Can a review be used as evidence in a prostitution case?

Sorry to interrupt the discussions of which provider has the biggest tits, whether licking a person's A-hole is a worthwhile activity, and if VickieVagina should be drawn and quartered for no-showing JerryGiantCock, but over in our humble legal forum a member asked,

Can a review be used as evidence in a prostitution case?

This is a legitimate question that comes up often. Here is my response:

-----------------------------------------

The short answer to the question is "Yes, but it's highly unlikely." Here are some reasons why this is so:

1. As we all know, everything written here is pure fantasy (except when I write that LazurusLong is one cheap mofo -- haha).

2. Before a written review would be admitted into evidence at trial, a proper foundation must be established that it's authentic -- here, that it is what it purports to be. For example, if John Jones, whose ECCIE handle is IrishPussyLover, is on trial for prostitution, the prosecutor must establish that (1) Jones is IrishPussyLover and (2) Jones wrote the review. That would be hard, unless Jones is a total dumbass and admitted his handle is IrishPussyLover and he wrote the review.

3. In the real world, the primary evidence used to make a prostitution case consists of admissions or other damaging statements by the defendant to LE. As I've written before, the common fact in all the prostitution cases I've handled over 28 years is the defendant either talked about a specific sex act and/or a specific dollar amount with the undercover 'provider' or the UC 'john.' In other words, the Laws don't need a 'fantasy review' to make a prostitution case because the defendant makes it for them by voluntarily placing his or her own empty head in the noose.

4. The defendant may properly object that a written review is inadmissible hearsay, which is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein. (The 'truth' here is the defendant committed prostitution.) However, the prosecution may reply that the review is non-hearsay because it's a statement against interest because a person does not admit committing a crime unless it's true. However, do not confuse the hearsay objection with the authenticity requirement. The prosecutor would have to overcome both objections.

The bottom line is: If you hobby, you're engaging in criminal activity. Engaging in criminal activity involves the risk of criminal prosecution therefor. If you want to lessen your risk, don't write reviews. But you'd have to be borderline paranoid to think that way. Instead, write reviews, but be discreet and use common sense when you do so.

-----------------------------------------

Again, sorry for the interruption boys and girls. Now back to your regularly-scheduled programming.

Thanks SJ. As a matter of practice rather than theoretical law, have you ever seen or heard of a review being used against the defendant in a prostitution case?

Thanks SJ. As a matter of practice rather than theoretical law, have you ever seen or heard of a review being used against the defendant in a prostitution case? Originally Posted by Waldo P. Emerson-Jones

Nope.

Thanks for the informative thread.

Would a provider's posted comments about a review, or other posted acknowledgment that a session occurred, be admissible in a case against that provider?

Would a provider's posted comments about a review, or other posted acknowledgment that a session occurred, be admissible in a case against that provider? Originally Posted by notdeadyet

That question's pretty general. Give an example of such a provider comment.

Thanks SJ. As a matter of practice rather than theoretical law, have you ever seen or heard of a review being used against the defendant in a prostitution case? Originally Posted by Waldo P. Emerson-Jones

Staff edit, RL info is not allowed.

Although I am not in possession of all the details of just how her reviews were used, or specifically where, or the end result of the matter, she can attest to them being used.

Would taint pics be admissible in court?

Would taint pics be admissible in court? Originally Posted by pyramider

Only yours, as long as they have an electron microscope so the jury could see it.

That question's pretty general. Give an example of such a provider comment. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Here's an example. Provider has an ECCIE showcase (and/or website) that shows her face so there is no question as to her identity. There is a less-than-favorable review of her. She posts a reply in the Co-ed section that says "IRISHPUSSYLOVER'S REVIEW IS BS!!! He put the fee envelope on my bathroom counter but I didn't count it. We seemed to get along well -- I gave him a BBBJ, we had sex in various positions, etc. He then tried to take off the condom and get BBFS. I said no because I NEVER WOULD EVEN EVER POSSIBLY CONSIDER THAT!!, he got mad and said he'd write a bad review if I didn't, and I threw him out of my incall. After he left, I checked the envelope and found out that I had been shorted on the fee -- he left $150 in the envelope when my rate is $200."

So, is that post admissible evidence if a prostitution charge was filed against the provider? The example is loosely based on some real threads.

The same situation could arise in a provider's warning/alert to other providers.

SJ, any chance that a "excited utterance" will be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule in a criminal case?

Staff edit. CZ

Here's an example. Provider has an ECCIE showcase (and/or website) that shows her face so there is no question as to her identity. There is a less-than-favorable review of her. She posts a reply in the Co-ed section that says "IRISHPUSSYLOVER'S REVIEW IS BS!!! He put the fee envelope on my bathroom counter but I didn't count it. We seemed to get along well -- I gave him a BBBJ, we had sex in various positions, etc. He then tried to take off the condom and get BBFS. I said no because I NEVER WOULD EVEN EVER POSSIBLY CONSIDER THAT!!, he got mad and said he'd write a bad review if I didn't, and I threw him out of my incall. After he left, I checked the envelope and found out that I had been shorted on the fee -- he left $150 in the envelope when my rate is $200."

So, is that post admissible evidence if a prostitution charge was filed against the provider? The example is loosely based on some real threads.

The same situation could arise in a provider's warning/alert to other providers. Originally Posted by notdeadyet

All the provider's coed forum post would prove is someone with access to images of the provider wrote the post. That mere fact doesn't overcome the problems I wrote of at the beginning regarding laying the predicate of authenticity or overcoming hearsay objections.

Hypothetical no. 1: Suppose I'm sitting in Burger House enjoying some of those great seasoned fries. rktman comes in, wielding a gun, and robs the place. I know rktman so I tell the police what I saw. Later, I'm allowed to testify at rktman's trial.

Hypothetical no. 2: Now I'm in Snuffer's enjoying some of those great cheddar fries (yes, I like fries). A robot with a computer monitor for a head walks up to the counter with a gun and demands cash. The robot doesn't speak, but on the screen is an image of rktman's ugly face and letters stating, "This is a hold-up! Hand over the cash! And an order of those great cheddar fries to go."

In the first hypo, would I be permitted to testify that it was rktman who robbed Burger House? Of course. I know rktman and I clearly saw him at the counter. But can I swear under oath I saw rktman at Snuffer's? Of course not. All I saw was an image of rktman and some words on a screen. Anybody -- rktman or a gazillion people in the Fucking Black Hole of Calcutta -- could have used the image and written the words. Or someone could have been holding a gun to rktman's head while he operated his diabolical robbing robot. WE DON'T KNOW.

SJ, any chance that a "excited utterance" will be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule in a criminal case? Originally Posted by jessejames

There are many exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible at trial. One is the 'excited utterance' exception. It's based on the idea that a person, when blurting something out in an excited state, speaks the truth because they don't have time to make up what they're saying.

So applying the exception to a review: What part would be an excited utterance? None that I can see. Suppose you wrote in a review, "I cried EW-WEE-GONGA when I blew my manly swimmers in her fetching face fuckhole!" Well, your writing isn't an excited utterance. It's what you're recording hours, days, or even weeks later after your memory dims and you have the chance for cool reflection and fabrication, much like when you wrote you had three orgasms when, in reality, you couldn't make the little man stand at attention at all.

Great thread Shyster. Points for originality (I've never seen it addressed before) and points for clarity and relevance.