Do lies about previous issues not related to the case even matter? I can't remember another case where they tried to establish that the person was a habitual liar and it actually worked.If that were the case then 99.9% of the crooks would bypass court and go straight to jail.

You state a good point, and one that has bothered me in general around matters judicial.

An alleged criminal's previous mischevous history should have no bearing on culpability for a current trial. That is fair.

However, a person's character, as evidenced by their past, will come in to the thinking of a jury.....yet past good deeds are a permissable admission to the court, while past misdeeds are ignored. That's inconsistant.

There's an entire debate on this subject alone: If an accused's good character can be used either in mitigation or as a bolster to credibility, then surely an accused's bad character can be used in either condemnation or to undermine credibility.

The Casey Anthony case (the mother who is alleged to have killed her little girl, in Florida) is based largely on the credibility of the mother. There is little evidence to show she killed the child, but she has been shown to be a habitual liar and unable to satisfactorily explain her lack of interest during the month her daughter was missing, but not reported.

I have been under the impression that the good deeds are brought up in the sentencing phase of the trial.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/24/dsk-maid-tells-of-her-alleged-rape-by-strauss-kahn-exclusive.html

The Maid's Tale.

She was paid to clean up after the rich and powerful. Then she walked into Dominique Strauss-Kahn's room—and a global scandal. Now she tells her story.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/24/dsk-maid-tells-of-her-alleged-rape-by-strauss-kahn-exclusive.html

The Maid's Tale.

She was paid to clean up after the rich and powerful. Then she walked into Dominique Strauss-Kahn's room—and a global scandal. Now she tells her story.

Good article.

What I can't understand is the attitude of the DA Gyrus Vance. Does he only prosecute cases where the defendant pleads guilty at once?

Usually there is a thorough investigation (which is still on-going, I understand) before the chief prosecutor makes up his mind on the case.

In this instance he seems to have made up his mind not to prosecute after his first court appearance with DSK. I wonder what thge significance of this is?