reviews may be entered into evidence as circumstantial evidence...that real identity of reviewer is not known may not be pertanent
I read somewhere that LE can use your reviews against you or the provider in a court of law.. I know the defense that "the review is strictly fantasy and it never happened", but is that a viable defense?
-- Modified on 4/22/2010 12:33:18 AM
In general, law enforcement must be able to prove a sexual act was bought and paid for in order to get a conviction of a provider or a client. A judge might allow a series of reviews in for “informational purposes or background” or specifically as cumulative evidence, or as evidence of wrongs to prove character in conformity with prior bad acts and such offerings may be admissible to prove intent, preparation, plan or knowledge; although an attorney would strenuously object, at least we hope he would. (That is one reason you don’t want a sleepy public defender with a history of cooperation with the prosecutor’s office)
However, it is a known fact, sad but true, that LE use reviews to find their provider targets. They also use web site pages and advertising by providers for the same purpose. Be aware that even though jurors are forbidden from using computers to research information that is brought to trial; none the less, they will let their fingers do the walking and this illegal research will lead them in making or bolstering their decisions. However it is rare that these cases get to this point.
The threat of being charged as a sex offender has been used to get Johns to plead no contest in some recent cases and this is a very disturbing development. People will be coerced in this manner into pleading guilty and giving evidence against themselves when threatened with this label which has far ranging consequences.
Just wanted to post this to clarify that only 5 states can tag a person with a sex offender label for being CONVICTED of exchanging sex for money between persons 18 years old and above:
Alabama [Ala. Code 13A-200]
Michigan [Mich. Comp. Laws 28.722 & 750.455]
Oregon [Or. Rev. Stat. 181.594, 595]
Tennessee [Tenn. Code Ann 40-39-202, 203]
West Virginia [W. Va. Code 15-12-2, 61-8-6, 61-8-7]
(source Human Rights Watch study on Sex Offender Laws in the US {http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers})
You are required to register as a sex offender in TN if it's classified as Aggrivated Prostitution.
Meaning....
If you are HIV positive and arrested for a prostitution charge - that's aggrivated prostitution and is a class c felony.
It's a class A misdemeanor if you are too close to a church or school.
See below:
39-13-514: Patronizing prostitution
(a) A person commits an offense under this section who patronizes prostitution.
(b)
(1) Patronizing prostitution is a Class B misdemeanor.
(2) Patronizing prostitution within one hundred feet (100 ) of a church or within one and one-half (1½) miles of a school, such distance being that established by § 49-6-2101, for state-funded school transportation, is a Class A misdemeanor.
(3) A person convicted of patronizing prostitution within one and one-half (1 ½) miles of a school shall, in addition to any other authorized punishment, be sentenced to at least seven (7) days of incarceration and be fined at least one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(c) As used in subsection (b), "school" means all public and private schools that conduct classes in any grade from kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12).
39-13-515: Promoting prostitution
A person commits an offense under this section who promotes prostitution. Promoting prostitution is a Class E felony.
39-13-516: Aggravated prostitution
(a) A person commits aggravated prostitution when, knowing that such person is infected with HIV, the person engages in sexual activity as a business or is an inmate in a house of prostitution or loiters in a public place for the purpose of being hired to engage in sexual activity.
(b) For the purposes of this section, "HIV" means the human immunodeficiency virus or any other identified causative agent of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require that an infection with HIV has occurred in order for a person to have committed aggravated prostitution.
(d) Aggravated prostitution is a Class C felony.
(Source: http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0)
There is something to think about and to unite us underworld characters! We all need to speak up and be counted as at least a great deal of the population. After what I have seen were not just a few especially hobbyist. We're / they're everywhere!
"Circumstantial Evidence" and only useful in support of a prosecution involving a crime for which the DA has direct evidence. So if they caught you in the act AND could link your reviews to your real identity THEN they could use the reviews in support of the charge for which they have an eyewitness (the cop who saw you in the act). More than likely they would not be able to link you to the review in a way strong enough to stand up in court and would just have to rely on the eyewitness testimony alone.
They are not going to be using the reviews as primary cause for an arrest or as direct evidence because it would likely fall under hearsay due to lack of verifiable ID of the person who wrote it.
For providers, having a client list poses a different problem because the DA wouldn't have to prove the identity of each name on the list. They would use the presence of a list, that appears very different from a normal business contact list, as circumstantial evidence that the provider or agency was involved in the "promotion of prostitution". Refer to the Desert Divas case in Phoenix.
reviews may be entered into evidence as circumstantial evidence...that real identity of reviewer is not known may not be pertanent
While I think reviews to date have been used primarily as an investigative tool and that this is unlikely to change, they certainly could be used as evidence of a commission of a crime by the reviewer if the state could establish they were the reviewer’s own written statement of a sex for pay encounter. They would not be hearsay as to the reviewer but an admission of a party opponent.
But laying a foundation for the evidence would be quite difficult as the state would obviously have to link the defendant as the reviewer and show that the review as it appeared on the website were the reviewer’s words. The state presumably would have to request this information from TER, subpoena it on refusal, and possibly obtain information overseas pursuant to the provisions of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, which would be a job in and of itself since the basic prostitution offenses are not illegal where the website business and servers supposedly are located.
The state would probably have to charge something more than prostitution to compel information under the treaty.
But if the state went thru all these steps, there would be no requirement that the reviews could only be used in cases where there was "direct evidence." First, as to the reviewer, a review stating all of the elements of the crime would be direct evidence –his written admission of the crime. So I would not characterize such a review as circumstantial evidence at all.
Second, even so characterized, a defendant can be convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. There is no requirement of LE eyewitness testimony for a prostitution conviction. In most states, LE cannot make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor unless committed in the presence of the officer but if a provider flips and charges the client, LE can get a warrant and arrest him.
-- Modified on 4/22/2010 12:55:45 PM
-- Modified on 4/22/2010 1:00:35 PM
-- Modified on 4/22/2010 1:07:18 PM
Don't think this would hold up in a court of law. It could have been your neighboor pretending to be you.
Recent reports by hobbyists and providers that LE has on occasion seized their computers brings to mind that preliminary negotiations and or contacts on computers as well as proof of the origin of reviews by hobbyist may be derived from said computers and then entered into evidence.
Soliciting isn't the Brinks Job! If they have you for offering money for sex, they have you. They don't NEED to go get your laptop and find your emails setting up the date.
Absent another agenda (prominent person, child prostitution, etc) they aren't going to bother a client's computer.
A provider or agency, on the other hand, may well have records in their computer that could lead to more and more serious charges.
MVR