> In a brilliant move, the district attorney’s office asked the judge if the video from the first case could be admitted to establish that the second assault wa

> In a brilliant move, the district attorney’s office asked the judge if the video from the first case could be admitted to establish that the second assault was essentially a repeat offense. The judge ruled that it could. My initial reaction is that this is an interesting ruling, but then my knowledge of these sorts of rulings is decidedly spotty? I'm going to assume it's not the only thing that has been put forward to the judge: the 911 call definitely helped, and frankly I have little sympathy for the accused, but otherwise I find the idea of a video of past behaviour being used as evidence for current behaviour (on it's own) sort of... odd?