what you would do if your wife had had an affair?” He responded, “Not to my knowledge, ma’am, but a lot of people that know me know that I’m hot tempered.” A reasonable reading of the husband’s response is that his “hot tempered” reaction to the first affair was not an aberration, which is something that “a lot of people” knew, including CL. The military judge’s conclusion that CL had no additional motivation to lie about a potential second affair because her marriage was stronger after the first was erroneous because it ignored the evidence and oversimplified the situation. Furthermore, the military judge was incorrect to conclude that this evidence was too stale to be relevant. Time does not affect all evidence equally. See United States v. Kane, 726 F.2d 344, 348 (7th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). If CL engaged in consensual sexual
holding that ajbsent conclusive evidence of congressional intent as to the penal nature of a statute these factors must be considered in relation to the statute on its face holding that the mere fact that relevant evidence is shocking to the sensibilities does not make the admission of that evidence a violation of due process recognizing that mere passage of time does not make evidence irrelevant as it will also depend on the nature of the evidence and its relation to what is to be proven holding that the validity of the arrest does not depend on whether the suspect actually committed a crime the mere fact that the subject is later acquitted of the offense for which he is arrested is irrelevant to the validity of the arrest holding that reliance must be proven by some evidence