Williams Rule
The Williams Rule ( dt. About Williams Rule ) is in the judgment Williams vs. Florida (110 So. 2d 654 [Fla., 1959]) concretized judge law rule of evidence in the US - Criminal Procedure Law .
designation
The name Williams Rule goes back to the defendant Ralph Williams, who was convicted of rape to death in an electric chair in the state of Florida in 1959 . He had unsuccessfully appealed against the judgment because it was based on inadmissible evidence. Specifically, it was about the admission of a testimony about a predicate offense similar to the accused, with which the court had inadmissibly influenced the jury to the disadvantage of the accused.
Legal historical classification
The Williams Rule was intended to standardize the inconsistent case law on the problem of similar fact evidence in common law since the middle of the 19th century .
Since 1849, all pieces of evidence were admissible, unless they were only suitable to dishonor the accused (so-called bad character exception ). Further case law had named further exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions in numerous individual cases, so that ultimately no clear rule-exception relationship between admissible and inadmissible evidence was recognizable.
The Williams Rule wanted to abolish this legal fragmentation that lasted over 100 years. It says that all relevant evidence, including previous crimes , may be brought into a jury trial as long as it does not serve solely to accuse the accused of the "bad character" or the "criminal propensity" and are not excluded from approval by law (... the rule ... simply is that evidence of any facts relevant to a material fact in issue except where the sole relevancy is character or propensity of the accused is admissible unless precluded by some specific exception or rule of exclusion ).
Legislative consequences
The Florida Congress has incorporated the Williams Rule into the Florida Statute sec. 90.404 Paragraph (2) lit. (a) added.
The Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act of 1993 supplements the Federal Rules of Evidence in particular to include the relevant previous convictions for serious sexual offenses. However, it is not regulated whether discontinued proceedings and previous acquittals may also be introduced into the process.
Situation in Germany
In Germany, the consideration of previous convictions in proceedings against a repeat offender is regulated in Section 68a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (restriction of the right to ask questions) and Section 243 (5) sentence 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (determination of previous convictions in the main hearing ). Relevant previous convictions allow conclusions to be drawn about the offender's motives, convictions and past life and thus influence the sentencing ( Section 46 StGB).
The Federal Central Register also provides unrestricted information to courts and public prosecutors ( Section 41 (1) No. 1 BZRG ). Information from the central register is usually obtained by the public prosecutor in the preparatory process (Section 16 RiStBV ).
Individual evidence
- ↑ Williams v. Florida 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. Sup. Ct. 1959). In: Harvard University Law School homepage . Retrieved August 20, 2015 .
- ↑ Ronald B. Sklar: Similar Fact Evidence - Catchwords and Cartwheels McGILL LAW JOURNAL, Vol. 23, 1977
- ↑ Regina v. Geering (1849) 18 LJMC 215: Rex v. Cole cited in Phillips, Law of Evidence (1st ed.) 69-70; Makin v. Attorney General of New South Wales [1894] AC 57
- ↑ Williams v. Florida 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. Sup. Ct. 1959). In: Harvard University Law School homepage . Retrieved November 3, 2015 .
- ↑ Title VII, Chapter 90, Section 404. (No longer available online.) In: The 2015 Florida Statutes. 2015, archived from the original on July 22, 2015 ; Retrieved August 20, 2015 .
- ↑ Dennis Nicewander: Williams Rule Evidence August 31, 2015
- ↑ Guidelines for criminal proceedings and fine proceedings (RiStBV) as of August 1, 2015