does not have a propensity to engage in certain behavior, thus helping the trier of fact determine that they should not utilize a conclusion of propensity in determining whether the accused committed the act in question."
Prior instances of good behavior under similar circumstances to those used to show propensity are admissable.
The LAPD Detective was going to testify about a prior instance of good behavior similar to the one used to show propensity.
November, 2001, Jeff's computers were seized and searched pursuant to a warrant during an identity theft investigation.
No porn of any kind was found on any of his computers.
November, 2002, Jeff's computers were seized and searched pursuant to a warrant during an identity theft investigation.
Child pornography was found on one of his computers.
This is exactly the type of evidence discussed by the Callahan Court and was clearly admissable.