Judge said pimp's "expert" testimony would be 'confusing' to jury

[garbon]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/hard-a-brooklyn-pimp-judge-nixes-anthony-mccord-request-expert-witness-article-1.980872

It's hard out there for a pimp - especially in court, where an accused rapist was denied the opportunity to provide jurors with his own expert testimony on pimping.

Anthony McCord, 29, acting as his own lawyer, is expected to testify in Brooklyn Supreme Court that the woman accusing him of robbing and assaulting her was actually a prostitute who stole money from him.

McCord tried to convince a judge that jurors needed an expert - himself - to educate them about the jargon and relationships between pimps and hookers, so they could better evaluate the case.

He said he'd been a pimp since 2000.

In addition, he said, "I've pretty much read every book, saw every movie and heard every song relating to the subject matter."

McCord said he had attended two national conferences on the trade and added, "I'm also a member of a quiet society of pimps."

But Justice Wayne Ozzi quickly shot him down, saying such testimony would only debase the process.

"The danger is you may be confusing the jury," the judge told the defendant. McCord's turn on the stand might still include information about his work, the judge noted, but anything more "is not appropriate at all."

Prosecutors allege that McCord beat and raped a woman who "freelanced" - sold sex without giving him a cut.

He is accused of leaving her with a bruised face and loose teeth following a March 2010 attack in East New York.

Prosecutor Kevin O'Donnell told the judge the trial would "become a side show" if McCord's request were granted.

Expert witnesses often provide testimony about issues like finger prints, DNA or gangs and do not necessarily need to be certified to act as experts.

"This is a unique area to say the least," said lawyer David Walensky, who's acting as McCord's court-appointed legal advisor.

Neither he nor anyone else in court could offer a precedent to McCord's uncommon request.

His trial, sans a pimping expert, is set to start Tuesday.

[Capetan Mihali]

I don't see why it couldn't come in as lay opinion based on particularized knowledge, at least if the FRE applied.

[Capetan Mihali]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/hard-a-brooklyn-pimp-judge-nixes-anthony-mccord-request-expert-witness-article-1.980872

It's hard out there for a pimp - especially in court, where an accused rapist was denied the opportunity to provide jurors with his own expert testimony on pimping.

Anthony McCord, 29, acting as his own lawyer, is expected to testify in Brooklyn Supreme Court that the woman accusing him of robbing and assaulting her was actually a prostitute who stole money from him.

And as hard as it is for a pimp, it's even tougher for a pro se litigant. 

[The Brain]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/hard-a-brooklyn-pimp-judge-nixes-anthony-mccord-request-expert-witness-article-1.980872

McCord said he had attended two national conferences on the trade and added, "I'm also a member of a quiet society of pimps."

Drakken could testify instead?

[Viking]

It makes sense to me to prevent the defendent (or in a civil case one of the litigants) from acting as an expert.

[garbon]

It makes sense to me to prevent the defendent (or in a civil case one of the litigants) from acting as an expert.

Well in this instance, I think the decision is really in his favor. Any exposition on pimp culture is unlikely to have a positive influence on the jury.

[The Brain]

It makes sense to me to prevent the defendent (or in a civil case one of the litigants) from acting as an expert.

Well in this instance, I think the decision is really in his favor. Any exposition on pimp culture is unlikely to have a positive influence on the jury.

Racist.

[Scipio]

First rule of pimpin': Pimpin' ain't easy.
Corollary of first rule: Pimpin' IS easy.

2d rule of pimpin': See first rule.

[Viking]

It makes sense to me to prevent the defendent (or in a civil case one of the litigants) from acting as an expert.

Well in this instance, I think the decision is really in his favor. Any exposition on pimp culture is unlikely to have a positive influence on the jury.

Even having Huggy Bear show up and testify that It's hard to be a Pimp would have a perjorative effect. His defense seems to be that it is right and proper for pimps to beat down thievin' hoes. Proper legal council would have been to advise him that while it might be right and proper it certainly isn't legal.

[Capetan Mihali]

Proper legal council would have been to advise him that while it might be right and proper it certainly isn't legal.

Again, pro se'in' ain't easy.   

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't see why it couldn't come in as lay opinion based on particularized knowledge, at least if the FRE applied.

It doesn't - the state rules are pretty close but a little more strict.

[Capetan Mihali]

It doesn't - the state rules are pretty close but a little more strict.

More strict on getting in expert or lay opinion?

Fortunately, Brooklyn Defender Services rejected me for this summer so I don't have to worry about N.Y. C.P.L. LAW for a while.   

[garbon]

It makes sense to me to prevent the defendent (or in a civil case one of the litigants) from acting as an expert.

Well in this instance, I think the decision is really in his favor. Any exposition on pimp culture is unlikely to have a positive influence on the jury.

Even having Huggy Bear show up and testify that It's hard to be a Pimp would have a perjorative effect. His defense seems to be that it is right and proper for pimps to beat down thievin' hoes. Proper legal council would have been to advise him that while it might be right and proper it certainly isn't legal.

Which was my point as far as no "expert" on this subject would have helped him out.

[The Minsky Moment]

More strict on getting in expert or lay opinion?

Lay.
IIRC the old case law says there most be a showing of need to admit lay opinion, but in practice the state courts tend to be more lenient if the FRE standards are otherwise satisfied.

For expert, NY still uses Frye, not the federal rule.

[Viking]

The Daubert standard? That's the federal one? How can the Daubert standard be used in cases where there is no peer review and no science has been done? While the defendant claims that there is a society of Pimps, it doesn't seem to do any academic work to set the standard for the Daubert standard to use? In a sense, my understanding of the Daubert standard is that there must be a standard set by peer review and that standard must conform to standard scientific standards (if the repeated use of the word standards hasn't confused you yet).