Thread by @MarkJKings

Mike, I litigate and I can confirm that Rule of Evidence 404(b) has nothing to do with the point they're trying to make.

https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1333222865068560384

They're relying on an exception to a rule that would otherwise prohibit certain evidence from being used against a witness. But that rule doesn't even apply to the point they are trying to make.

In a very simplified explanation for non-lawyers: Rule 404(b) says you can't use prior "bad acts" of the witness for the purpose of saying "you did bad things before, so you must have done this bad thing we're accusing you of."

But there are exceptions to 404(b) - other reasons you can get away with introducing prior bad acts against a person.

Those include introducing them for the purpose of showing the witness's knowledge, or absence of mistake.

And those exceptions often apply when a criminal defendant is denying knowledge ("I don't know anything about voting machines) or claiming there was a mistake.

Then a prosecutor can use those acts to say "Aha! You claim you don't know how voting machines work, but you've hacked them before!"

Prosecutors usually win motions to introduce evidence against a defendant under 404(b). The jury is given a limiting instruction - you can assess this evidence for this purpose, not that purpose.

But the Jenna and Rudy team don't need a 404(b) exception because 404 has nothing to do with they're trying to do. They're not introducing evidence against someone. President-Elect Biden isn't a party to this case, or even a witness.

They're trying to say, I suppose, that all these anomalies couldn't be attributed to mistake. Rule 404(b) doesn't prevent from them arguing that, so they don't need an exception.

It's so sloppy. They don't know what they're doing.

* Correction. This is Sydney Powell, not Rudy and Jenna.